Pretty sure that was exactly my point. I'm sure someone finds the behavior "interesting", but if the same thing is happening for the same reason, I'm arguing those details that everyone finds "interesting" aren't "important".
That's voodoo thinking. "OK, all those other times everyone was wrong about this. But this time we have new jargon, so we can figure it out!"
Nothing in the linked article (or anywhere else) gives you the magic you want. This is just a new way of explaining long-settled ideas.
This is like trying to debug a linked list bug via disassembly. "OK, fine, it was a bug before on x86, but look, now it's compiled for RISC-V and uses entirely different register schemes, so this time it will work!"
That's not how any of this works. Every share bought is a share sold by some counterparty. Buyers and sellers are always in equilibrium.
To explain it a step further... at this moment in time, every private and institutional investors stopped selling APPL...I can still buy a share, likely thousands of them... from the market participants that are always there: market makers. When you make a "bad call"(like selling into a rally), a market maker is likely on the other end of your trade, and they will profit from your "bad call". Now the inverse also applies, often times a market maker is taking the other end of your trade that is a good(profitable) trade for you. The market maker isn't losing though, they are just playing the odds. They are convicted that for every losing trade they take out of obligation(as a market maker), they are going to take 2 or more winning trades. They also operate with trade costs much lower than you or I(ie retail investors) have access to.
That was more reply than I originally intended to write...but you have to understand this(or fail at profitable trading). There is no equilibrium, and there are parties(market makers) ensuring that there never will be. That is their job, to create a state of constant liquidity, even if buyers and/or sellers individually are unwilling to play.
Your understanding is exactly backwards. Market makers provide the "magical equilibrium" by bridging supply and demand across time.
> and if there was, there would be no profit.
Wrong again. Even with infinite shares on the bid/ask, there's still a spread for market makers to collect.
More generally, what exactly do you think your comment proves? If a retail investor buys the sole 100 shares at top-of-book, the price (mid) moves up, but there's one buyer and one seller. Where's the "delta"? And if a big hedge fund buys 100,000 shares from 10 market makers... 100,000 shares demanded and 100,000 shares supplied. Magic!
You're arguing against an accounting identity. I know what you're trying to say: what moves prices is relative eagerness of buyers and sellers. You're just too inexperienced to be able to explain it.