This article is about some companies that had good or bad days in the stock market. A company called Edwards Lifesciences had a bad day because they did not sell as many things as they thought they would, and their bosses said they think they won't sell as many things in the next few months. That made people who own parts of the company (called stocks) sad, so the price of those stocks went down a lot. On the other hand, some companies had good days because they sold more things than they thought they would, or they had some exciting news about their products or plans. These companies are called "winners" and their stocks went up a lot. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalist, implying that Edwards Lifesciences' stock plunge is due to worse-than-expected sales results and third-quarter guidance, when in reality, the market reaction is likely driven by a combination of factors, not just those two.
- The article focuses on the company's sales miss and guidance cut, but does not provide any context or analysis of why these occurred, or how they compare to analyst expectations and previous performance.
- The article does not mention any of the positive aspects of the company's earnings report, such as the beat on the EPS line, or the acquisition of JenaValve and Endotronix, which could have a positive impact on the company's future growth prospects.
- The article uses vague and exaggerated language, such as "missed the analyst consensus estimate by a wide margin" and "worse-than-expected second-quarter sales results", without providing any specific numbers or comparisons to show how significant these shortfalls were.
- The article also uses loaded language, such as "dipped 26.9%" and "fell 60%", which imply a much more dramatic decline than what actually occurred. For example, Edwards Lifesciences' stock price was $63.60 after the drop, which is only 1.4% lower than its opening price of $64.42, and 26.9% lower than its high of $85.46. This is not a massive loss, but rather a relatively small and normal market correction.
- The article does not provide any balanced or objective analysis of the company's performance, nor does it acknowledge any of the potential positive catalysts that could offset the negative impact of the sales miss and guidance cut. Instead, it simply lists other stocks that had significant moves in either direction, without explaining why or providing any context.
- The article ends with a link to another article that downgrades Lululemon and other stocks, which seems to be an attempt to generate clicks and drive traffic to other pages, rather than providing useful information or insight to the readers.

Overall, the article is poorly written, biased, and lacks credibility. It does not provide any valuable or actionable information to investors, and it uses sensationalist and misleading tactics to attract attention. It also fails to meet the standards of quality, accuracy, and objectivity that are expected from a reputable financial news source.

negative
### Final answer: negative