Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bobster who wrote (12520)	2/23/1998 8:02:00 AM
From: JZGalt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

TMAR for the year 10 analysts, 3 up, 7 down. For this Q, 10 estimates, 0 up, 6 down. Very Bad. I understand what you are saying, but where are you getting detailed information of how many analysts are moving the next quarter numbers? Outside of building your own database from Zack's information, I'm not sure how you do this. There are a number of reasons that I don't care as much about the next quarters numbers. The first is that analysts play games with the next quarter to try to get the number "on the nose" to get brownie points. The second is the company itself may play games with the numbers to beat the analysts estimates. Once you have done some strong FA, revisions momentum can be a useful tool. I'm not saying I ignore the quarterly estimates, but I don't have it as a high factor in my decision making process. Those downgrades would have kept me out of TMAR with the exception that from the conference call, they appeared to have kept boats in drydock for longer and the earnings would be made up on the next cycle. In my book the OBV and the money flow are more important than the quarterly estimate revisions. Just an opinion. Could be I'm wrong. ---- Dave