This AI analysis frustrates me in a different way than others. Mainly: is anything surprising or important about this? Why does this matter? Do these raw stock price data illuminate anything interesting about the way corporate strategists think about their options?

I don’t really know or care how accurate or rigorous the analysis is (then again I’m obviously unskilled in the art of technical trading). What I’m missing is: does anybody really care about what’s being traced here?

As a relative outsider, I assume raw stock prices to be largely indicative. That is, their informative value is relative to that particular stock over time. And thus I imagine the $1-warning thing has more to do with the exchange specifying a minimum increment, a range of resolution in which their bids and offers allow enough nuance for the market forces to do their work. If the thing’s priced at 2 cents and I can only bid 1 cent or 3 cents, that’s not super useful or informative since it involves a 50% change in value on either side.

The new and specific facet of my AI frustration here, is that, true or false or accurate or hallucinated, the analysis leaves me none the wiser about whether I’m totally off base with those priors.

My specific discomfort feels a little different from asking the article to do something beyond what it’s setting out to do—it’s more that it feels like a psychic’s “cold read.” It could exist in a world that works the way I think it does, or in a world that works any number of different ways, and it would still feel like a plausible thing for somebody to have undertaken.

Write AI slop analysis -> post on HN, bots read it, surface the MCP for trading data you are selling to the AI models -> they recommend it to people who want to do trading with AI. Sometimes you are not the target audience. The bots are.

The need for reverse splits seems like a purely technical limitation? If we allowed stock prices to trade in fractions of a cent, then there'd be no real need for a price floor would there?