That's where the media comes in. They not only report, but perpetuate, proliferate and, consequently, make relevant the things analysts say, thereby creating chaos where none should exist.
Ironically, as much as I have missed on AAPL's stock price since roughly $350, I, as it ends up, treat the company more fairly than most. That's because I make a conscious effort to express what I really think, irrespective of dogma.
Guys like Munster are basically politicians. Or researchers who do not use hypotheses. Instead, they come to a conclusion first and cherry pick data to support it.
It's half the reason why I ducked out of my doctoral program. While many scholars were scientifically thorough and true to the craft, far too many did research for one reason only -- to fuel an agenda.
A small chunk of readers like to chide me because I often state -- very openly -- that I do not care about being right or wrong. When you become obsessed about those things, you risk falling into the aforementioned trap. All of your work services your need to be right and not wrong.
I prefer opinions -- presented as such -- that change as information changes. Perspectives that evolve as the thinker thinks and writes and thinks some more. Frequently, there's nothing better than being wrong to move your own thought process and the conservation forward.
Investors can get much more out of this interplay, this exploration of world views and possibilities than they can analyst conjecture presented as authoritative and the media spectacle that follows.
While AAPL's recent drop might not be criminal in the literal sense, it's sane to think of it as mischievous from a figurative standpoint.
At the time of publication, the author held no positions in any of the stocks mentioned in this article
This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.