KeyBanc maintains a lack of clarity of thought
by Horace Dediu
Is this intentionally unintelligible?
From a note to KeyBanc clients that landed on my desktop Monday.
"We remain SW AAPL. Our KFLD shows Indexed Spending +37% m/m, which is above the three-year average of +12% m/m, and +11% y/y vs. +4% y/y in Feb. We think the inflection was likely driven by products launched in March. Our broad checks suggest demand remains strong and builds are increasing, and we are adjusting our estimates. We expect F2Q results in line with consensus, and F3Q guidance above, though with AAPL trading in line with its 3-year averages and a wide spread to the Nasdaq/S&P 500, we view AAPL as fairly valued."
Source: Philip Elmer‑DeWitt
NB: Fuller description on Philip Elmer-Dewitt's Apple …
…3.0, with a take on the analyst but I would add that anybody who writes so cryptically and obfuscates any points should not be taken seriously. The paragraph I quoted cannot be parsed and is written with complete disregard for clarity.
The methodology used is carrier survey but it's unclear how relevant this is to any thesis on Apple beyond one product in one region for one quarter. The lack of contemplation or reflection on a thesis suggests this is a pass.
1 comment
deemery ·
Horace asks, "Is this intentionally unintelligible?"
I'd say, "You know the answer. Anyone reading PED30 knows the large number of incoherent postings on Apple that produces clicks for the hosting website, but not insight for the target audience."
To me the real question is "Why do companies value clicks over content? Why is there no corporate accountability for the 'bovine effluent' their analysts produce, year after year? And why don't business schools look at this trend of commentary that is not driven by what (I presume) they teach?" In what's supposed to be a data-driven MBA staffed environment, why doesn't anyone measure, or at least qualitatively assess, business journalism?