... That dealReporter is posting these anonymously sourced rumors and not their related, and more credible parent, the Financial Times?
Wouldn't the Financial Times want to report on such a business "scoop" much like Reuters reported in August of AAPL's interest and that initial bidding to begin after Labor Day?
Reuters never fished that "scoop" out to an associated company which seeks subscription fees from hedge funds for access to information ... but we're to believe that the Financial Times did? If these rumors are true, why wouldn't the Financial Times want to report this story and take credit?
And how convenient, that exactly one month after their initial "rumor," dealReporter posts another today. Reuters hasn't provided an update. Just like then, today, I heard so much about InterDigital trading within a channel/range and that $44 was an important floor. Today's low, $44. Exactly one-month ago, when dealReporter reported their first rumor, the low on that day was $44.01. How coincidental that with all the message board chatter of an expected earnings miss did this latest rumor appear and with the stock trading on the ledge of $44, needing only one final push, an earning miss, to take it over the ledge ... well, it didn't happen.
dealReporter is bullshit. Fuck them. Their rumors are too convenient. Their timing is suspect. And their clients, hedge funds, who they service, feast on volatility trading. If any of this was true, the Financial Times would be reporting this story. They did not. Because they do not want the stench of shit to soil any journalistic reputation they may have.
| 
