Fuzzy Mathematician and I have a friendly wager on the relative performance of CERN and the Dow Industrial Average from April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015. We are 1/2 of the way through our 12 month period (picked non-arbitrarily; quarterly reports are ubiquitous), so let us see where we stand as of October 31st, 2014.
DOW 30 Industrials: UP 4.88%
CERN: UP 23.47%
Difference: CERN is up 18.59% over the DOW for the 6 months since April 30th.
Of course, it's not over until the fat lady sings, but I am liking my prospects for winning this bet. In my analysis of fuzzymathematician's predictions of the past, I don't think I have very much to worry about. Using his sentiment on CERN's future performance as a contrarian play would have reaped great returns over the past several years.
He has been noticeably quiet the past few months. Perhaps that is just another payoff of this bet.
I continued to armchair quarterback Fuzzymathematician's past predictions for Cerner stock performance in order to determine what credibility that he should be given. Previous score: Reality - 1 : Fuzzy - 0.
On the morning of June 28th, 2012, Fuzzy made the following prediction for CERN: "Upside has been played out. Market saturation. Loss of clients to other vendors." The stock opened at $38.59 at the time of that post.
Well, how did things turn out? Well, the stock immediately popped after that, hitting $41.85 just 5 days later. It then trended down for the rest of the year, bottoming out at $33.82 on October 25th, before beginning a long consistent upward trend to the low 60's in February of 2014.
So, I would score this as follows:
Short term: 0
Medium term: 1
Long term: A Big Zero.
Awarding one possible point for each fuzzy prediction, I would score this one as;
Fuzzy: 1/3 Reality: 2/3
Total score so far: Fuzzy: 1/3 Reality 1 2/3
Accuracy is paramount. Thank you.
You are correct, past performance is no guarantee of future results. However, the past is prologue. For the past 11 years, CERN has returned on average 34.17% annually to its investors. That is simply phenomenal and represents a tremendous achievement! Over that same time, short sellers and other nay-sayers have been consistently taken to the cleaners. Consistently.
Could it change? Sure! Will it? Perhaps. But those over the years who have made such warnings have proven to be consistently wrong. Some day....
If the focus is only on CERN's EHR business, (especially domestically), then I can see why negativity may be the sage course. But, I don't think the domestic EHR business will be driving CERN's growth in the future.
You're funny. Didn't you realize that CERN split AGAIN in July of 2013? Do you KNOW how stock splits work? That price of $78.14 on 3/16/12 is adjusted to $39.07 today after that July/2013 stock split.
Are you man enough to admit it when you are wrong? Examining your posts over the past several years, you are so anxious to call others out when you feel they made a mistake. You make them all the time, I've been calling them out. Have you once admitted error? No. Think about it dude. Are you the person you want others to be?
CERN was at almost $80 a share? Do you mean before it split, in which case your point is meaningless? Or, are your numbers faulty, AGAIN? CERN's all time high is $63.07. And being close to $60 now (just 5% away from the high), what's your point?
PLEASE, if you are going to quote numbers, get them right. You look very foolish when you don't. Like you did in 2011 (above).
I thought I would review fuzzymathematician's past guidance on CERN to see what kind of credence I should give him. In a post he made on 3/16/11, when CERN was at $101.07 (2 stock splits ago), fuzzy declared that CERN hitting $125 "ain't happening in the next year." On May 19th, 2011, just a little more than 2 months after that post, CERN's high for the day was $125.91. CERN continued to climb after that, and hit a high a year later of $78.14 on 3/16/12, $156.28 adjusting for the split that occurred in June of 2011.
I would call that a miss. A big miss.
First Round Results: Reality: 1 - Fuzzy: 0
I thought I would review fuzzymathematician's past guidance on CERN to see what kind of credence I should give him. In this post from 3/16/11, when CERN was at $101.07 (2 stock splits ago), fuzzy declared that CERN hitting $125 "ain't happening in the next year." On May 19th, 2011, just a little more than 2 months after his post, CERN's high for the day was $125.91. CERN continued to climb after that, and hit a high a year later of $78.14 on 3/16/12, $156.28 adjusting for the split that occurred in June of 2011.
I would call that a miss. A big miss.
First Round Results: Reality: 1 - Fuzzy: 0
Fuzzy, Boy, am I glad you are NOT my financial advisor. You're batting about 0.000 so far this year.
Fuzzy Mathematician and I have a friendly wager on the relative performance of CERN and the Dow Industrial Average from April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015. We are 1/4 of the way through our 12 month period (picked non-arbitrarily; quarterly reports are ubiquitous), so let us see where we stand:
DOW 30 Industrials: DOWN 0.05%
CERN: UP 7.62%
Difference: CERN is up 7.67% over the DOW for the 3 months since April 30th.
He may be more in tune with the business than I, but he has not demonstrated that he is more in tune with real numbers. Cheerleader? Just because I challenge someone else's unwarranted pessimism? And besides being a consumer of health care, I only have a peripheral involvement in it.
Did that. Which is exactly why you got the same number I did. Why tell me to do what I did already when you agree with my numbers?
I did not suggest that a one day move was demonstrative, you made that up! What's your agenda?
My tone with fuzzy is based on the fact that this is the second time he has given inaccurate info. May 22nd he stated that a couple of days before Cerner was trailing the DOW - UNTRUE. Yesterday he still could not get his numbers right and said that CERN was still trailing the DOW. If you respect accurate info, you'd get on his case, too, instead of shooting the messenger.
Are you two related?
Keeping it real? Fuzzy, again your math is off! With yesterday's spike, CERN is up 3.12% from its close on April 30th, and the DOW is up 2.89% It's the DOW that lags CERN, not vice versa. It's not much (0.23%), but you're way off from the reality. If you keep living in an imaginary world, you'll lose lots of bets.
Where did you go to school? I want to be sure NOT to send my children to the same place.
1. Yes, after spending from May 19 through June 18 at up to 6% higher than the DOW, CERN has fallen back (in real terms as well) by 1.47%.
2. I was wondering if you would do the same as you accused me, of being selective when to post on the price. Thanks for not disappointing! ;-)
For being a mathematician, you certainly are careless with your use of numbers and facts.
A "couple of days ago" the positions were NOT reversed. The Dow 30 closed DOWN 1.25 percent from April 30th, while CERN closed UP 0.12% for the same time period.
Numbers matter, mr. mathematician.
Fuzzy Mathematician and I have a friendly wager on the relative performace of CERN and the Dow Industrial Average from April 30, 2014 to April 30, 2015. So far, so good. Today the DOW is down 0.23%, and CERN is up 0.35% since the close on April 30th. There is a long way to go, but I am liking the trend. As mathematicians, know, the numbers don't lie.
fuzzy, a reasonable post, thank you. I sense a friendly wager possibility. The stock closed at $51.30 yesterday, April 30th. For bragging rights, I'll wager you that in 1 years time, it will be higher. Game?
Unfortunately you can't be consistent in your arguments. If you say that the only thing that matters to investors are stock price and dividends, then why did YOU bring up forward guidance? You can't have it both ways. I feel like I am debating a drunk man. ADD?
And the deflection continues. Go back to this statement you made: "Guess that didn't show up in their forecast for the next couple of quarters, huh?" So, since I showed your statement to be unreasonable, you randomly jump to something else I did not say rather than admitting that your statement was wrong.