Cold water poured on report of Apple TV-related media event next month

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That part is not true.



    While Apple doesn't have a chance of stopping the media from publishing these silly rumors (for the reasons given above), there HAVE been a number of high profile cases where companies, shareholders, and the SEC have one insider trading cases for things like this. ...


     


    This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  


     


    I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

  • Reply 22 of 43
    Neither of them actually knows anything. Why would we listen to either of them?

    Dalrymple is pretty well connected I guess, he has been reliable in the past. First example that comes to mind is his "nope" on NFC last year when everyone was sure the iPhone 5 had it, and even leaked pics seemed to indicate so as well.
  • Reply 23 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    there we have it....irrefutable evidence.....nope....



    When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?

  • Reply 24 of 43
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  

    I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

    Sounds about right, a WS organization can launder money for drug cartels and terrorist states without prosecution. The organization might be fined about a month's earnings, which is hardly a deterrence.
  • Reply 25 of 43
    19831983 Posts: 1,201member
    Disappointing.
  • Reply 26 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.



    How does Apple show tangible damages from fall in stock price?


     


    And it is not slander because (a) the Jeffries report was written and (b) the rumor (true or false) does not directly damage Apple's reputation.

  • Reply 27 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    This is true, but likely to have about as much success as their suits against Samsung.



     


    Oh, I don't know for sure but a billion dollar judgment isn't doing too bad.

  • Reply 28 of 43
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?



    i have no idea....my comment was sarcasm on his one word he used to refute the rumor....

  • Reply 29 of 43
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Right, I always confuse those two.


    Measure the rate of transaction on the day of release before the rumor comes out. Measure the drop in stock between its release and debunking. Use the pre-rumor rate to determine what the stock would have done without it, the remainder lost is the damage.

    Wrong - for two reasons:

    1. Simply showing that the stock price fell after a rumor isn't proof that the rumor caused the price drop. Apple would have to prove causation - which would be nearly impossible.

    2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple, so proving damages would be impossible. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.

    Again, your claims aren't even close to what the law is required. Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.
  • Reply 30 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?



     


    Never.


     


  • Reply 31 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Wrong - for two reasons:



    1. Simply showing that the stock price fell after a rumor isn't proof that the rumor caused the price drop. Apple would have to prove causation - which would be nearly impossible.



    2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple, so proving damages would be impossible. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.



    Again, your claims aren't even close to what the law is required. Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.


     


    A civil suit might do the trick.

  • Reply 32 of 43


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    2. Even if Apple could prove that the rumor caused the price to fall, that doesn't harm Apple


     


    … I was right with your condescension and snobbery via improper quote trimming RIGHT up until this. Then you lost me.


     


    So Apple stock being driven to $0.01 per share doesn't harm Apple?






    In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the defense could argue that since Apple's buying stock back that a price drop is actually good for them.



     


    I'm still tongue-in-cheek in favor of the theory that Apple is the catalyst behind these price cutting rumors in an effort to lower their market cap to a level where they can take themselves private.






    Stick to predicting the size of future iPads.



     


    Sure. They'll get bigger. In before "that's not a prediction; it's a given".

  • Reply 33 of 43
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Can't they? Stock falls, Apple sues for tangible damages caused by slander, everyone shuts up for a good long while.

    Except it wasn't slanderous.
  • Reply 34 of 43
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    This is encouraging news if true, but I can't say that I've ever heard of any.  One is more likely to hear of some Wall Street criminal that got off than one that actually went to jail or had any kind of a downside to their actions.  

    I realise I'm speaking in gross generalities, but most of what happens on Wall streets is technically criminal and most of the time there is no punishment, no downside etc. 

    You forgot bailouts and very large bonuses.
  • Reply 35 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Run these analysts through the Dalrymple meat grinder. Every one of 'em.


    I agree. What a job to have though. Make crap up all day, get paid for it, and with no accountability. Love it.

  • Reply 36 of 43



    Quote:



    Originally Posted by bonky View Post



    What has Dalrymple been wrong about with his "yep"s and "nope"s?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Never.


     



     



    Wow. You guys must be some serious Insiders. I've never even heard of the guy.


     


    Care to enlighten us on why he is so great?

  • Reply 37 of 43
    SDK would be launched at WWDC 2013 anyway. ;)
  • Reply 38 of 43


    Lots of cold water today

  • Reply 39 of 43


    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    Lots of cold water today


     


    Is a lot of cold water better or worse than a single glass of ice water when you're in Hell? image

  • Reply 40 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


     


     


    Wow. You guys must be some serious Insiders. I've never even heard of the guy.


     


    Care to enlighten us on why he is so great?



     


    It is well known that Jim is an unofficial mouth piece for Apple. Here is what likely happened. Rumor started about AppleTV event. People post all over about it. Apple hears about it. Apple wants to stop the rumor because it isn't true. Call goes out to Jim, "Kill this - now." Jim posts "nope." Threat neutralized. Jim never gets into needless speculation, but when he says yes or no about something he is always right. Some analysts have decent track records, but his role is to either pour fuel on a fire or put it out, and he usually does it with only a few words and sometimes just his "yep" or "nope."

Sign In or Register to comment.