I'm not any kind of experts on stocks, but I thought the basic principle was that people buy and sell on what they expect to happen, creating a price, and if something new happens, it's not whether that thing is 'good' or 'bad' in some absolute sense but rather how that differs from expectations that matters.
So a really crappy company doing slightly less crappy than expected would under this theory send the price up and a really amazing company doing slightly less amazing than expected would send the price down.
Does Gruber not understand this? Or does he make more advertising money from acting as if one of the largest companies in the world (by various measures) is being discriminated against in some fashion by a shadowy conspiracy?
Also, wasn't his previous conspiracy theory that Apple stock was being artificially held down to $500 dollars when it rightfully should have been higher, if not for those meddling kids/institutional money managers, but then it would rise swiftly after January 19th and the evil money managers would therefore make billions? Obviously they're not as good as manipulating the price upwards as downwards, if that was their plan.
So a really crappy company doing slightly less crappy than expected would under this theory send the price up and a really amazing company doing slightly less amazing than expected would send the price down.
Does Gruber not understand this? Or does he make more advertising money from acting as if one of the largest companies in the world (by various measures) is being discriminated against in some fashion by a shadowy conspiracy?
Also, wasn't his previous conspiracy theory that Apple stock was being artificially held down to $500 dollars when it rightfully should have been higher, if not for those meddling kids/institutional money managers, but then it would rise swiftly after January 19th and the evil money managers would therefore make billions? Obviously they're not as good as manipulating the price upwards as downwards, if that was their plan.