Read my post again about free ad-supported vs. paid ad-free TV shows. You didn't understand it.
As to analysts, yeah they're highly paid like Henry Blodgett and those other snake oil salesmen who were pushing Worldcom and Enron and all those other financial disasters.
Your long, diversionary, discourse about how analysts go about producing their 'research' still doesn't address the basic conundrum: If they're more often right than wrong, if there are so many potential 'Sages of Omaha' walking around, then why aren't they just keeping all that analysis to themselves and turning themselves into the next Warren Buffet? The answer is obvious.
You say I didn't understand your post. I understood it very well. You don't seem to understand my answer.
I'm not talking about your "sages".
In the '90's, after banks had bought many brokerage houses, and some companies that did analysis, they began to use those analysts to promote their banking interests. This was illegal then, and remains so now.
They gave promotion to companies that the banks wanted to do business with, skewing the analysis. I used to tell my broker that these guys knew nothing.
When I found out, like everyone else did, that they were not doing an honest job, I understood why so many of the biggest names were wrong so often.
things have changed mightily since then, if you keep track of what happened, and what is happening.
The analysts we see here have companies that are usually independent. They have no real ax to grind. They must now list any investments they, or their company may have, if their companies also do investments, rather than just reporting as most of them do.
Because none of the analysts you commonly see these days are involved in working clients for a bank, they don't get the multi-million $ yearly commissions they used to get.
These companies get paid for doing the analysis. They don't have the kind of cash it would take to turn into an investment house. Even if they did, many of their contacts would dry up.
The people whose names you see associated with the reports, or the quarterly phone call with Apple, are basically just the face of the companies they work for. There are likely a dozen or more people researching each report for them, and then they give the conclusions after the statistical analysis is given to them.
Each company employs several, or even dozens of analysis's covering many different areas of business. We just see the ones who cover Apple, or perhaps a few other related companies.
Do you understand the business of the market at all?
I wouldn't sweat it. Europe isn't getting the iPhone in June. They won't get the phone for 6 months after they announce a carrier.
By then, the 3G or 4G capable will be the next version.
Bearing in mind we've got wall-to-wall Nokia N95 advertising in print and TV just now, which you can get for 'free' or as near as for lesser plans than what AT&T charge, they'll need to change it quite a bit for Europe.
edit: And the SE P1i is due in a few months too hopefully drawing a line under the dismal P990 launch.
I was with orange when they first started years ago and they were light years ahead of the competition with there customer service. Now they are the same as the rest with their call centres in Bangalor India where no one can understand a word you are saying.
Typical conversation:
Orange: Hi how may I help you?
Me: Hi, I have a problem with my phone, can I give you my mobile number?
Orange: You want a mobile number?
Me: No I want to give you my number so that you can bring up my account details.
Orange: You want a mobile number? You want me to give you a mobile number?
Me: No. Can you look up my account, I have insurance and was a replacement phone (changing the subject here because they just dont geddit!!)
Comments
Read my post again about free ad-supported vs. paid ad-free TV shows. You didn't understand it.
As to analysts, yeah they're highly paid like Henry Blodgett and those other snake oil salesmen who were pushing Worldcom and Enron and all those other financial disasters.
Your long, diversionary, discourse about how analysts go about producing their 'research' still doesn't address the basic conundrum: If they're more often right than wrong, if there are so many potential 'Sages of Omaha' walking around, then why aren't they just keeping all that analysis to themselves and turning themselves into the next Warren Buffet? The answer is obvious.
You say I didn't understand your post. I understood it very well. You don't seem to understand my answer.
I'm not talking about your "sages".
In the '90's, after banks had bought many brokerage houses, and some companies that did analysis, they began to use those analysts to promote their banking interests. This was illegal then, and remains so now.
They gave promotion to companies that the banks wanted to do business with, skewing the analysis. I used to tell my broker that these guys knew nothing.
When I found out, like everyone else did, that they were not doing an honest job, I understood why so many of the biggest names were wrong so often.
things have changed mightily since then, if you keep track of what happened, and what is happening.
The analysts we see here have companies that are usually independent. They have no real ax to grind. They must now list any investments they, or their company may have, if their companies also do investments, rather than just reporting as most of them do.
Because none of the analysts you commonly see these days are involved in working clients for a bank, they don't get the multi-million $ yearly commissions they used to get.
These companies get paid for doing the analysis. They don't have the kind of cash it would take to turn into an investment house. Even if they did, many of their contacts would dry up.
The people whose names you see associated with the reports, or the quarterly phone call with Apple, are basically just the face of the companies they work for. There are likely a dozen or more people researching each report for them, and then they give the conclusions after the statistical analysis is given to them.
Each company employs several, or even dozens of analysis's covering many different areas of business. We just see the ones who cover Apple, or perhaps a few other related companies.
Do you understand the business of the market at all?
I wouldn't sweat it. Europe isn't getting the iPhone in June. They won't get the phone for 6 months after they announce a carrier.
By then, the 3G or 4G capable will be the next version.
Bearing in mind we've got wall-to-wall Nokia N95 advertising in print and TV just now, which you can get for 'free' or as near as for lesser plans than what AT&T charge, they'll need to change it quite a bit for Europe.
edit: And the SE P1i is due in a few months too hopefully drawing a line under the dismal P990 launch.
I was with orange when they first started years ago and they were light years ahead of the competition with there customer service. Now they are the same as the rest with their call centres in Bangalor India where no one can understand a word you are saying.
Typical conversation:
Orange: Hi how may I help you?
Me: Hi, I have a problem with my phone, can I give you my mobile number?
Orange: You want a mobile number?
Me: No I want to give you my number so that you can bring up my account details.
Orange: You want a mobile number? You want me to give you a mobile number?
Me: No. Can you look up my account, I have insurance and was a replacement phone (changing the subject here because they just dont geddit!!)
Orange: You want a mobile number?
Me: ..........................................(Hung up)