Sarepta Therapeutics Inc became the second company in as many days to see its shares plunge as a result of a Twitter hoax on Wednesday after a user posed as an influential short-seller and alleged improprieties at the biopharmaceutical company. The drop mirrored a similar incident on Tuesday, when Audience Inc fell more than 25 percent following tweets that at a glance looked to be from Muddy Waters, another short-selling firm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Just as Muddy Waters confirmed it did not send such a tweet about Audience, so too did Andrew Left, the California-based investor who runs Citron, said his company did not send a message about Sarepta.<\/p>\n
The twin incidents targeted a pair of Nasdaq stocks that are not among the most actively traded on a daily basis, showing how certain company shares are vulnerable to information posted on social media networks, even if the information is misleading. <\/p>\n
“You need a more volatile stock for this kind of manipulation – obviously if you were to try it on IBM it wouldn’t work,” said Joe Saluzzi, co-manager of trading at Themis Trading in Chatham, New Jersey. <\/p>\n
The tweet, with the user name “@citreonresearc,” alleged that drug trial results from the biopharmaceutical company had been tainted and doctored, according to screen shots of the posting captured by Twitter users. <\/p>\n
Matt, a trader in San Diego who did not want to give his last name, but who goes by the handle @given2tweet on Twitter, said, “There’s a real severity to that tweet. <\/p>\n
The company, which has a market cap of about $692 million, is volatile, moving more than 1 percent in six of the past seven sessions. <\/p>\n
Audience went public in May 2012 and has a market cap of $254 million as of Tuesday’s closing price, rising about 15 percent so far this year. <\/p>\n
Link: http:\/\/au.news.yahoo.com\/thewest\/business\/a\/-\/tech\/16031129\/second-twitter-hoax-in-two-days-smacks-another-stock\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warnings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2428","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2428"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2428\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4915,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2428\/revisions\/4915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}