On 11/8/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How devoid of facts was the Bloomberg article?
"first half net income beat the company's forecast on higher-than-expected sales of digital cameras, led by more profitable single-lens reflex models." That's a fact. "The stock climbed 8.5 percent to 565 yen as of 2:32 p.m. in Tokyo, compared with a 0.3 percent advance on the Nikkei 225 Stock Average" That's a fact. "Our digital cameras are selling well, especially the high- margin digital SLR," That's a fact. "Net income was 1.09 billion yen ($9.3 million) in the six months ended Sept. 30, the company said today in a statement to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, compared with the Oct. 20 forecast for 900 million yen and a 330 million yen loss a year earlier." Yet again, more facts. "The company also raised its forecast for annual net income to 3.3 billion yen from the previous estimate of 3.1 billion yen and 805 million yen a year earlier." Okay, that's not a fact. That's a forecast. Am I missing something, Tom? There's pretty much nothing but facts in there. Except for a (very clearly labelled) forecast. Perhaps what you're looking for is analysis, explanation, authority. But without those things, the facts are what they are. Like all facts, they may be proven wrong with better and other evidence. But, absent such contrary evidence, they are what they are, IMHO. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
