We may construe this as an organized attack on AAPL. But look at the bigger picture.
Maybe this is only a testbed for nanosecond tradingalgorithms to see what would happen during an all-out attack on US stocks.
These trading algorithms are not even called targeted viruses, like the ones that public utilities, the banking world, server farms, even the pentagon, recently have recognized as digital threats.
It is time that the SEC work out some rules to prevent catastrophic collapse of the stock market, if those nanosecond trading algorithms were to come under the control of REALLY maliscious people.
Well, it looks to me like Leitao has done his homework and has issued a much more reasonable analysis of Apple's finances. I see the stock is up a few percent today, but it certainly doesn't make up for the latest losses. I think those who buy now or who bought last week will do very well. I wanted to buy more to average down, but I didn't have the spare cash.
Murdoch had nothing to do with the hacking scandal, which is why no charges have been filed against him.
And it wasn't just the WSJ that reported those numbers, and that's a matter of record.
It was the Wall Street Journal exclusively that mis-translated the story from the Japanese, and reported iPhone order slashed in half. Again, it was a mis-translation, and then bad analysis on top of that. From that point, every copycat reporter picked it up, and re-reported it without confirming it. It spread all over, and was even quoted as "news" (instead of as a rumour) on services such as "Marketplace" (on NPR) and almost everywhere else. But it was all from that WSJ report.
The problem is, the only thing investors are going to do right now (smart investors, that is ????) are going to buy, because apple is only going to go up. And right now it's cheap...
That was my point. In this case, it looks like a valid trading strategy for them to make more money (because they'd pay out less on the bonds and more than make up for the loss on the stock).
Your first statement is wrong, though. You don't have to prove collusion or insider trading for something to be illegal. One can be charge (and convicted) for posting fales information about a company to drive the stock up or down - even if there's no collusion.
While true, it's nearly impossible to prove, unless said person is a moron. Vast majority of stock manipulation cases fall into collusion and insider trading.
High speed computer trading should absolutely be banned! Individuals and normal investors continue to be screwed by financial institutions and big money players like private equity funds. It is time to drive the lobbyists out of Washington - tarred and feathered would be best - and put proper controls back into the financial markets.
Comments
Tom Clancy's way ahead of you ("Debt of Honor").
Well, it looks to me like Leitao has done his homework and has issued a much more reasonable analysis of Apple's finances. I see the stock is up a few percent today, but it certainly doesn't make up for the latest losses. I think those who buy now or who bought last week will do very well. I wanted to buy more to average down, but I didn't have the spare cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
Murdoch had nothing to do with the hacking scandal, which is why no charges have been filed against him.
And it wasn't just the WSJ that reported those numbers, and that's a matter of record.
It was the Wall Street Journal exclusively that mis-translated the story from the Japanese, and reported iPhone order slashed in half. Again, it was a mis-translation, and then bad analysis on top of that. From that point, every copycat reporter picked it up, and re-reported it without confirming it. It spread all over, and was even quoted as "news" (instead of as a rumour) on services such as "Marketplace" (on NPR) and almost everywhere else. But it was all from that WSJ report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That was my point. In this case, it looks like a valid trading strategy for them to make more money (because they'd pay out less on the bonds and more than make up for the loss on the stock).
Your first statement is wrong, though. You don't have to prove collusion or insider trading for something to be illegal. One can be charge (and convicted) for posting fales information about a company to drive the stock up or down - even if there's no collusion.
While true, it's nearly impossible to prove, unless said person is a moron. Vast majority of stock manipulation cases fall into collusion and insider trading.