Mike, I think your comment is insightful. Someone who knows very little about the market (say, me in July) would take the fact that a major brokerage firm upgraded a stock at face value. The fact that the CEO did not state that his company was doing well means that the scriptwriter did not think that was important, and supports the contention of this thread, that price and value no longer have any meaningful relationship.
What disturbs me, though, is the assumption implicit in your comment, that an analyst would upgrade a stock without reference to value. I know that's what you think, you have said it often enough, but I don't think I, personally, can gather all the data and reach my own conclusion reliably. I can obtain historical data from the SEC filings, and I can make an educated guess about the future, but sitting down and crunching numbers on, say, the number of future sales of Viagra or Vioxx in Japan in 1999 vs. 1998 is just too much. Analyzing each segment of an industry is a full-time job for someone with better training, better resources, and more ability than I have. Am I wimping out to try to suss out who is good at analysis and rely on him/her at least for the numbers?
CobaltBlue |
