Recent Earnings Strength Tied to International Exposure [View article]
UNSURPRISING
I can't say this information is surprising, especially considering it's what everyone's been saying since we started worrying about an economic slowdown.
But your chart is anything but conclusive. Theoretically, the companies with less than 50% exposure to the US should have beat earnings more than those companies in the 50-60% range. The fact that they haven't says that there is something else at work here. And what's going on with the 90-99% group?
MISLEADING CHART
If you used even ranges of 10% then you're grouping at the high end should be 91-100%. By doing JUST 100% you aren't representing the data properly. I know why you did it, but it isn't correct.
Recent Earnings Strength Tied to International Exposure [View article]
My point was: by using inconsistent groupings of the data (1%, 10%, and 50%) you are not accurately representing the data.
Furthermore, your trend line has one data point below, and six data points above.
I would be curious to see what the data looks like when it is accurately presented.
Recent Earnings Strength Tied to International Exposure [View article]
I can't say this information is surprising, especially considering it's what everyone's been saying since we started worrying about an economic slowdown.
But your chart is anything but conclusive. Theoretically, the companies with less than 50% exposure to the US should have beat earnings more than those companies in the 50-60% range. The fact that they haven't says that there is something else at work here. And what's going on with the 90-99% group?
MISLEADING CHART
If you used even ranges of 10% then you're grouping at the high end should be 91-100%. By doing JUST 100% you aren't representing the data properly. I know why you did it, but it isn't correct.
On top of that, you should not use the