Apparently that you want to manage your business so as to avoid being the target of the press and the stock traders, as opposed to, say, executing your business plan to realize the goals of the company owners.
The entire theory seems to rest on accepting that Apple has made some mistake, not in any rational business sense; as it admits they've been wildly successful at making products people love and tens of billions of dollars from those products, but because analysts and journalists are writing ridiculous articles about their being in flux.
What it seems it ignore, is any consideration that, absent Apple, the press would just descend on the next big target with mass-market cachet, regardless of their fundamentals, or business model. [1] [2]
So the theory assumes the press is irrational (e.g. writing nonsense articles about Apple that are completely divorced from business reality) but then supposes you can avoid their gaze, by relying on them to act rationally according to rules you perceive. (e.g. they will not chatter about you, if you don't make too much profit too quickly)
Lost in any of this, is any measure of whether it actually matters one whit whether traders, analysts or journalists use emotional manipulation of the larger public to create business opportunities for themselves.
[1] Traders exist to trade. Mismatch between perceived value and price creates profit. If there is no mismatch, they create some. See: Jim Cramer
[2] The press exists to sell newspapers. Controversy creates profit. If there is no controversy, they create some. See: Every article written about Apple that has no basis in reality.
The entire theory seems to rest on accepting that Apple has made some mistake, not in any rational business sense; as it admits they've been wildly successful at making products people love and tens of billions of dollars from those products, but because analysts and journalists are writing ridiculous articles about their being in flux.
What it seems it ignore, is any consideration that, absent Apple, the press would just descend on the next big target with mass-market cachet, regardless of their fundamentals, or business model. [1] [2]
So the theory assumes the press is irrational (e.g. writing nonsense articles about Apple that are completely divorced from business reality) but then supposes you can avoid their gaze, by relying on them to act rationally according to rules you perceive. (e.g. they will not chatter about you, if you don't make too much profit too quickly)
Lost in any of this, is any measure of whether it actually matters one whit whether traders, analysts or journalists use emotional manipulation of the larger public to create business opportunities for themselves.
[1] Traders exist to trade. Mismatch between perceived value and price creates profit. If there is no mismatch, they create some. See: Jim Cramer
[2] The press exists to sell newspapers. Controversy creates profit. If there is no controversy, they create some. See: Every article written about Apple that has no basis in reality.