It certainly could be S&L selling - for the most basic reason you state - to take their profits and place them elsewhere, and because for anyone else selling now makes no sense. As for all of your associated conjecture (divys, etc.), that IMO is a bit of a long shot. Possible I suppose, but a bit of a stretch and impossible to prove one way or the other.

Friendly question: Is there a sound reason for this apparent fixation on the past? Is there a reason to continually harp about water that has gone under the bridge and is now in the ocean? It's IMO like people continually bringing the goofy way we got into Iraq when asked about what they would do about the current situation. I doesn't matter - we are where we are and how we got here has very little relevance IMO. You obviously possess an opposing view that I frankly don't understand.

JMHOs,

SGE