Barrick Tumbles as $560M Volume Lands It 175th in U.S. Liquidity Rankings

. , ranking 175th among U.S. stocks by liquidity. The gold miner's decline came amid mixed market conditions as investors reevaluated sector positioning following recent volatility in base metals. The stock's underperformance contrasted with broader commodity trends, where industrial metals showed resilience despite macroeconomic uncertainty.

Analysts noted the move reflected investor caution around near-term production guidance and capital expenditure plans. While Barrick's operational metrics remain robust, market participants appeared to price in potential delays in realizing synergies from recent asset rationalizations. , suggesting a shift in risk appetite across the precious metals complex.

To run this back-test accurately we need to translate your idea (a daily-rebalanced, 500-stock, equal-weight portfolio chosen by trading volume) into the exact set of data and assumptions the engine can accept. Key items to confirm / decide: 1. Stock universe • All U.S. common stocks (≈ 4 000 names) • Only large-caps (e.g., S&P 500) • Something else? 2. Ranking basis – which “volume” do we sort on? • The prior trading day’s total share volume (default) • Dollar volume (shares × price) • Real-time volume at the open, etc. 3. Execution convention • Buy at today’s close, sell at tomorrow’s close (typical one-day hold) • Buy at next day’s open, sell at next day’s close • Another rule? 4. Practical data volume • Our current back-test engine can process thousands of tickers, but retrieving every stock’s daily price & volume for three years is heavy. • If you’re comfortable limiting the universe to, say, , processing time is reasonable. • Otherwise we’ll need to queue a larger batch job, which can take longer. 5. Risk controls (stop-loss, take-profit, max hold days) – apply none by default? Please let me know your preferences (or simply reply “use all defaults”) and I’ll generate the data-retrieval plan and run the test.