If you were  a broker, and you had a client sitting on a 20-30% profit in a stock, and you thought that stock still had some potential gains to be made, would you tell your client to sell the stock, so that you could get a different client into the same stock to be ready for the next run? Bet your ass you would do that. Because then you have 2 happy clients, not one. Not all investors use an online brokeage and don't get the advice of a broker.

As far as teremoto's theory that Swartz has an agreement to sell linked to the divs given out - why would management ever enter into an agreement like that? All it would do is put a cap on any run. If management were to ask for any agreement with S&L tied to the divies it would be to put a cap on any selling S&L could do (basically restrict their selling over an extended period of time). That would help to make sure that our largest shareholder wouldn't be dumping shares at inopportune times, thereby enabling the price to steadily rise over time.

IMO Swartz is not the one putting any damper on the sp. He may be selling some, but not to a great extent. The built-in profits over the last week is certainly an incentive for many recent buyers to sell.