"Samsung Shares Fall After Quarterly Sales Miss Estimates"
"Samsung Shares Fall After Quarterly Sales Miss Estimates"
That's a tough spin on positive news. Just because the analysts blew their estimates doesn't mean Samsung had a bad quarter. Here is the key quote:
"Sales of 47 trillion won ($41 billion) trailed the 49.8 trillion-won average of 35 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg, overshadowing operating profit that rose to a record."
Samsung is supposed to give the analysts "guidance" to let them make good estimates. So it's a little bit Samsung's fault.
If Samsung was the only source of information, then you would be correctly. But they aren't, and even if they were, investors would make "bets" that were either more optimistic or pessimistic than what later information supported.
Consider the source: people reading Bloomberg probably do want to know what's going on with the share price moreso then a general or tech news source reader where the focus might remain on the raw numbers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-05/samsung-2nd-quarter...
(I'm not sure if sfgate.com edits content they re-publish.)
> A story in Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan illustrates this automatic search for causality. He reports that bond prices initially rose on the day of Saddam Hussein’s capture in his hiding place in Iraq. Investors were apparently seeking safer assets that morning, and the Bloomberg News service flashed this headline: U.S. TREASURIES RISE; HUSSEIN CAPTURE MAY NOT CURB TERRORISM. Half an hour later, bond prices fell back and the revised headline read: U.S. TREASURIES FALL; HUSSEIN CAPTURE BOOSTS ALLURE OF RISKY ASSETS. Obviously, Hussein’s capture was the major event of the day, and because of the way the automatic search for causes shapes our thinking, that event was destined to be the explanation of whatever happened in the market on that day. The two headlines look superficially like explanations of what happened in the market, but a statement that can explain two contradictory outcomes explains nothing at all. In fact, all the headlines do is satisfy our need for coherence: a large event is supposed to have consequences, and consequences need causes to explain them.