I posted yesterday that it was bogus, somebody was trying to manipulate the market. And it worked. Start an investigation.

Fraudulent manipulation for sure. Isn't that illegal? Where is the SEC?

Now Citigroup analyst Richard Gardner has picked up the total rummer as a fact. This turkey never gets anything right about Apple. His last price traget was $110 and held that until Apple went past $140 then he raised it to $160.00. HEY Dick do your research and know what the facts are.

What's funny is that this sort of thing happens in all the various markets but regulators don't seem particularly concerned with doing anything unless it is overly dramatic. The Internet age has magnified the problem.

(their stocks based on unconfirmed information)
the smart investors will buy (and excel)!!!!!!

The firm who created and or posted the unconfirmed news should be held liable for losses. Start writing checks or go to prison.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The firm who created and or posted the unconfirmed news should be held liable for losses. Start writing checks or go to prison.

That Kramer guy from The Street was pushing this bogus information, watch his video as he interviews some clueless Apple "analyst" that works for him. He attributes the "news" to a boutique research firm that he claims to "love".
They denied it the next morning.
He also claimed that Goldman Sachs issued the news, they denied it as well.
The only one out there are the guys from "The Street" as the purveyor of this rumor.
Sounds like manipulation to me.

Well, I am an attorney, although not a criminal one. I can tell you for a fact that an analyst cannot intentionally issue a false public statement concerning stocks. Manipulating the market is illegal.

The First Amendment is irrelevant for the same reason it doesn't protect somebody who goes into a crowded room and yells fire.

Quote

gslusher wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The firm who created and or posted the unconfirmed news should be held liable for losses. Start writing checks or go to prison.

First, I'm not an attorney. However, I am a student of civil rights.

It's probably unlikely that anyone will or even can be prosecuted. There is a little-known and oft-ignored bit of paper called the Bill of Rights, containing, among other things, the First Amendment. Freedom of speech and of the press apply to almost any speech that is not libelous/slanderous, defamatory or fraudulent (despite the contentions of the current US administration).

Libel, slander, defamation and fraud all require malicious intent, if the law students I've worked with were correct. (If I understand correctly, it's even harder to prove slander or libel if the aggrieved party is a pubic figure or corporation.) Damage, alone, is apparently not a sufficient basis. In any case, I believe that slander, libel, and defamation are civil torts, not crimes. Of course, it's possible that fraud could be either civil or criminal (or both).

If it could be proved that whomever initiated the rumor knew that it was not true or probably was not true and initiated or spread it in an attempt (apparently successful) to manipulate the stock price, then, I would think, there might be a case for action. By itself, spreading unconfirmed rumors is probably not actionable. If it were, nearly all journalists covering Wall Street would be in jail, along with a lot of "analysts."

It might also depend upon who initiated/spread the rumor. Journalists, while they may have some sort of ethical code, are probably not regulated by the SEC. Brokers almost surely are. I don't know where "analysts" fit in that determination.

One of the articles about the rumor made the point that all journalists and analysts have made mistakes. If this was simply a mistake, it's part of the game. As some famous person surely must have said, "Sh*t happens."

As the previous guest implied, those who exhibit herd-like behavior and base their investment decisions on rumor, unconfirmed information and fear will, in the long run, be poorer for that. The drop in the stock price is one more bit of proof that the stock market is not "rational."

Quote

Terrin wrote:
Well, I am an attorney, although not a criminal one. I can tell you for a fact that an analyst cannot intentionally issue a false public statement concerning stocks. Manipulating the market is illegal.

The First Amendment is irrelevant for the same reason it doesn't protect somebody who goes into a crowded room and yells fire.