My point being that you can at least estimate and project a quantity for a real tangible object... rather difficult to do with hovercars.
To the point... you are more or less saying that the iPhone market will be the same as hovercars... which is zero.
"you are more or less saying" means you are taking my words and changing the meaning.
to the REAL point: projecting sales for an existing cell phone and tablet product line that far into the future would have a margin of error so large that it becomes a guessing game, also known as making things up. that's where the hover car comment came from.
here's a concrete example: what were the analysts projections in late 2006 for the sales figures of the palm treo 27 months into the future? before an unheard of product [iPhone] was announced?
here's another: what were the sales estimates for the iPod in late 2006, BEFORE the iPhone came out and cannibalized those sales? if rumors of a hybrid OSX/iOS touchscreen MacBook come to fruition in any way, shape or form, it will eat away at the iPad sales. if 3G connectivity is added to more devices with facetime and voip, it will eat away at iPhone sales.
here's one more: what if a global double dip recession hits extremely hard - what will that do to piper's estimates? they're made up, major factor of error long range estimates and there are just too many variables to put any faith into them. i'm optimistic and i HOPE it happens, but my mathematical mind won't accept estimates with major margins of error as anything other than a guess at what the future will bring. ooo, hovercars!
I wonder if these estimates are intentionally lowballed. I'll bet apple sells about 100 million iPads in 2012. Maybe 150 million in 2013.
He's probably more in the right ballpark for iPhones, but it still feels a tad low.
In a sense, yes. Analysts admit that they have to be conservative. Their customers (who we aren't) would prefer that to their going overboard. Financial people are always conservative. The few who are not often get in trouble.
"you are more or less saying" means you are taking my words and changing the meaning.
to the REAL point: projecting sales for an existing cell phone and tablet product line that far into the future would have a margin of error so large that it becomes a guessing game, also known as making things up. that's where the hover car comment came from.
here's a concrete example: what were the analysts projections in late 2006 for the sales figures of the palm treo 27 months into the future? before an unheard of product [iPhone] was announced?
here's another: what were the sales estimates for the iPod in late 2006, BEFORE the iPhone came out and cannibalized those sales? if rumors of a hybrid OSX/iOS touchscreen MacBook come to fruition in any way, shape or form, it will eat away at the iPad sales. if 3G connectivity is added to more devices with facetime and voip, it will eat away at iPhone sales.
here's one more: what if a global double dip recession hits extremely hard - what will that do to piper's estimates? they're made up, major factor of error long range estimates and there are just too many variables to put any faith into them. i'm optimistic and i HOPE it happens, but my mathematical mind won't accept estimates with major margins of error as anything other than a guess at what the future will bring. ooo, hovercars!
It's a fucking estimate. Are we all supposed to stop doing everything because the world might end tomorrow. Sure, anything can happen... but if you're in the investment game then you have to estimate, with the highest probability, what may happen in the future. Whether or not these estimates are accurate may be up for debate but the fact that analysts have to do their best to predict the future is a fact of life and therefore not up for debate.
Since you're giving examples I thought I'd give you one:
It's a fucking estimate. Are we all supposed to stop doing everything because the world might end tomorrow. Sure, anything can happen... but if you're in the investment game then you have to estimate, with the highest probability, what may happen in the future. Whether or not these estimates are accurate may be up for debate but the fact that analysts have to do their best to predict the future is a fact of life and therefore not up for debate.
Since you're giving examples I thought I'd give you one:
In a sense, yes. Analysts admit that they have to be conservative. Their customers (who we aren't) would prefer that to their going overboard. Financial people are always conservative. The few who are not often get in trouble.
It's really not at all clear to me who their customers are or how these public statements benefit those customers.
if their customers are wealthy and/or sophisticated investors, then their customers would want *accurate* information, not consistently optimistic or pessimistic information. That's because using short-selling or options, more sophisticated customers can play both ups and downs and should be agnostic between the two.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
If you want all of the info that an investment house has gathered on a company then, yes, you have to pay for the research paper... unless you are one of their high profile customers (ie. high $$$ client) and then, more often than not you get the paper for free... especially if they are trying to get you to invest in that company.
My question: Are these analysts always wrong with their public info or does it just seem that way because of the limited amount of info available to you (ie. conveniently placed in an article of interest to you)?
... and what the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying?
That you would be better off making your argument when a respectable analyst makes a prediction rather than when Gene Muster makes one of his usual science fiction predictions.
That you would be better off making your argument when a respectable analyst makes a prediction rather than when Gene Muster makes one of his usual science fiction predictions.
As I thought... what you said means nothing.
Try reading what I actually said rather than just making things up.
It's really not at all clear to me who their customers are or how these public statements benefit those customers.
if their customers are wealthy and/or sophisticated investors, then their customers would want *accurate* information, not consistently optimistic or pessimistic information. That's because using short-selling or options, more sophisticated customers can play both ups and downs and should be agnostic between the two.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
There is no such thing as accurate information on what is an inherently closed process. The best that can be done is to attempt to estimate results, and update them throughout the quarter. But the business that use this data would, despite what you think, rather have conservative date than data that overestimates. Hard for you to believe, but true.
And one reason you can tell I'm right about this is that all of the companies that we see these analysts working for are making money selling these reports to corporations. If they didn't consider the data and advisements to be of value, these companies wouldn't exist.
In addition, all we see it the small amount of data they release to the public. It's the least of what their reports contain, and the least of interest to those who buy the reports. That's why they can release it.
Comments
Their model has iPhone growth go from 30 percent
estimates would be too low and ASPs would be too hight."
Should be "going"
When an error in an original quote is reproduced, use [sic] but with AI it could well be a transposing error.
My point being that you can at least estimate and project a quantity for a real tangible object... rather difficult to do with hovercars.
To the point... you are more or less saying that the iPhone market will be the same as hovercars... which is zero.
"you are more or less saying" means you are taking my words and changing the meaning.
to the REAL point: projecting sales for an existing cell phone and tablet product line that far into the future would have a margin of error so large that it becomes a guessing game, also known as making things up. that's where the hover car comment came from.
here's a concrete example: what were the analysts projections in late 2006 for the sales figures of the palm treo 27 months into the future? before an unheard of product [iPhone] was announced?
here's another: what were the sales estimates for the iPod in late 2006, BEFORE the iPhone came out and cannibalized those sales? if rumors of a hybrid OSX/iOS touchscreen MacBook come to fruition in any way, shape or form, it will eat away at the iPad sales. if 3G connectivity is added to more devices with facetime and voip, it will eat away at iPhone sales.
here's one more: what if a global double dip recession hits extremely hard - what will that do to piper's estimates? they're made up, major factor of error long range estimates and there are just too many variables to put any faith into them. i'm optimistic and i HOPE it happens, but my mathematical mind won't accept estimates with major margins of error as anything other than a guess at what the future will bring. ooo, hovercars!
I wonder if these estimates are intentionally lowballed. I'll bet apple sells about 100 million iPads in 2012. Maybe 150 million in 2013.
He's probably more in the right ballpark for iPhones, but it still feels a tad low.
In a sense, yes. Analysts admit that they have to be conservative. Their customers (who we aren't) would prefer that to their going overboard. Financial people are always conservative. The few who are not often get in trouble.
"you are more or less saying" means you are taking my words and changing the meaning.
to the REAL point: projecting sales for an existing cell phone and tablet product line that far into the future would have a margin of error so large that it becomes a guessing game, also known as making things up. that's where the hover car comment came from.
here's a concrete example: what were the analysts projections in late 2006 for the sales figures of the palm treo 27 months into the future? before an unheard of product [iPhone] was announced?
here's another: what were the sales estimates for the iPod in late 2006, BEFORE the iPhone came out and cannibalized those sales? if rumors of a hybrid OSX/iOS touchscreen MacBook come to fruition in any way, shape or form, it will eat away at the iPad sales. if 3G connectivity is added to more devices with facetime and voip, it will eat away at iPhone sales.
here's one more: what if a global double dip recession hits extremely hard - what will that do to piper's estimates? they're made up, major factor of error long range estimates and there are just too many variables to put any faith into them. i'm optimistic and i HOPE it happens, but my mathematical mind won't accept estimates with major margins of error as anything other than a guess at what the future will bring. ooo, hovercars!
It's a fucking estimate. Are we all supposed to stop doing everything because the world might end tomorrow. Sure, anything can happen... but if you're in the investment game then you have to estimate, with the highest probability, what may happen in the future. Whether or not these estimates are accurate may be up for debate but the fact that analysts have to do their best to predict the future is a fact of life and therefore not up for debate.
Since you're giving examples I thought I'd give you one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7K72WF20110907
Suggestion... You might as well quit breathing... apparently the world may stop at any moment so what's the use of carrying on.
[on edit: Here's a prediction... iPhone sales for year 2014... over 100 million / production of hovercars... less than 10]
It's a fucking estimate. Are we all supposed to stop doing everything because the world might end tomorrow. Sure, anything can happen... but if you're in the investment game then you have to estimate, with the highest probability, what may happen in the future. Whether or not these estimates are accurate may be up for debate but the fact that analysts have to do their best to predict the future is a fact of life and therefore not up for debate.
Since you're giving examples I thought I'd give you one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7K72WF20110907
Suggestion... You might as well quit breathing... apparently the world may stop at any moment so what's the use of carrying on.
[on edit: Here's a prediction... iPhone sales for year 2014... over 100 million / production of hovercars... less than 10]
And Gene Muster has proven to be an estimator that is not very good. So why do we keep parroting his estimates?
And Gene Muster has proven to be an estimator that is not very good. So why do we keep parroting his estimates?
... and what the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying?
In a sense, yes. Analysts admit that they have to be conservative. Their customers (who we aren't) would prefer that to their going overboard. Financial people are always conservative. The few who are not often get in trouble.
It's really not at all clear to me who their customers are or how these public statements benefit those customers.
if their customers are wealthy and/or sophisticated investors, then their customers would want *accurate* information, not consistently optimistic or pessimistic information. That's because using short-selling or options, more sophisticated customers can play both ups and downs and should be agnostic between the two.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
If you want all of the info that an investment house has gathered on a company then, yes, you have to pay for the research paper... unless you are one of their high profile customers (ie. high $$$ client) and then, more often than not you get the paper for free... especially if they are trying to get you to invest in that company.
My question: Are these analysts always wrong with their public info or does it just seem that way because of the limited amount of info available to you (ie. conveniently placed in an article of interest to you)?
... and what the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying?
That you would be better off making your argument when a respectable analyst makes a prediction rather than when Gene Muster makes one of his usual science fiction predictions.
That you would be better off making your argument when a respectable analyst makes a prediction rather than when Gene Muster makes one of his usual science fiction predictions.
As I thought... what you said means nothing.
Try reading what I actually said rather than just making things up.
It's really not at all clear to me who their customers are or how these public statements benefit those customers.
if their customers are wealthy and/or sophisticated investors, then their customers would want *accurate* information, not consistently optimistic or pessimistic information. That's because using short-selling or options, more sophisticated customers can play both ups and downs and should be agnostic between the two.
But of course, if their customers are wealthy/sophisticated investors, then presumably the analysts would not share with the world their accurate predictions, because they would want to charge their customers for that info. Does that means that there is the publicly released analyst predictions and then some private "real" info that they share with their paying customers?
Or, do analysts only release their predictions for high-profile companies like Apple, as a sort of advertisement for their abilities? And if that's the case, then again, wouldn't their goal be *accuracy* ? Wouldn't being consistently wrong, regardless of direction, be something they'd want to avoid?
It would be great if somebody who actually knows what they're talking about (aka, not me) were to weigh in here.
There is no such thing as accurate information on what is an inherently closed process. The best that can be done is to attempt to estimate results, and update them throughout the quarter. But the business that use this data would, despite what you think, rather have conservative date than data that overestimates. Hard for you to believe, but true.
And one reason you can tell I'm right about this is that all of the companies that we see these analysts working for are making money selling these reports to corporations. If they didn't consider the data and advisements to be of value, these companies wouldn't exist.
In addition, all we see it the small amount of data they release to the public. It's the least of what their reports contain, and the least of interest to those who buy the reports. That's why they can release it.