WhisperNumber's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/731864/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436711/comments?source=feed#comment-18867861 18867861 Wed, 15 May 2013 16:55:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436711/comments?source=feed#comment-18856201 18856201 "The average price movement through thirty trading days when the company reports earnings is negative (beat the whisper see weakness, miss and see weakness)."
see http://seekingalpha.co...

So you agree that earnings price movement analysis is not valid based on what was stated in the article actually taking place?]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 13:05:48 -0400 "The average price movement through thirty trading days when the company reports earnings is negative (beat the whisper see weakness, miss and see weakness)."
see http://seekingalpha.co...

So you agree that earnings price movement analysis is not valid based on what was stated in the article actually taking place?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436711/comments?source=feed#comment-18856071 18856071 "there are always possible future events and the interpretation of past events to allow a company to move the share price"

Did you just contradict yourself? Or are you saying historical price movement based on whisper numbers is not valid, while historical events and interpretation is valid?]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 13:02:41 -0400 "there are always possible future events and the interpretation of past events to allow a company to move the share price"

Did you just contradict yourself? Or are you saying historical price movement based on whisper numbers is not valid, while historical events and interpretation is valid?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1414441/comments?source=feed#comment-18607361 18607361 Wed, 08 May 2013 22:21:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410461/comments?source=feed#comment-18581911 18581911 Wed, 08 May 2013 12:02:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1368011/comments?source=feed#comment-18128411 18128411 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:07:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1370781/comments?source=feed#comment-18122771 18122771 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:19:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1372561/comments?source=feed#comment-18100761 18100761 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:08:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1370781/comments?source=feed#comment-18099261 18099261
Yes, there is a 50 - 50 chance of the company beating or missing the whisper number, but it clearly states in the article (that thing above with all the words) "Our primary focus is on post earnings price movement." And then the article (again, found above) goes on to look at how the company reacts to beating or missing that whisper number.

So while the number is a part of the presentation, the focus (for most individuals that can read and comprehend a pretty straight forward and simple analysis) is on the price movement when the company does beat or miss that whisper number.

So while it was stated twice (in the article) "The overall average price movement is as expected through thirty trading days when the company reports earnings", it seems you didn't comprehend that.

You may assume that this (beat the number see strength, miss and see weakness) is the case for all companies (you seem to make many assumptions) but its not. You may assume this is the case when a company beats or misses the analysts estimates, but its not.

So for everyone else that read the article, this is pretty apparent.

Then other readers (not you of course) actually look at the price reaction as well (again, in the article above). So they can take a long or short post earnings position based on the beat or miss, then have a price expectation and timeframe for that position.

I hope that the information provided is much more clear now. I was typing slow assuming you can't read very fast...]]> Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:41:35 -0400
Yes, there is a 50 - 50 chance of the company beating or missing the whisper number, but it clearly states in the article (that thing above with all the words) "Our primary focus is on post earnings price movement." And then the article (again, found above) goes on to look at how the company reacts to beating or missing that whisper number.

So while the number is a part of the presentation, the focus (for most individuals that can read and comprehend a pretty straight forward and simple analysis) is on the price movement when the company does beat or miss that whisper number.

So while it was stated twice (in the article) "The overall average price movement is as expected through thirty trading days when the company reports earnings", it seems you didn't comprehend that.

You may assume that this (beat the number see strength, miss and see weakness) is the case for all companies (you seem to make many assumptions) but its not. You may assume this is the case when a company beats or misses the analysts estimates, but its not.

So for everyone else that read the article, this is pretty apparent.

Then other readers (not you of course) actually look at the price reaction as well (again, in the article above). So they can take a long or short post earnings position based on the beat or miss, then have a price expectation and timeframe for that position.

I hope that the information provided is much more clear now. I was typing slow assuming you can't read very fast...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1366431/comments?source=feed#comment-18048701 18048701 Jan 31st open: $67.09
Feb 6th (5th trading day following earnings): $67.18

After hours move: +5.4%
5 day move: +0.1% (our data is wrong, its actually lower)

But glad you came on here, didn't asked any clarification about how the number was calculated, and tried to make yourself look o so smart. Now go see if you can catch any grammatical errors...]]> Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:43:41 -0400 Jan 31st open: $67.09
Feb 6th (5th trading day following earnings): $67.18

After hours move: +5.4%
5 day move: +0.1% (our data is wrong, its actually lower)

But glad you came on here, didn't asked any clarification about how the number was calculated, and tried to make yourself look o so smart. Now go see if you can catch any grammatical errors...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1361831/comments?source=feed#comment-17996281 17996281 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:31:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1361831/comments?source=feed#comment-17988561 17988561
As for the second point, we have heard similar requests primarily from options traders. We haven't taken the step to provide the information yet. ]]> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:56:54 -0400
As for the second point, we have heard similar requests primarily from options traders. We haven't taken the step to provide the information yet. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1361831/comments?source=feed#comment-17987061 17987061
We saw similar comments last quarter when our data indicated a much higher number than the analysts, but AAPL topped those expectations. So again, no agenda here, not 'trying' anything, just presenting data.]]> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:26:29 -0400
We saw similar comments last quarter when our data indicated a much higher number than the analysts, but AAPL topped those expectations. So again, no agenda here, not 'trying' anything, just presenting data.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1361831/comments?source=feed#comment-17984691 17984691 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:42:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1358401/comments?source=feed#comment-17949961 17949961 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:08:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1358351/comments?source=feed#comment-17940631 17940631 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:07:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1349311/comments?source=feed#comment-17869621 17869621 Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:39:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1349311/comments?source=feed#comment-17777511 17777511 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:55:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1345331/comments?source=feed#comment-17701941 17701941 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:58:40 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342931/comments?source=feed#comment-17688911 17688911 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:33:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1342931/comments?source=feed#comment-17675261 17675261 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:12:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17669721 17669721
It's amazing to me that when you agree with the article, its all positive. When you disagree the writer is 'wrong' or not presenting properly.

I'm going to remind you that you started off with "This article doesn't make sense at all."

If you don;t agree with the methodology or data presented, so be it, and move on. No one is forcing you to read our articles.

Here, let me end this for you: You are correct. We are wrong and all our articles contain erroneous, inconclusive, and bias data that should not be read. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will make the necessary adjustments to meet your needs.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:56:03 -0400
It's amazing to me that when you agree with the article, its all positive. When you disagree the writer is 'wrong' or not presenting properly.

I'm going to remind you that you started off with "This article doesn't make sense at all."

If you don;t agree with the methodology or data presented, so be it, and move on. No one is forcing you to read our articles.

Here, let me end this for you: You are correct. We are wrong and all our articles contain erroneous, inconclusive, and bias data that should not be read. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will make the necessary adjustments to meet your needs.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17666791 17666791 "it doesn't serve any purpose besides misleading readers"
"you're unqualified to make any assessment of any kind at all"
"the conclusion of your article to be misleading, biased and untrue"
"you seem to have a complex problem"

So that's what you consider constructive criticism? Do you even read what you write?]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:17:21 -0400 "it doesn't serve any purpose besides misleading readers"
"you're unqualified to make any assessment of any kind at all"
"the conclusion of your article to be misleading, biased and untrue"
"you seem to have a complex problem"

So that's what you consider constructive criticism? Do you even read what you write?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17662151 17662151 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:53:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17653271 17653271
No offense taken, we just don't want you dictating what our articles should provide or do provide. That is misleading to others that bother to read comments.

For whatever reason, you believe a valid article is one that states "Citigroup is a buy because XYZ, while at the same time it is a sell because XYZ". That's fine (for you), but this article is based on one aspect - earnings expectations and price reaction. If you consider eleven years of earnings data insignificant or bias (again, not just the earnings reports that showed negative price movement but ALL earnings reports), than that is your opinion. But it certainly is not bias (let alone nonsensical as you initially stated) in any way.

As for our price expectations, we do look at intra-day price movement - in other words from market open to market close (no after hours or pre-market movement is considered). We could go into great detail about the data, but SeekingAlpha does not allow us to do that as it would appear to be an 'advertisement' versus an actual article of information. So we didn't write the article to support the price movement, the price movement supports the data analysis.]]> Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:57:10 -0400
No offense taken, we just don't want you dictating what our articles should provide or do provide. That is misleading to others that bother to read comments.

For whatever reason, you believe a valid article is one that states "Citigroup is a buy because XYZ, while at the same time it is a sell because XYZ". That's fine (for you), but this article is based on one aspect - earnings expectations and price reaction. If you consider eleven years of earnings data insignificant or bias (again, not just the earnings reports that showed negative price movement but ALL earnings reports), than that is your opinion. But it certainly is not bias (let alone nonsensical as you initially stated) in any way.

As for our price expectations, we do look at intra-day price movement - in other words from market open to market close (no after hours or pre-market movement is considered). We could go into great detail about the data, but SeekingAlpha does not allow us to do that as it would appear to be an 'advertisement' versus an actual article of information. So we didn't write the article to support the price movement, the price movement supports the data analysis.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17648301 17648301 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:30:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1340441/comments?source=feed#comment-17639431 17639431 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:46:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1336171/comments?source=feed#comment-17518531 17518531 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:46:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1333031/comments?source=feed#comment-17477621 17477621 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:30:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1305471/comments?source=feed#comment-16925011 16925011 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:30:30 -0400