Список проголосовавших за комментарий "<p>He hope we are not the only ones who find it oddly confusing that moments after the WSJ reported that the UAE, supposedly speaking <em><strong>on behalf of the Saudis, </strong></em>said OPEC is «ready to cooperate on a production cut», the very same WSJ writes that the «story may be bogus.»</p><p>From the <a href="/r.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FfVDQ1YOoV7&s=1230696971">WSJ</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><strong>Look, the OPEC thing may turn out to be bogus</strong>. Lord knows we’ve heard that line too many times to count, and oil’s at $26/barrel. Even if it is bogus, though, the episode illustrates one thing: there is still a sizable contingent of operators out there just waiting for an excuse to pounce on equities.</p><p> </p><p>In other words, we still are not near capitulation.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, it may very well be bogus, and no, it has nothing to do with operators pouncing, and everything to do with the latest violent short squeeze, one which was accelerated by frontrunning algos which swept away all the offers for minutes.</p><p>We expect the Saudis to chime in momentarily and explain how everyone got punked by the latest «OPEC headline» for the 6th time.</p>"