How can you claim to be long while posting this baseless innuendo?
Check the news from July 19. It took me all of 2 seconds to find this via google.
"We recently reviewed data going back 10 years and although we're still closing off some details, we don't see anything in our prior grant history that looks like backdating or springloading," EA spokesman Jeff Brown told Reuters in an e-mail.
"Backdating options has never been an accepted practice at EA and we've always had strong processes in place to prevent it," Brown said.
And we have heard before may PR professionals and spin doctors say many things that have been horribly wrong and off base. As I was reading a article this morning about options backdating reagarding apple and steve jobs it struck me as odd that they would mention electronic arts in an article regarding options backdating which I had been researching regarding MIK.
I had figured that it had already been a part of the decline or at least factored into condsidertion but wanted to see what others opinion's were on the subject. Baseless it is not if the company is mentioned regarding an investigation that provides a base to ask others for their opinions. For the PR guy to say they are still closing some details is an admission that it isn't a completed investigation - whether or not the investigation is internal or otherwise. How may times have we heard a PR person or spokesperson do damage control?
I don't trust spokespeople worth a damm when my money is involved but if that is good enough for you jester than enjoy when the next enron comes around.
EA launched their own internal investigation months ago, and the statements made since then have been the findings in their investigation.
As for the other companies who made options backdating a common practice (which is legal if done the legal way), none of them did anything that comes close to justifying a comparison to the scandals of the passed 5-10 years. In fact, it doesn't even justify mentioning their names in the same post.
Your premise rests in opposition to the fact that 99.9% of businesses exist to create products and services to sell to willing customers, and not to simply scam people out of money. If you don't believe this to be true, then you should probably go with your gut instinct as presented in your post: "I don't trust spokespeople worth a damm when my money is involved."
...in which case I'm not sure why you would ever invest money in the first place. Using that logic, you really aren't investing it, because spokespeople give earnings statements.
Now, if you want to rehabilitate yourself, head down to the video game aisle at Wal-Mart, and try to come to grips with the notion that the $60 box of plastic you are holding might actually be worth something to other people regardless of its worthlessness to you....or in your case....its inexistence.