I always thought that weather forecasters had it made with no consequences for being wrong, while pulling in a decent salary. Analysts have them beat to hell, but why must the analysts try and make such outlandish statements? He could have said under $55 and not looked like such a complete idiot.
I thought the same about Bernard Lewis, how come he still has his job after he predicted and drummed up his theory of an apocalypse last year?
Predicting oil at "under $55" isn't very bold and if he were right, it's not likely to get him much recognition. His prediction was bold and was probably a PR move -- if he turned out to be right, he would certainly have gotten press and maybe an offer to run some big energy hedge fund and what not. That's the secret to making public predictions: make sure they are outlandish and go against what others say. Even if you are wrong 4 out of 5 times, you can make bank if you are right just once
I guess the hiring process is just as idiotic then, if they view a 20% success ratio as hiring material. And I thought baseball players had low performance expectations.
" Predicting oil at "under $55" isn't very bold and if he were right, it's not likely to get him much recognition. His prediction was bold and was probably a PR move -- if he turned out to be right, he would certainly have gotten press and maybe an offer to run some big energy hedge fund and what not. That's the secret to making public predictions: make sure they are outlandish and go against what others say. Even if you are wrong 4 out of 5 times, you can make bank if you are right just once" you cant get away with something like this in the oil market imo... unless you are iran or something, imo.