|Open letter to CNBC
|I have sent this letter to CNBC...Folks should read it and if you agree take heed.
I am writing this letter As I am extremely perturbed by what I consider to be continuous manipulation when reporting earnings, by your reporting team. They consistently, in my opinion, taint their reporting when they announce corporate earnings. I hope this is not a concerted effort, but it sure appears to be so, on the part of your firm to manipulate public sediment and/or to pump the various stocks and indexes.
I consistently hear, when watching your show, from your reporting team, that Company "X" has meet and/or beat analysis´s expectations¡Kwhen they are reporting the various company´s earnings. They conveniently, do not disclose that the firms that are reporting about only meet and/or beat revised earnings, nor do the state how much the earnings have been revised downward and/or upward during the quarter.
To not report the whole story is reprehensible, it is the worst type of yellow journalism. It gives investors, who have come to rely on your firm for accurate information; tainted information which may if acted upon, without further due diligence cause them financial harm.
In, case you do not fully understand what I mean, I give the following example:
This afternoon, one Ms. Bartiromo stated (correctly) that Sun Microsystems beats analysis´s expectations. And she explained that things are looking up and the outlook is getting better. Now where, in during report did I hear that, the expectations for SUNW have been lowered many times during this quarter. nor did she explain the earnings, all she did was give the impression to all watching that this firm is doing great as they beat the earnings expectation.
Now as Paul Harvey would here is the rest of the story:
„« Sun Microsystems did beat its revised per-share earnings target by one penny.
„« Net income fell 43 percent and while revenue grew 2 percent. (This is an area where your firm should have taken the opportunity to do some real reporting and use it´s so called expertise to help inform the public about the significance of these numbers)
„« Sun Microsystems reported third-quarter net income of $263 million, or 8 cents a share, compared with $464 million, during the same quarter last year. (Never did your firm mention that this is a HUGE sequential quarter over quarter decline, Never did your reporter state that these earnings were 5-cents less this quarter/quarter)
„« Of the Analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial the average consensus had been reduced to¡Kexpected earnings of 7 cents a share, with revenue of approximate $4.45 billion. Actual revenue was $4.1 billion compared with $4.01 billion during the same quarter last year.
„« During this reporting period Analysts surveyed by First Call/Thomson Financial had reduced the average consensus from 17 cents a share to 7 cents a share. (This was never mentioned)
„« The reporter keyed in on a quote from Chief Financial Officer Michael Lehman "We expect to report slight sequential revenue growth in Q4´´ of the current fiscal year he said, referring to a quarter-on-quarter gain." She acted and appeared to be very impressed by this information. (Never did she explain what this statement truly meant, or what it could mean ).
A more accurate report would have stated that Sun Microsystems Inc. barely beat consensus analyst profit forecasts in its third fiscal quarter, and that sales missed the lowered target., and that Sun had predicted on February 22 that it would earn 7-9 cents per share on a 10-13 percent rise in sales, and that said ranges were 50% below Wall Street´s expectations.
The report should have reflected the following:
That the sales at SUNW, which had previously scaled back its targets in February, rose 2 percent to $4.10 billion from $4.0 billion last year, while operating earnings were $263 million, or 8 cents per share after $464 million, or 14 cents in the quarter a year ago.
There was no mention by Ms. Bartiromo of the following quotes at all as, in my opinion these did not paint the picture that I believe your firm is attempting to paint¡Kthat things are all rosy, and that the markets should only be focusing on the perceived good. This is in my humble opinion a sham, and an illegal act. It is a blatant attempt to mislead the public.
Michael Lehman, Sun´s chief financial officer and executive vice president, said: ``Our results reflected the sharp decline in capital spending in the information technology sector, principally in the United States, although we did see some moderation of demand in Europe and Asia Pacific,´´ and he followed by saying ``Going forward, we will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that Sun retains its competitive advantage over the long run. At the same time, we will focus on the appropriate trade-offs in order to align our cost structure with our revenue growth expectations.´´
I await your response as to why this type of reporting is being done.
[Endret 21.04.01 12:08 av Castello]
|jøss, håper du legger ut svaret....
|dette er vel ikke noe nytt. CNBC har null cred hos proffe investorer. de kan vel lure retail-markedet enda en stund, og lede lemen-investorene enda nærmere stupet, men det er kun spm. om (kort) tid før CNBC blir åpent avslørt som fordekt reklame-TV for pusherne og katipaleliten på Wall Street.
|På den annen side så vet jo de som følger med at estimatene er blitt nedjustert over hele linja...
|Bra, Costello, men det burde vært lest korrektur. En god del grammatiske feil skjemmer dessverre.
[Endret 21.04.01 12:38 av Gnisten]
|Er det ikke noe som kalles "research" da ? eller er vi fortsatt omgitt av kamikaze investorer ?
Her om dagen la Microsoft ut regnskapstallene. Beating estimates. Bildet var med en gang klart for de fleste, tror jeg.
Ser ikke kritkken her.
Synes du har en del gode poeng i ditt innlegg, men må erklære meg noe uenig i graden av kritikk.
Rett nok kan enkelte innlegg være ensidig fokusert, og noe mangelfulle i sine opplysninger. Disse må imidlertid sees i sammenheng med en rekke andre diskusjoner og reportasjer fra andre reportere.
Dersom en følger markedet Cnbc's sendinger over tid, vil en se at mange av opplysningene du etterlyser allerede være presentert før, eller de blir gjennomgått i mer detalj av personer som Steve Frank.
Følgende må en enkelt reportasje som i Sun's tilfelle bare rapporterer hovednyheten om at de slår anslagene sees som en oppsummering av hvordan markedet møter disse tallene ut i fra den informasjon og de forventninger som allerede er
Man kan selvsagt argumentere at "hele historien" skal fortelles hver gang man rapporterer slike tall. Imidlertid bruker dette å komme frem i kryssdekkende reportasjer før eller etter rapportering av et "headline number".
Synes ellers at Cnbc's dekning av av markedene til tross for en del mangler, som regel er brukbar og nyttig som EN informasjonskilde for bedømming av amerikanske aksjer.
Ellers må man jo huske på at vi snakker om amerikanere!
Hva kan vi forvente.... :-)
|Enig med larsenlarsen at den som følger markedet tett vet meget vel at estimater er blitt nedjustert heftig de siste måneder.
Castello mener vel ikke at CNBC skal kjøre siste 18 måneders selskapshistorikk for hver kvartalsfremleggelse ?
|Var ikke topplinjen til SUN relativt dårlig ?
[Endret 21.04.01 20:53 av Tyren]