You may have noticed that I did not link 2 recent news in the blog:
Petrobras' probe spreading to banks (bloomberg) and
SCUSA subpoena about sub prime car loans (bloomberg)
I consider the publicity given to first news as market manipulation. There is nothing concrete behind the headline.
For the 2nd news, at best, the start of a new judicial circus, so appreciated in the US, at worst (based on ethics) another market push.
These news went together with downwards pressure on SAN, helped by (1) geopolitics and (2) low volume (50% of the average 3-months volume in Madrid). Additionally the link between IBEX and NYSE was broken: Normally when both IBEX and NYSE are open, converting IBEX quote (51mi daily average trading volume) to USD gives NYSE quote (7mi daily average). There were periods with NYSE quote significantly lower.
Many markets have been manipulated. The fact that shares are basically spared only means it is more difficult to prove manipulations in these cases. How do you go after a pseudo analyst expressing a negative opinion (because his company will benefit)? Or some negative news with a lot of publicity, and focus on worst case scenario?
This does not mean these 2 news could not develop as something significant, but I doubt about this.
