24-Hour Movers (2026-09-03)

Up 44.5% over 24 hours on 3.6× baseline volume — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Down 20.0% over 24 hours — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Up 19.2% over 24 hours on 20.7× baseline volume — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Up 16.8% over 24 hours — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Snowflake's numbers were out after the close on September 2 and the boards were shouting 22% that night. Put the day back in cross-section, though, and the top comment on r/StockMarket (57 upvotes) is three lines long: “CRM good results +22% SNOW good results +22% AVGO insane results -1%” — good results get the same size of move, and the outlier is the one that did not rise. SNOW closed the following session +17%.

MechanismThe first-party document was in hand the same day, and it says nothing: the September 2 8-K is a results filing whose text only records that the company issued a press release announcing results for the fiscal quarter ended in July. Every figure sits in the exhibit; the filing body gives none. That leaves exactly two quantities on this card a reader can click through to: the 22% in the hot-post title, and the +17% we measured ourselves. The more interesting line is why the attribution column reads unattributed. The 8-K landed after the close on September 2, while this move started at 15:30 UTC — a full overnight in between. Our rule is that timing and scope both have to line up before we call something a catalyst; the fact that everyone knows it was earnings is not a reason for us to print a causal claim. We would rather leave it blank than credit a filing whose clock does not match. As for what the market was buying, the hot-post title carries the community's own reading: healthy results plus momentum in AI coding demand. We relay that as the community's reading, not as a first-party conclusion — the numbers behind it are in the press release, not on this card.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Up 15.5% over 24 hours on 8.0× baseline volume — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.

Up 15.3% over 24 hours on 4.8× baseline volume — no first-party event in the window lines up on both timing and scope.

Nothing in the window before the move began lines up on both timing and scope — not a first-party filing, not a press report. We would rather leave this blank than supply a reason that merely sounds plausible.