If Apple routinely beats its conservative guidance, do the analysts take that into consideration when giving their estimates and pump up their numbers accordingly?
Most analysts (those not involved in pump and dump schemes that so many conspiracy theorists see everywhere) want to be seen as reliable. They will use any tool available to them. If I was an analyst I might start by assuming 5-10% over guidance for a company like Apple that has a long history of being over guidance very consistently. However, that is a piss-poor methodology if that is all you have. Apple has been on a roll for several years, but eventually they are bound to slip, misfire, lose their way or lose their mojo.
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and all that...
Most analysts (those not involved in pump and dump schemes that so many conspiracy theorists see everywhere) want to be seen as reliable. They will use any tool available to them. If I was an analyst I might start by assuming 5-10% over guidance for a company like Apple that has a long history of being over guidance very consistently. However, that is a piss-poor methodology if that is all you have. Apple has been on a roll for several years, but eventually they are bound to slip, misfire, lose their way or lose their mojo.
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and all that...
Past performance does not guarantee future results," but it might help predict those results.
Past performance does not guarantee future results," but it might help predict those results.
I thought I made clear that I didn't think it was meaningless. But if you only use past performance for investing you are a fool who wants to give his money away.
I thought I made clear that I didn't think it was meaningless. But if you only use past performance for investing you are a fool who wants to give his money away.
I know. I wasn't presupposing that you thought so. I was just adding to your proclamation.
Comments
Okay, what I don't get is:
If Apple routinely beats its conservative guidance, do the analysts take that into consideration when giving their estimates and pump up their numbers accordingly?
Most analysts (those not involved in pump and dump schemes that so many conspiracy theorists see everywhere) want to be seen as reliable. They will use any tool available to them. If I was an analyst I might start by assuming 5-10% over guidance for a company like Apple that has a long history of being over guidance very consistently. However, that is a piss-poor methodology if that is all you have. Apple has been on a roll for several years, but eventually they are bound to slip, misfire, lose their way or lose their mojo.
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and all that...
Most analysts (those not involved in pump and dump schemes that so many conspiracy theorists see everywhere) want to be seen as reliable. They will use any tool available to them. If I was an analyst I might start by assuming 5-10% over guidance for a company like Apple that has a long history of being over guidance very consistently. However, that is a piss-poor methodology if that is all you have. Apple has been on a roll for several years, but eventually they are bound to slip, misfire, lose their way or lose their mojo.
"Past performance does not guarantee future results" and all that...
Past performance does not guarantee future results," but it might help predict those results.
Past performance does not guarantee future results," but it might help predict those results.
I thought I made clear that I didn't think it was meaningless. But if you only use past performance for investing you are a fool who wants to give his money away.
I thought I made clear that I didn't think it was meaningless. But if you only use past performance for investing you are a fool who wants to give his money away.
I know. I wasn't presupposing that you thought so. I was just adding to your proclamation.
I know. I wasn't presupposing that you thought so. I was just adding to your proclamation.
OK. Then I'm with you!