zlacker

>>aarond+(OP)
Link to MS statement https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/11/17/a-statement-from...

In my opinion, I'd say the shortness and lack of details backs up the story that they had no idea. You'd see way more words if a marketing department had it's hands on something like this. This was 100% a get something out asap job.

>>WestCo+R3
Yup this is definitely a "our stock has fallen 2% on the news, hurry up and say something to investors!" kind of letter.

>>paxys+q7
Just for once I’d like to see such a statement look like, “You sheep probably want a comment on today’s news. We’re not doing that. We’re just content to buy up all the shares you’re panic-dumping. Looking forward to flipping them back to you next week when you panic in the other direction.”

(Assuming they have some plan that gives them the flexibility to trade shares directly on the market like that. I think $GME had something like this?)

Edit: And, of course, actually mean it, unlike Caroline Ellison and the $22 FTT: https://twitter.com/carolinecapital/status/15892874579753041...

>>SilasX+yh
Retail didn’t move MSFT stock yesterday on that news. It was HFT bots reacting to the news. Nobody panicked.

>>jliptz+0s1
Nobody panicked? I suspect that's beyond what your current evidence, plus general knowledge of market behavior, can justify.

>>SilasX+zt2
People may have panicked, but the move happened too quickly for a human to react in time

>>jliptz+Uv2
You still can't justify a claim that nobody panic-sold, given what you know. Let's try to stick to claims we have a basis to believe, instead of fighting noise with noise.

A more reasonable claim from your epistemic state could be something like, "There was no major crash from the news, as might be seen in a general panic."