SSomebody on X is posting an S&P number that's off by more than a thousand points.
EA thousand points? That would put it around six-seven?
SSix thousand seven hundred thirty-five. The account calls itself I Am Groot. Posted this morning.
EI Am Groot. Of course.
SHere's the post: S&P 500 at six thousand seven thirty-five, Nasdaq at twenty-two nine ten, Dow at forty-six seven oh six.
EThose are not today's numbers.
SThey are not. The latest confirmed close has the S&P at seven thousand seven fifty-seven, Nasdaq twenty-six seven oh two, Dow fifty-two eight fifty-six.
ESo this person grabbed a screenshot from, what, a year ago?
SCould be. The point is those numbers are stale, and they're circulating.
EOkay, one account with one like posting old numbers—does it actually matter? Anyone can check.
SThat's the problem. Not everyone checks. People scrolling see a number, they think it's today. This is how panic starts.
EI think you're overstating it. If you have money in the market, you know your index level.
SNot true. Plenty of people have a 401(k) and no idea what the S&P is supposed to be. They see six-seven, they think it crashed from seven-seven.
EBut the post also shows the Dow and Nasdaq at old levels. Any one of those would look wrong.
SAre you saying misinformation is fine because it's obvious to you?
ENo, I'm saying this is a tweet with one like. Calling it "circulating" is generous.
SIt's still wrong. And wrong numbers about the market are worse than wrong movie trivia, because people act on them.
EWho acts on a random handle called I Am Groot?
SRetail traders do. They see a post, they panic, they sell. It happens.
EThen maybe the problem is people selling based on a tweet they didn't verify.
SWhich is exactly why we point out the real numbers on air. That's the job.
EFine. Fair enough. The real S&P is around seven-seven-five. Up almost half a percent last week.
SAnd that number comes from an actual verified close, not a random screenshot.
ELook, if someone makes a trading decision off a single tweet with a comic book handle, that's on them.
SThat's too easy. The account posted those numbers as a market update. The format looks official.
EIt's got an emoji and a link to who knows where. It's not exactly Bloomberg.
SBut people don't fact-check the source. They see the numbers and the flag emoji and move on.
ESo the answer is what, we shut down every account that posts a wrong number? Good luck.
SNot shut down. But we should call it out when we see it, which is exactly what this show is for.
EI can get behind that. But I still think the actual damage here is minimal.
SMinimal today. But these numbers can sit in a search result and get recycled for weeks.
EThen we'll keep correcting them. Fine.
SWhile we're setting the record straight, there's another post on X—this one from Momo—that has the actual moves.
EWhat does it say?
SDow up zero point six nine percent, S&P up zero point five eight, Nasdaq up one point oh five.
ETech led. AI optimism after SpaceX and Super Micro results. That's the real story.
SExactly. The market didn't jump a thousand points—it drifted higher on tech.
ESo the fake post had the market at levels from before the AI trade really took off.
SMight explain the confusion. The actual close was much higher, with the S&P around seven-seven-five.
EAnd the real percentages are solid, not spectacular. A normal Monday morning.
SA good reminder: check the date before you repost.
ESuper Micro's results were decent, and the SpaceX news helped the AI names.
SRight, the AI trade is back on. Nvidia likely led the gains in the Nasdaq.
EBut we should be careful: these are one report's numbers. Today's open will be its own thing.
STrue. We'll see what this week's earnings bring.
EHopefully no more old screenshots.
SNo promises.