That's what you're saying (and indeed what I said too!), but that's not what bloomberg published. What you're saying makes sense! But they didn't qualify this b

That's what you're saying (and indeed what I said too!), but that's not what bloomberg published. What you're saying makes sense! But they didn't qualify this by major. And the qualification is important to the heart of the story, since the way they phrased it suggests that chip design is largely reliable and thus that this is an exceptional error, when in fact errors are common, and impact is merely exceptional. In effect: they're overstating the signal-to-noise ratio this event implies. Worse, they understated the noisiness of the chip error "signal" but they also understate the noisiness of the stock value signal. And hey presto; if you conveniently present only the data you want all of the sudden a correlation looks really meaningful! Furthermore, even the qualification "major" isn't really deserved quite to the extent that bloomberg implies; specifically there have been worse chip errors much more recently than 20 years ago (e.g. amd's somewhat similar phenom issues). What makes this one worse isn't just the bug, it's how chips are used: cloud computing makes this much more relevant than similar bugs not too many years ago.