I know I'm a radical but, rather than listen to a bunch of half-assed analysts on CNBC ("Can Not Be Checking") and 4th party accounts from pretty much every other news source, I took the 45 seconds it takes to actually track down the actual Financial Times article all this new nonsense is based on.
It turns out this story originated from San Francisco, the same city as yesterday's PR attack on Apple began. It also turns out that, like yesterday's attack -- there is no new information here, just a repackaging of the original story and facts.
"According to an Apple filing in 2002, the options under review were handed to Mr Jobs in October 2001, at an exercise price of $18.30 a share. However, the purported board authorization was dated near the end of the year, suggesting that the benefits were both not properly authorized and were backdated. Mr Jobs later surrendered his options before they were exercised, implying that he did not gain any direct benefit from them. He was later given a grant of restricted stock by the company instead.
Under Apple's rules, the chief executive's remuneration must be set by a compensation committee of independent directors and later authorized by the full board."
I know -- that's it! The top business news story of the past 24 hours, all the non-stop pontificating by every analyst with a pulse since this story broke last night, and that is all there is.
We made a lot of money on this nonsense yesterday, and we will exercise caution, but let's be on the lookout for another great opportunity today as all this negative Apple news seems very oddly timed ahead of MacWorld: the Friday filing of the actual SEC statement, the fact that PC magazine wrote a glowing article re. the 30% increase in Mac sales (thanks Kustomz), the fact that iTunes traffic increased 400% over last year's holidays...
With plenty of positive Apple news to report on, I find it very interesting that the Financial Times' other Apple headline yesterday was "Apple remains unfazed by march of Microsoft's Zune." March of Zune? I don't even think Microsoft's own PR division would have the nerve to call a 1.9% market share a "march."
Unfortunately, in today's media saturated world, it is not enough to just check our sources -- we also need to check the agenda of our sources!