Your faith in the credibility of analysts remains charming.
You finally seem to be developing an understanding how the expectations game is displayed.
New investors are often confused by the expectations game and how it is played. To start with, it always comes as a surprise to them that companies work to lower expectations. But you have to ask, why would they not? Why would a company want to make promises it knows are difficult to keep, particularly keeping in mind that they can get sued by disappointed investors? The natural tendency for all companies is to lower expectations as much as practicable so they can meet them, and if possible set up positive earnings surprises. There isn't anything particularly crooked about this, at least for a company like Abercrombie. Lots of companies have a pretty idea of what the future will bring. Nabisco knows how many Oreos they will sell during the holidays, give or take. But a fashion company like Abercrombie doesn't. Predictions they make are completely speculative, another reason why they should be cautious in making them.
that's how the expectations game is played. It's not unique to Abercrombie.
If you had a better understand of politics, you would know why these kinds of surveys are unreliable.
I have never seen the point of the griping. It's a free country and a fairly free message board. If you aren't interested in what someone has to say, don't read his postings. The block feature is available to all also.
IT IS NOT A POLITICAL MESSAGE BOARD.
I would suggest that if politics is discussed on a message board, it is a political message board.
I think what democrats like about Romney is how beatable he was.
The fact that Republicans are beatable has more to do with demographics than many other things. The national electorate is somewhat stacked against Republicans who have won the national popular vote for president only once since 1988. Mitt certainly had his vulnerabilities but so do all candidates, Democrats included. He was the Republican with the best chance in 2012, and IMO would be a stronger candidate than Trump. Personally, I kind of like the guy.
Hillary is a pretty bad candidate, but she is what we have. It's sort of the flip side of electorate coin. As favorable as the demographics are for us in the presidential level, on the state and local levels things are pretty bad and we have been losing election after election resulting in a very shallow bench.,
I don't relish the next four years of investigations but that's preferable to the alternative. Hillary will have no problem filling a cabinet. Trump wouldn't either but at this point Republicans don't want to be associated with his candidacy.
Matter of degree, I suppose. The insurgent taking on the establishment is always going to have problems. But that hardly means that the establishment always wins and the insurgent always loses, as result in the other party have shown. As a candidate, I have always had a lot respect for Romney whose abilities are underestimated. I didn't see any of the Republicans this year as particularly formidable. The problem is that Hillary isn't a very good candidate either.
I don't think any primaries were rigged. I think the system is crafted to benefit those in power, because those in power are in a position to do that. I am not big on second guessing election results, which I view as an indirect way of attacking the legitimacy of our political system. I believe that a principal reason why our system is in the process of failing is that it's legitimacy is under attack and those attacks are succeeding.
"Abercrombie just posted a press release about a customer donation campaign for Children’s Hospital. "
That's a nice thing to do, but I don't think it will make much of difference to investors.