You're calling someone else daft when you claim a single letter by a single CEO to a single newsman somehow reversed the entire stock market. Oh, which it didn't, because the world markets are continuing as I type this to decline, just as they did before the letter.
Since when? Apple give lots of interviews and scoops to individual media outlets. Phil Schiller getting on stage with John Gruber for example.
But not when the global stock markets are going through the floor. It's all about whether anyone then acted on that information before it became public. Could it then be construed as insider knowledge? Thus the possibility of SEC interest.
I don't think whether he did or didn't act on it is the point. Did Tim Cook have a reasonable expectation that Cramer wouldn't act on it, and was it an appropriate thing to do in the circumstance.
nope. There was no reasonable expectation for Cramer to act. Cramer is first and foremost a member of the media and a host of a TV show. Cramer is NOT a trader.
News always gets leaked to members of the media first. As long as those media members don't act on it before it is made public, there is no violation.
In other words the responsibility lies with the MEDIA member not the company that gave the info.
I have a hard time believing that. Insider traders can hawk their information but there's no impropriety until someone uses it? Any release of information to anyone is ok until some scallywag uses it for personal gain?
If that's truly the case then that's stupid. I doubt it's the case.
Before Cooks letter was released the Nasdaq/Down/S&P were down 9%. It closed the day down less than 4%. This morning is already up about 4%.
Only a blind fool could not see that Cooks letter had a massive impact on the market. The market is largerly driven by emotion not logic.
In an interview on CNBC this morning, the CEO of BHP-billiton, the largest mining company in the world and huge supplier to China, brought up Cook's reassuring words about sales continuing to be strong there as being an important factor affecting his thinking.
To suggest that the words of the CEO of the largest company on the world (by market cap) with a quarter of its (and growing portion of its) sales in China -- especially when there's near-unanimous agreement that China worries are driving the market swoon -- don't have an impact, is just plain silly.
I have a hard time believing that. Insider traders can hawk their information but there's no impropriety until someone uses it? Any release of information to anyone is ok until some scallywag uses it for personal gain?
If that's truly the case then that's stupid. I doubt it's the case.
I believe CNBC bars Jim Cramer (along with the rest of the business newscast staff and family members) from owning any individual stock. They can not personally trade in stocks but can invest in mutual and index funds. This way the watchers can be assure that the business newscast aren't getting an unfair advantage when presenting the news because they quite often get to see the stock news before they make it public.
Therefore, Jim Cramer can not use the info he got from Tim Cook for insider trading. (Meaning he can't trade on the news before it's made public.) However, he can divulge the e-mail to others before making it public.And if that's the case, then Jim Cramer is in violation of SEC rules and also most likely rules that his employer sets forth. As far as Tim Cook is concern, Jim Cramer host a business news show that is available to the public. And what he stated in his e-mail to Jim Cramer, was meant for the public to hear and Jim Cramer (and the entire CNBC newscast staff) can not personally gain from the info before it's made public. They can't even gain for it after it's made public.
I don't think whether he did or didn't act on it is the point. Did Tim Cook have a reasonable expectation that Cramer wouldn't act on it, and was it an appropriate thing to do in the circumstance.
If no, then SEC.
Cramer's a reporter asking reporter questions and getting responded to.
Cramer's a reporter asking reporter questions and getting responded to.
End. Of. Story.
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
So when Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Cue and others have made atypical comments via emails, Twitter, and other methods of communication it's simply about being worried about the short-term stock price and not about correcting some lie being passed around by the media?
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
OR because he didn't respond to THIER precious emails.
So when Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Cue and others have made atypical comments via emails, Twitter, and other methods of communication it's simply about being worried about the short-term stock price and not about correcting some lie being passed around by the media?
Once you do it then when do you stop? There may be all kinds of ?Watch lies out there but I'm not aware of anyone at Apple publicly correcting them.
Once you do it then when do you stop? There may be all kinds of ?Watch lies out there but I'm not aware of anyone at Apple publicly correcting them.
That's a philosophical debate because it does open up the conversation to that possibility. We saw it many years ago when Apple would send cease and desist letters to the product leaks that were legitimate, and since everything is cached somewhere on the internet after it's been posted it did nothing but draw attention to what were the real leaks… complete with pictures.
But should they never saw anything? It's a tough question. Perhaps they have a flowchart to make that determination, and there could be factors we've never considered.
If Cramer didn't trade on it, or gave it to someone who traded on it, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the public can all get the info at the same time (in theory), in practice obviously even public info not instantly known by everyone of the public at the same time. This non earning call info is particularly subject to this since people wouldn't be expecting it so they're not paying attention.
This is were some whinning occurs from people who somehow didn't have the info at the exact same time as others, or couldn't act on it (because the channel they used had some delay or didn't have it), they were gone fishing or they were taking a dump. That's their fault, not Apple's fault.
I got the feeling that people that were driving Apple down like mad on false info and rumors are the ones whining that they f-ud narrative has been broken.
According to the rule, that's incorrect. The rule states that companies cannot disclose material non-public information to private parties without also making the information public. There is nothing in the rule about whether or no said data is acted upon (though it would presumably make things worse if it was). The issue here is what Apple/Cook disclosed. They disclosed absolutely nothing to Cramer except general positive sentiment. Increasing iPhone activations? Can you say "obvious information?" This is not going anywhere.
Comments
I did NOT call the poster 'daft.' Read much?
'Fanboi'? Wow. Welcome to 2007.
If no, then SEC.
If that's truly the case then that's stupid. I doubt it's the case.
In an interview on CNBC this morning, the CEO of BHP-billiton, the largest mining company in the world and huge supplier to China, brought up Cook's reassuring words about sales continuing to be strong there as being an important factor affecting his thinking.
To suggest that the words of the CEO of the largest company on the world (by market cap) with a quarter of its (and growing portion of its) sales in China -- especially when there's near-unanimous agreement that China worries are driving the market swoon -- don't have an impact, is just plain silly.
I have a hard time believing that. Insider traders can hawk their information but there's no impropriety until someone uses it? Any release of information to anyone is ok until some scallywag uses it for personal gain?
If that's truly the case then that's stupid. I doubt it's the case.
I believe CNBC bars Jim Cramer (along with the rest of the business newscast staff and family members) from owning any individual stock. They can not personally trade in stocks but can invest in mutual and index funds. This way the watchers can be assure that the business newscast aren't getting an unfair advantage when presenting the news because they quite often get to see the stock news before they make it public.
Therefore, Jim Cramer can not use the info he got from Tim Cook for insider trading. (Meaning he can't trade on the news before it's made public.) However, he can divulge the e-mail to others before making it public.And if that's the case, then Jim Cramer is in violation of SEC rules and also most likely rules that his employer sets forth. As far as Tim Cook is concern, Jim Cramer host a business news show that is available to the public. And what he stated in his e-mail to Jim Cramer, was meant for the public to hear and Jim Cramer (and the entire CNBC newscast staff) can not personally gain from the info before it's made public. They can't even gain for it after it's made public.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2004/01/14/cnbcs-draconian-move.aspx
That was in 2004, Jim Cramer is now a full time employee and falls under this policy.
I don't think whether he did or didn't act on it is the point. Did Tim Cook have a reasonable expectation that Cramer wouldn't act on it, and was it an appropriate thing to do in the circumstance.
If no, then SEC.
Cramer's a reporter asking reporter questions and getting responded to.
End. Of. Story.
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
So when Tim Cook, Steve Jobs, Cue and others have made atypical comments via emails, Twitter, and other methods of communication it's simply about being worried about the short-term stock price and not about correcting some lie being passed around by the media?
I'm seeing a few more analysts out today saying they didn't like that Cook did this. Not because they think he violated SEC rules but because it makes him look like he's worried about the stock price. I have a feeling Tim Cook won't ever do it again.
OR because he didn't respond to THIER precious emails.
Sour grapes for table three?
Once you do it then when do you stop? There may be all kinds of ?Watch lies out there but I'm not aware of anyone at Apple publicly correcting them.
That's a philosophical debate because it does open up the conversation to that possibility. We saw it many years ago when Apple would send cease and desist letters to the product leaks that were legitimate, and since everything is cached somewhere on the internet after it's been posted it did nothing but draw attention to what were the real leaks… complete with pictures.
But should they never saw anything? It's a tough question. Perhaps they have a flowchart to make that determination, and there could be factors we've never considered.
If Cramer didn't trade on it, or gave it to someone who traded on it, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the public can all get the info at the same time (in theory), in practice obviously even public info not instantly known by everyone of the public at the same time. This non earning call info is particularly subject to this since people wouldn't be expecting it so they're not paying attention.
This is were some whinning occurs from people who somehow didn't have the info at the exact same time as others, or couldn't act on it (because the channel they used had some delay or didn't have it), they were gone fishing or they were taking a dump. That's their fault, not Apple's fault.
I got the feeling that people that were driving Apple down like mad on false info and rumors are the ones whining that they f-ud narrative has been broken.
According to the rule, that's incorrect. The rule states that companies cannot disclose material non-public information to private parties without also making the information public. There is nothing in the rule about whether or no said data is acted upon (though it would presumably make things worse if it was). The issue here is what Apple/Cook disclosed. They disclosed absolutely nothing to Cramer except general positive sentiment. Increasing iPhone activations? Can you say "obvious information?" This is not going anywhere.