 |
abattia
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 985 |
02-14-12 10:09 PM
Quote from bonds:
... Does that seem fishy to anyone else or is it just me?...
Us Europeans, we're a fishy bunch...
Young kids in Spain don't go to bed until 10 - 11pm ... so why are you so surprised if the Greek PM is making newsworthy press releases at 11 pm...
"I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore..."
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
bc1
Registered: Oct 2011
Posts: 194 |
02-14-12 10:59 PM
Quote from abattia:
Us Europeans, we're a fishy bunch...
Young kids in Spain don't go to bed until 10 - 11pm ... so why are you so surprised if the Greek PM is making newsworthy press releases at 11 pm...
"I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore..."
Even the cycler is in bed before this. Maybe I missed and its Pakistan, not Europe. Probably a paky.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
bc1
Registered: Oct 2011
Posts: 194 |
02-15-12 01:56 AM
Quote from abattia:
Us Europeans, we're a fishy bunch...
Young kids in Spain don't go to bed until 10 - 11pm ... so why are you so surprised if the Greek PM is making newsworthy press releases at 11 pm...
"I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore..."
Go Jayhawks!!!
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
chaykapwr
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 564 |
02-15-12 02:32 AM
Quote from Nine_Ender:
It was a severely underpriced stock. So it had to correct up. This is not unusual, I've seen similar moves in companies like IBM in the past. Express the AAPL move as a pct and its nothing extraordinary really after a boffo earnings report.
This is something people trading indexes have to understand. The best blue chip companies have NEVER been healthier as corporations. If the indexes are to go lower, there has to be an even bigger negative catalyst. And when I see even Citibank posting an earnings beat, I don't know where any downside leadership can come from.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...ns%20gs%202.jpg
3. The percentage of firms beating consensus EPS expectations by more than one standard deviation (our definition of a positive surprise) is well below the historical average. The number of firms missing by more than one standard deviation is above the historical average. The ten year historical average of beat and misses equals 41% and 13%, respectively. So far this quarter just 24% of firms beat expectations and 17% have missed.
4. On an aggregate basis, reported results represent a 3% upside EPS surprise for the quarter ($0.45 per share). However, estimates for firms yet to report fell by 2% resulting in 0.9% change to S&P 500 4Q EPS. The median surprise over the past ten years has been 1.6%.
5. The Information Technology sector contributed nearly all of the S&P 500 upside EPS surprise ($0.43 of $0.45 total). Industrials and Financials contributed about 40% and 30%, respectively, or $0.18 and $0.14. Energy surprises have been negative, lowering the index aggregate by $0.26.
6. Individual companies matter. AAPL represents 18% and 26% of the Information Technology sectors market cap and expected 4Q 2011 earnings, respectively. The Information Technology sector should grow earnings by 21% year/year, but by just 5% excluding AAPL. Apple is likely to be the top contributor to S&P 500 EPS for this quarter. 4Q 2011 will represent the first time since 2003 that Exxon (XOM) is not the top S&P 500 EPS contributor.
7. Since the start of earnings season, bottom-up consensus full-year 2012 estimates have declined by 0.5% to $106. Our top-down forecast remains $100. Revisions are largest in Materials (-3.5%), Energy (-2.5%), and Financials (-2.3%). Information Technology revisions have increased by 3% and Industrials revisions have been flat.
Credit: Goldman Sachs
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
Nine_Ender
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 1129 |
02-15-12 05:24 AM
Quote from chaykapwr:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...ns%20gs%202.jpg
3. The percentage of firms beating consensus EPS expectations by more than one standard deviation (our definition of a positive surprise) is well below the historical average. The number of firms missing by more than one standard deviation is above the historical average. The ten year historical average of beat and misses equals 41% and 13%, respectively. So far this quarter just 24% of firms beat expectations and 17% have missed.
4. On an aggregate basis, reported results represent a 3% upside EPS surprise for the quarter ($0.45 per share). However, estimates for firms yet to report fell by 2% resulting in 0.9% change to S&P 500 4Q EPS. The median surprise over the past ten years has been 1.6%.
5. The Information Technology sector contributed nearly all of the S&P 500 upside EPS surprise ($0.43 of $0.45 total). Industrials and Financials contributed about 40% and 30%, respectively, or $0.18 and $0.14. Energy surprises have been negative, lowering the index aggregate by $0.26.
6. Individual companies matter. AAPL represents 18% and 26% of the Information Technology sectors market cap and expected 4Q 2011 earnings, respectively. The Information Technology sector should grow earnings by 21% year/year, but by just 5% excluding AAPL. Apple is likely to be the top contributor to S&P 500 EPS for this quarter. 4Q 2011 will represent the first time since 2003 that Exxon (XOM) is not the top S&P 500 EPS contributor.
7. Since the start of earnings season, bottom-up consensus full-year 2012 estimates have declined by 0.5% to $106. Our top-down forecast remains $100. Revisions are largest in Materials (-3.5%), Energy (-2.5%), and Financials (-2.3%). Information Technology revisions have increased by 3% and Industrials revisions have been flat.
Credit: Goldman Sachs
Zerohedge seems to be a really bad site for analysis; the negative bias they have is atrocious. The numbers you have presented may not be wrong per say but they are slanted to encourage unsound conclusions. Its funny math really.
Trade what you feel. Myself, I was pretty clear that I thought AAPL and IBM earnings numbers were game changers short term.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
chaykapwr
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 564 |
02-15-12 05:50 AM
Quote from Nine_Ender:
Zerohedge seems to be a really bad site for analysis; the negative bias they have is atrocious. The numbers you have presented may not be wrong per say but they are slanted to encourage unsound conclusions. Its funny math really.
Trade what you feel. Myself, I was pretty clear that I thought AAPL and IBM earnings numbers were game changers short term.
none of those numbers are from Zerohedge, they are Goldman's numbers that Zerohedge presented. I am not talking about their conclusions...i am just presenting the facts that Goldman found.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete Quote Complain |
| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|
