Just to take one of your conspiracy examples: AJC's pronouncements on "less tech" are actually a perfect example of overdetermination and multiple parallel explanations. Were she and G-S "manipulating the market" or were they just stating the (rather) obvious--i.e., that the Nasdaq had gone through an unsustainably steep run-up. Her opinion was by no means unusual, and, if it had been, it wouldn't have had anything like the apparent impact it seemed to. (You can't really believe that AJC is responsible for the entire Nasdaq Bear Market. Do you?) Not to be too unfashionably sympathetic to AJC, but, if you were she, responsible directly and indirectly for many billions of dollars worth of investment capital, and you felt that the Nasdaq was going to turn down (as a raft of technical, fundamental, and historical indicators confirmed), how could you not advise investors to pull back? I think the only manipulation she attempted actually failed. She urged a rather marginal adjustment in her ideal portfolio allocation--a mere 5% reduction, as I recall--while stating her belief not that we were in for a crash, but rather for something more like a soft landing. Would have made a lot of sense... if the tech sector hadn't turned around and dropped like a shot (though, who knows, she might be right long term).
As for your other two examples, I can't see how anything that does or doesn't happen to Arrowpoint, SAP, or any individual stock can possibly be equated with the kind of conspiracy that would be able to move (or hold) an entire index at will. |
