Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 171.54

+0.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (8536)	3/14/2001 9:37:33 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) of 196577

Dennis, << I don't take these forecasts as gospel and a wish others didn't >> You have made a most important point. Forecasting one year is hard enough, but beyond 2 years is crystal ball gazing at best, and one heck of a lot can happen in a 5 year span. This is dramatized by one of the early slides in Dr. Jacobs recent presentation at the 2001 analysts meeting where he shows forecasts for handset sales from EMC, Micrologic Research, and Cahners In-Stat. They vary widely, and Micrologics are way out of whack, relative to the others. EMC (and sister company ARC) always forecast very conservatively. Strategis is conservative as is Gartner Dataquest. Cahners is always comparatively aggressive. I commented on the wide variance in handset forecasts between Cahners and Strategis last year to Slacker. Micrologics and Strategy Analytics are two firms I am not familiar with at all. We tend to see summary data and press release summaries from expensive reports published by these companies. The devil, however, is in the details that we don't see. The "details" explain the trends and assumptions that go into their projections, and without access to that detail it is difficult to account for the variances from the summary data and conclusions of one report vs. another. << their findings have to be taken with a large grain of salt. >> I agree. Useful, but none should be taken stand alone, and without trying to understand their assumptions, methodologies, and bias (if any). As was pointed out in the link you reference "Mulligan warns to beware of analysts who don't disclose their methodologies." - Eric -

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next