(20-10-2014, 10:45 PM)sgpunter Wrote: Yes I agree with GFG.
Personally, I have seen many statements that "play safe" and downplay expectations.
Agree, a common version seen is "mgmt remains cautiously optimistic" and you wonder why bother even making that statement. Should the weight be on "cautious" or "optimistic"?
On another related note, it makes sense to look at mgmt's track record in making such statements.
For CDW, I noticed the following as I scrummaged through past records:
Q1 2010 - "cautiously optimistic about prospects"; EPS Q1 = 0.16
Q2 2010 - "cautiously optimistic about prospects"; EPS Q2 = 0.20
Q3 2010 - "remains optimistic about its future prospect, but believes that the business momentum will remain flat"; EPS Q3 = 0.13
Q4 2010 - "we are cautiously optimistic"; EPS Q4 = 0.20
Q1 2011 - no opinion on prospects provided; EPS Q1 = 0.20
Q2 2011 - "cautiously optimistic about prospects"; EPS Q2 = 0.28
Q3 2011 - "cautiously optimistic about prospects"; EPS Q3 = 0.33
Q4 2011 - "remain cautiously optimistic"; EPS Q4 = 0.12
Q1 2012 - no opinion on prospects provided; Loss per share Q1 = -0.05
Q2 2012 - "remains optimistic towards the Group’s operation and performance for 2012" ; EPS Q2 = 0.77
Q3 2012 - "remains optimistic"; EPS Q3 = 0.99
Q4 2012 - "cautious outlook going into FY2013"; EPS Q4 = 0.69
Q1 2013 - "remains optimistic"; EPS Q1 = 0.61
Q2 2013 - no opinion on prospects provided; EPS Q2 = 0.43
Q3 2013 - no opinion on prospects provided; EPS Q3 = 0.74
Q4 2013 - "outlook is necessarily cautious"; EPS Q4 = 0.62
Q1 2014 - "remains optimistic"; EPS Q1 = 0.30
Q2 2014 - "remains optimistic"; EPS Q2 = 0.37
So what can we learn from above?
(1) CDW mgmt has been fairly consistent in their disclosure, in fact, leaning towards being more conservative than aggressive. Good. They certainly belong to the "cautiously optimistic" category.
(2) CDW mgmt's views are a pretty poor predictor of subsequent period EPS. So, don't read too much into it, haa!