蘋果分析師是愚蠢還是懶惰
|
????日前，蘋果（Apple）公布最新一季財(cái)報(bào)，業(yè)績未達(dá)到華爾街分析師預(yù)期，公司股價(jià)因此遭受重創(chuàng)，創(chuàng)下四年來單日跌幅最高記錄。然而，令人好奇的是，那些分析師有沒有意識(shí)到，上個(gè)財(cái)季的天數(shù)要比去年同期少了足足一周呢？ ????經(jīng)常看我博客的讀者會(huì)知道，蘋果和許多零售業(yè)公司一樣，容易受到周末銷售的影響。有鑒于此，蘋果對一個(gè)財(cái)季的定義并不是三個(gè)月，而是13個(gè)星期。為了彌補(bǔ)每個(gè)財(cái)年和自然年之間一到兩天的誤差，蘋果每隔五、六年就會(huì)額外增加一個(gè)星期（取決于這期間有多少個(gè)閏年）。因此，時(shí)間較長的財(cái)季天數(shù)要（比平均值）多出7.7%，而時(shí)間較短的財(cái)季，其天數(shù)要（比平均值）少7.1%。 ????這一點(diǎn)看起來顯而易見。然而，30多個(gè)華爾街分析師中，只有寥寥數(shù)人在蘋果公布上財(cái)季財(cái)報(bào)前提到了這點(diǎn)。那些“自動(dòng)忽略”了這個(gè)因素的分析師們自然會(huì)低估時(shí)間較長財(cái)季的營收（例如2012財(cái)年第一財(cái)季），同時(shí)，也會(huì)高估時(shí)間較短財(cái)季的營收（例如2013財(cái)年第一財(cái)季）。 ????這些拿著工資去分析全球最值錢公司的專業(yè)分析師們，難道就沒有意識(shí)到這個(gè)問題對他們的預(yù)測這么重要嗎？ ????碰巧學(xué)術(shù)界對這個(gè)問題并不陌生。去年，《會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)》（Journal of Accounting and Economics）發(fā)表了四位商學(xué)院教授針對這個(gè)問題的一篇論文【《14周的季度》（14-Week Quarters），約翰斯頓等著，2012年2月-4月刊】。 ????四位教授研究了分析師們12年來對658家公司的預(yù)測后發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些沒有提及某財(cái)季多出一周這一點(diǎn)的分析師，預(yù)測的利潤比實(shí)際值高出4.2%，而預(yù)測的營收比實(shí)際值高出4.8%。（見圖表5）。 ????論文最后總結(jié)道，“獲取這樣的信息并不難，而且整合進(jìn)預(yù)測也輕而易舉，所以我們得出的發(fā)現(xiàn)著實(shí)讓人驚訝。對多出的一周進(jìn)行調(diào)整并非什么大費(fèi)周章的事。這足以說明，這些分析師缺少的是努力，而并非能力。” ????這樣的說法已經(jīng)算相當(dāng)客氣了。不過這篇論文的引語——出自《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune ）的一篇文章，作者是我的前同事吉姆?萊德貝特——非常尖銳。 ????“顯然商家們都表示，第四季度銷售額上升是因?yàn)榻衲?1月多出了一周。我想說的是，那些不看日歷，在預(yù)測時(shí)不考慮這個(gè)因素的分析師，他們價(jià)值還不如一個(gè)電子表格軟件。”——吉姆?萊德貝特（《財(cái)富》雜志，2007年12月18日） ????換句話說，他們不是愚蠢，而是懶惰。 ????圖表5見下 ????譯者：項(xiàng)航 |
????One of the mysteries that lingers from Apple's (AAPL) most recent quarterly report -- when the company failed to meet Wall Street's expectations and its stock suffered its worst one-day loss in four years -- was whether the analysts who set those expectations were aware that the quarter was one week shorter than the same quarter a year earlier. ????As my regular readers know, Apple, like many retail firms affected by weekend sales, defines its fiscal quarters not as three months, but as 13-week periods. To compensate for the resulting shortfall of one or two days a year, the company adds an extra week every fifth or sixth year (depending on the number of leap years in between) -- giving it 7.7% more selling days in the long quarters and 7.1% fewer in the short. ????Seems pretty straightforward. Yet of the three dozen Wall Street analysts we polled in advance of last month's earnings report, only a handful mentioned the short quarter. Those who failed to take it into account, of course, would tend to underestimate revenues in the long quarter (i.e. fiscal Q1 2012) and overestimate them in the short (Q1 2013). ????Is it possible that professional analysts paid to study the world's most valuable company were unaware of something so material to their forecasts? ????As it happens, this is a familiar issue in academic circles. Just last year the Journal of Accounting and Economics published an article on the phenomenon by four business school professors ("14-Week Quarters," Johnston et. al, JAE, Feb-Apr 2012). ????The professors studied analysts' forecasts for 658 firms with 14-week quarters and discovered that over a 12-year period the magnitude of error in the estimates of analysts who failed to mention the extra week was 4.2% higher on earnings and 4.8% on revenue. (See Table 5 below). ????"These results are quite surprising in light of the ease with which this information can be obtained and incorporated into expectations," the authors conclude. "The simplicity of making an adjustment for the extra week suggests a lack of effort rather than ability." ????That's putting it politely. The article's epigraph, taken from a Fortune article by my former colleague Jim Ledbetter, is more blunt: ????"Evidently sellers are claiming that the numbers are inflated because there was an extra reporting week in November this year. To which I say: any analyst who didn't look at the calendar and factor that into earnings projections isn't worth the price of the spreadsheet software." -- James Ledbetter (Fortune, Dec. 18, 2007) ????In other words: Not stupid, just lazy. ????Below: Table 5. |
最新文章