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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
there we have it....irrefutable evidence.....nope....
When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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....
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?
Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Originally Posted by jragosta
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".
Except it wasn't slanderous.
You forgot bailouts and very large bonuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonky
What has Dalrymple been wrong about with his "yep"s and "nope"s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
When was the last time Dalrymple was wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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?
Lots of cold water today
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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."