facts - Gizmodo

posts about #facts more →
Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

SuramaAte
06/21/09

In reply to Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC
Sorry Gizmodo is Just Flat Out Wrong.

I traded Apple all year. And Apple closed at 78.20 on Jan 20, 2009 [www.google.com]

And Apple had fallen from a price of 192 where it opened on May 14 2008. Apple stock lost more then half it's value in less then a year. By any definition it had tanked. And through december and January Apple stock was ordained as the defacto barometer of the health of not just the tech sector but the entire stock market. And yes the entire market did move on bad or Apple news.

And Apple had lots of bad news in January. Around the 14 they announced new products that impressed no one. On the 15 they announced Jobs would take a medical leave. And i believe on 20 Apple lowered it's expected earnings to i think 90 cents a share. It all dropped the stock that day.

I don't even like most CNBC shows and almost all their people are utter JACKASSES especially that Kudlow turd. but CNBC generally loves Apple stock.

Gizmodo. You really should check the facts first before inaccurately fly off the handle in print.
Reply

SuramaAte was starred SuramaAte was unstarred

Jim Topoleski
06/21/09

@SuramaAte: EXCEPT Gizmodo is right in pointing out that EVERYONE ELSE TANKED TOO. There was some major turmoil in the stocks at that time if you fail to remember, and while it certain that Apple was effected by what was going on behind the scenes in the company, overlooking that the entire market was taking a thrashing worse than a businessman at a S&M bar paints a false picture of how badly Apple did in relation to other stocks both in general and the tech market in particular.

If there is one thing I hate, it is when so called "traders" fail to actually take into account the BIG picture. Reminds me why day trading should be banned.
Reply

Jim Topoleski was starred Jim Topoleski was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
06/21/09

@Jim Topoleski: So, flaminess and jackassery aside, our fellow commenter SuramaAte does have a point - Apple stock did "tank" in January, if only to rebound since then. The fact that other stocks also declined is not really relevant to whether or not Apple tanked or did not tank.

CNBC also did not directly imply causation between these two statements: 1) Apple stock tanked in January, and 2) in January, Steve Jobs reported health problems. Thus, its report was accurate.
Reply

TheLightsAreBackOn
06/21/09

In reply to Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC
It looks to me like it "tanked" Sept-Oct 2008 (along with, well, alot of other stuff). I'd call that January thing a modest decline. I think for the above chart to be useful, it needed to run say June 2008 to present. Of course I only understand maybe half of what they say on CNBC so what I think may not be right...
Reply

TheLightsAreBackOn was starred

Hello Mister Walrus
06/21/09

@TheLightsAreBackOn: The problem with comparing any stock markets movements to September-October 2008 is that that was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. By long term standards, the draw down in January was very significant.
Reply

Monty
06/21/09

In reply to Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC
By "tanking" they actually mean the stock is built like a "tank" that can take silly concerns about the CEO and roll right on over them at ridiculously high prices. Did CNBC exist when Apple was selling at $14 a share? I guess perspective is not a high priority in the financial reporting industry. But, what I was really looking forward to was idiotic references to Gizmodo, so it was kind of disappointing.
Reply

Monty was starred Monty was unstarred

Kakkoister
06/21/09

In reply to Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC
All the stocks on that chart seem to be following about the same route lol.
Reply

Kakkoister was starred Kakkoister was unstarred

Hello Mister Walrus
06/21/09

@Kakkoister: Yeah, same-industry stocks are generally highly-correlated. That's part of the reason that indexes with few components like the DJIA just throw in a few representative companies (HP, IBM, Intel), and can still more or less mirror the performance of broader indexes like the S&P 500.
Reply

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#facts

Gizmodo

Gizmodo Team

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo

Even More Head-Scratching Apple Analysis From CNBC

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment