By Rob Beschizza at 8:03 am Sun, Jun 21, 2009
Apple's stock had tanked in January, falling as low as $78.20, when Jobs said he had a hormone imbalance.
CNBC: We Know Drama
What’s your point? The article was accurate. You make it sound like it was saying something false.
“Apple’s stock had tanked in January, falling as low as $78.20, when Jobs said he had a hormone imbalance and the company announced that its founder would be taking a six-month medical leave. It has since made a choppy comeback as concerns about his health persist.
Apple shares rose 2.7 percent Friday, ending at $139.48, as the company’s new iPhone 3GS hit store shelves.”
A 13% fall in 15 days is an unusually fast decline in stock price. Calling it “tanking” is not a terrible misrepresentation as you would suggest.
The point is that the rest of the market was doing pretty much the same thing. That makes it unlikely that reports of Jobs’ health was the main factor, unless you think they sent the Nasdaq down too.
Oh, got it. The implied causation is what Rob is objecting to. Apple did fall more than the rest of the market, but only around 5% more.
Right. The reporter is giving the impression that Apple tanked on the Jobs news, but its stock’s behavior wasn’t statistically significant.
As Eli suggests, CNBC could have pointed out that the Nasdaq had a bad month around that date. But it didn’t, because that’s not The Story.
It might be interesting to plot CNBC on th graph too for even more perspective.
A great example of Apple Derangement Syndrome at its most abject.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin