Ironically the same day the San Francisco Chronicle celebrates Apple’s 30th anniversary and devotes an article to “The man behind the Mac” Steve Jobs, The Register’ came out with this headline: “Jobs dumps Apple stock”.
Of course a juicy story like this hits Memeorandum , and here’s the first reaction from Forever Geek: “The question is why? Is Steve seeing something we’re not? Will the Intel-based Macintoshes be flukes? Is Apple’s future as a company bleak? I mean when the chief executive of a company seemingly on the rise sells a huge chunk of company shares, that doesn’t forebode anything good.”
It takes a real analyst, Michael Parekh to actually look up the facts rather than just shooting from the hip: “He (Jobs) did not sell any of his stake in the company. In order to meet his tax obligations on the 10M restricted shares, which vested this month, Jobs elected to net-share settle — essentially allowing Apple to withhold and pay to authorities the portion of the 10M shares that would meet his tax payment requirements”
Read the details on Michael’s blog, but here’s the conclusion: “Therefore, the net-share settlement will have the effect of a share repurchase by the company — essentially Apple reinvesting in itself, which will reduce the number of outstanding Apple shares on the market.”
So Jobs was paying his taxes in a manner that’s actually benefitial to Apple. Now, let’s place all this in the context of the ongoing “Responsible Media vs. Rogue Bloggers” debate: Ironically, it’s the professional media (can The Register be called that?) that did not bother to do any fact-checking (after all that may have ruined a juicy story), and it took a blogger to come out with the truth.
Some readers may also remember the Register vs. Scoble spat last year, when Andrew Orlowski ended up fabricating an email that Scoble never wrote and presented it as real. Apparently, this is a trick of sensationalist media: report first, true or not, never bother to follow up and publish the correction.
Isn’t it time we all dump not Apple, but the Register?
Update (3/26): Since I’ve shown an early Steve Jobs photo, here’s another early pic.. back then BillG was also a “popular hero”
. It’s worth clicking on to get to the large image: the computer in the top right is … a Mac! (hat tip: Nick Starr)
Related posts:
Tags: Apple, Jobs, Steve Jobs, Apple Stock, Media, Blogs, Blogging, The Register, Orlowski, Scoble, Gates, Bill Gates, BillG, Mac, Macintosh
Bad Journalism – Part 2
“And Now, Here They Are, The BEATLES!”
Those were the famous words Ed Sullivan used to launch the Beatles (already hot in the UK) in the US. Here they are, back again: Apple vs. Apple. “IT IS the ultimate battle of the generations over an image of a half-eaten piece of fruit.
Zolli, you’ve made a mistake. The Register based its information on this SEC filing.
The AppleInsider story has NO sources whatsoever – it’s a rumor story on a rumor site.
Are you suggesting The Register should print second hand rumors, or stick to printing verifiable facts? Do you even know the difference between rumor and facts?
It’s a real own goal for the bloggers and Scoble has already apologized.
Maybe you should view this issue more dispassionately.
Thanks, but the SEC filing is obviously not new information, and it’s certainlu not in conflict with my post.
Technically, Apple issued than repurchased those shares, then retired them, reducing the number of outstanding shares. It’s not the fact of transaction that’s in question here, but the Register’s reporting it as “stock-dumping”, while it’s a tax-driven transaction.
No, the Register does not have to stick to second-hand rumors, they could simply call Apple’s Investor Relations, that’s what they are for.
Thanks for commenting.
Zoli, do you have evidence for this statement?
Technically, Apple issued than repurchased those shares, then retired them, reducing the number of outstanding shares. It’s not the fact of transaction that’s in question here, but the Register’s reporting it as “stock-dumping”, while it’s a tax-driven transaction.
You state this as if it’s a fact, but it’s a story from a rumor site that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But you castigate The Register “Readers should Dump The Register” – for not repeating this rumor.
The onus is on AppleInsider to back up its unsourced story with proof, surely.
I don’t understand. Please can you explain?
AppleInsider called Investor Relations, who confirmed the story, as well as the fact that the share settlement provisions will be in the 10Q, not the SEC Form 4 you linked to above.
Of course Apple Investor Realations is available to The Register as well, if they care to call…
Until the next 10Q is out, perhaps you’ll except Marketwatch and The Wall Street Journal as “better-than-rumor-site” sources.
12 July 2006
All I know is that the EC slaps a big fine on MicroSoft and MicroSoft goes down 38 cents and Apple crashes down 2 points….
Bad Journalism – Part 2
Heh, this is really getting to Scoble . We should now start deriding people who link to non-credible