Isn't it about time that people in the financial media stop giving respect to the "estimates" guessing game? It's bad enough when applied to quarterly earnings, but becomes absolutely ridiculous applied to monthly sales reports.
Isn't it obvious that what matters is the change from the comparable period (or the monthly number as part of a pattern of monthly numbers for that company) or how the sales report in itself or as part of a pattern compares to that of peers, not even beginning to consider the relative impact of markdowns on the sales numbers and their implications for earnings, not what analysts estimate, with something like a 15% accuracy record.
It is mindboggling that reviews of analyst ratings (most based on predicted earnings changes) over the last several years have found that the most rewarding buys are those earmarked "sell" by the analysts, the net best returns come from recommended "holds," and the worst from recommended "buys."
This same skill when applied to same store sales finds that the list above comes close enough to the reported comp to be considered accurate in predicting the number (whatever that number is worth in isolation) for by my reckoning six (JWN, TJX, LTD, BJ, FDO and FRED), or 15%, of the 40 companies for which estimates were made.
I've followed specialty retail, especially apparel, sporting goods and variety, closely for the last nine years, and since whenever this "estimating" disease took hold this kind of whistling-oin-the-wind inaccuracy has been the norm.
I just don't get it.
But this reference to variation from a "consensus" estimate is now a virtually standard reference in the lead of earnings or comp-sales related news stories throughout the financial media.
And it is meaningless in relation to a company's prospects.
To me it seems to be merely a fast shuffle creating more trading commissions and profits for brokers and trading firms.
August Same-Store Sales Roundup [View article]
Isn't it obvious that what matters is the change from the comparable period (or the monthly number as part of a pattern of monthly numbers for that company) or how the sales report in itself or as part of a pattern compares to that of peers, not even beginning to consider the relative impact of markdowns on the sales numbers and their implications for earnings, not what analysts estimate, with something like a 15% accuracy record.
It is mindboggling that reviews of analyst ratings (most based on predicted earnings changes) over the last several years have found
that the most rewarding buys are those earmarked "sell" by the analysts, the net best returns come from recommended "holds," and the worst from recommended "buys."
This same skill when applied to same store sales finds that the list above comes close enough to the reported comp to be considered accurate in predicting the number (whatever that number is worth in isolation) for by my reckoning six (JWN, TJX, LTD, BJ, FDO and FRED), or 15%, of the 40 companies for which estimates were made.
I've followed specialty retail, especially apparel, sporting goods and variety, closely for the last nine years, and since whenever this "estimating" disease took hold this kind of whistling-oin-the-wind inaccuracy has been the norm.
I just don't get it.
But this reference to variation from a "consensus" estimate is now a virtually standard reference in the lead of earnings or comp-sales related news stories throughout the financial media.
And it is meaningless in relation to a company's prospects.
To me it seems to be merely a fast shuffle creating more trading commissions and profits for brokers and trading firms.