Alex, I haven't picked up Barron's yet this week, but something tells me that either I just read an Alan Abelson column or that his style of "sssh folks, we have an expert here who knows the real skinny" malarky is dragging the rest of the publication further down that it has already fallen (disclaimer: I actually find Abelson amusing, just not that informative <g>).
The clues?
fresh reading (i.e. "here's the real skinny folks")
firm with a remarkable record of predicting major turns in chip demand (i.e. "these are no Johnny come lately's...no siree...so pay attention)
a proprietary econometric model of the chip and equipment industries, using a set of 30 economic indicators (i.e. "he's not just pulling things out of his keester...and besides how could anyone with a proprierty econometric model, all pretty intense stuff mind you, using that many variables not be a serious fellow?")
sells his research to chip manufacturers, equipment companies, distributors, investors and others with a keen interest in the status of integrated circuit demand (i.e. "notice, the folks in the business take him seriously...hint, hint")
I'm sure the guy actually is a serious fellow attempting to do good research. But why do the writers in Barron's always go out of their way to "authenticate" their experts? Isn't it a given that the people they cite will be credible or all have similar background profiles?
Good trading,
Tom |
