There's always a story that can be thrown together for every price movement, although it looks like apple did miss sales estimates in China by several percent. Looks like they also withheld guidance on services growth.
By bloomberg, you mean bloomberg terminal or what exactly?
Thanks for this information. I was genuinely confused after I had written this comment because well this information of epic games was already available 8 hours earlier so that had already been factored in the market 2 hours ago so I was confused as to why this change in 2 hours.
Also, I would genuinely appreciate it if we could have a seperate HN thread just for this news itself. Sounds really interesting and I have quite an opinion on it
There is always a certain amount of rollercoasting going on around Apple earning calls, with stock going up during build-up and then dropping after the call.
My reasoning is that a lot of traders are simply afraid of losing a potential "wow" moment, so they stockpile just in case and then unload once they are sure that it's nothing special - simply to avoid their bosses going "why did you miss the boat on Apple?!?!" if the price skyrockets.
wow, this has dropped even further it was around 2.5 last time , now its 3.7 , these are in some serious Billion dollar loses.
I don't know but seeing so much money move so fast with such high velocity and such corrections in minutes and thus losing or making billions. I really want stability and it does seem to me that in some sense I wish for every economy to be more comprised of small businesses which aren't changing their stock price in such drastic measures though I think such an opinion might be unpopular around here.
Did Bloomberg report that share prices fell because their sales in China under-performed estimates, or while/as their sales in China under-performed estimates?
How predictable. I'm referring to the purpose of the publication grouping stats together in a story. Saying "causation and coincidence" is to say nothing. There is never a clear direct "causation" in financial price movements, and both the readers and the publication are aware of this, but that does not mean there is not an implicit narrative. Financial news publications don't mention random coincidental stats just for the amusing random coincidence. The language will always be ambiguous, but pairing specific stats with price moves in ambiguous language is still effectually to create an implicit narrative.
>and both the readers and the publication are aware of this
Publications wouldn't bother if they thought that readers could discern that this was what they were doing. As you say, the point is to create an implicit narrative; it's a narrative of causation where only coincidence actually can be proven, and often where the actual cause of price movement is heavily obfuscated (partly by the assured connection-building that the publications engage in).
