Jeffrey Bash: okay. That could be good learning/advice. Looking at earnings predictions as a range, not point estimate. Mathematically combining each range provided by each analyst to get an overall deviation from the average estimate. (maybe even ignoring autocorrelation -- which others might not know is a big word for: them analysts sometimes do have a tendency to stick together in their projections -g-) People can maybe get this range from ZACKs?? I don't know - I don't do this -- because I figure it this way:
1. Analysts are good at predicting prices for most stocks. (Just go with me on this,)
2. The stocks I buy are always the stocks that analysts are not good at predicting prices for. (Just go with me on this too.)
3. Therefore, if I rely on any analyst predictions, I will hurt myself.
4. Consequently I do not rely on any analysts' predictions of future earnings numbers. Not ever. I also try not to look at ACE numbers. This is hard for me because I'm just a little curious too and want some affirmation that my pick is a good one.
Now as an example, take APM (please -g-). Haven't a clue what earnings will be next year -- down sharply I guess from all the disk drive problems. But in year '99 or '00, I figure these problems will be behind them, and profits, earnings and stock price will all be higher. Didn't and don't need to know analyst earnings projections to determine buy, hold, or sell. Considering APM risk/reward, price/value... if I knew Latin, I'd say "the thing speaks for itself" (IMO). And now I need to get back to my egg industry review -g-. Paul
|
