I've heard these sort of claims before, coming from financially oriented colleagues. I hate it when they make these kinds of dismissive pronouncements. The worst thing you could ever do is plainly state that a thing is simply too complicated to be worth explaining.
If these arcane statements should be regarded as esoteric hieroglyphics by the uninitiated, at least tell us which one is the sun god?
Seriously, we're all pretty curious types around here, and even when the material is bone dry and stale as Soviet bread, we all enjoy learning. At least I know I do.
After working in finance-related IT for 16 years, I signed up for the Level 1 CFA exam to take it in December of 2009. I've been in IT for 20 years but I thought, "How hard could this be?" I found out. I ended up studying for over 350 hours and was thankfully one of the 33% of people that passed the test when I took it. 67% of people that took the test failed it.
So I ask you - how much of those 350 hours of studying do you think I can squeeze in a Hacker News comment? Do you think you could teach a financial analyst how to analyze Java code in a Hacker News comment? Would you take the time to even try?
(using Python as an example) def function(): This is a "unit" of code which performs an action. raise Exception(): This means something bad happened. ...etc.
droneStrikes is asking for something along these lines. We're not expecting to become experts at financial analysis after reading a paragraph, but we'd at least like to leave more informed than when we arrived.
As an analogy, becoming a commercial pilot requires 1500 hours of flying time and hundreds of additional hours of studying outside of this for exams and checkrides. This is 5 times the amount of preparation you needed for your Level 1 CFA exam. Just about every time there is a crash of a commercial flight, you will hear remarkable insights from these guys that will usually help explain the situation. Here is a great example with a commercial pilot's take on the Asiana crash that killed 2 people at SFO: http://wgnradio.com/2013/07/08/analysis-of-asiana-airlines-f...
I can only hope that the countless hours you've devoted to finance would be able to provide you some insights into something as fundamental as a quarterly earnings report.
Who is more pompous? The people thinking they are intrinsically expert at financial analysis posting here or the person that points out how silly they sound?
Seriously, picture a real financial analyst with no computer background reading your Ruby code and drawing all kinds of nonsensical conclusions from it. You'd probably laugh your head off when they read a comment in the code and thought that it was a functional instruction. That's the type of things developers are doing here with their armchair financial analysis.
Saying "you're wrong" and leaving it at that isn't very helpful and most people will simply ignore the statement.
The same can be said for this- I can look at it as a developer and get a general idea of how Microsoft is doing. I may not know all the intricacies behind it, but that doesn't mean my input should be thrown into the trash.
you gotta try to get better at it.
...with no counterargument, specific instance, or even evidence of their own credentials. I can tell you how silly you sound because I'm a Harvard trained economist, and unless you were also trained at Harvard, you're clearly unqualified to read a MS press release.
No, I can't because I don't follow Microsoft as a stock. The analogy is that while I am able to program in Java, that doesn't mean I'm qualified to evaluate a particular code base written in Java without investing substantial time to research it. The analogy is not perfect of course - since most of the time people writing code aren't purposely trying to obfuscate it like people who write accounting statements are trying to do.
Microsoft presented only a summary level of revenue statement for a quarter indicating both GAAP and non-GAAP adjusted figures and you are telling us you need time to research to make a contribution here even though you've already said others are not qualified to contribute?
By your analogy I will be surprised if I show a 15-line Java Class to a Java programmer and he tells me he needs to research it to make sense of it.
By comparison, Microsoft presented a single Java Class [revenue statement] not a codebase[Financial Report]
by the way: so far you haven't made any contribution to the discussion even though others have asked you nicely to.
My opinion? Microsoft is expanding revenue but losing it's core business slowly. I think they'll look pretty good for the next couple of years until viable competitors to Office come along. All these other sources of revenue are contingent upon their traction in enterprise, something that's unlikely to change in the short or medium term but when it does will very unpleasant for them.
I don't think this will happen so soon. OO still looks&feels like from 90-ies, has only basic functionality, and MS Office's data formats are sufficiently complex (and probably also intermingled with implementation details) that I don't see a 100%-compatible importer being developed anytime soon.
Otherwise, your comment sounds suspiciously like conversational terrorism, specifically the first item on this list:
As an actual CFA charterholder, I can tell you any analyst I work with would have laughed out loud at someone bragging about passing level 1. It means you have roughly an undergrad level understanding of finance.
Can you tell me what IT certification tests you have passed? You may have missed the fact that I've been in IT for 20 years, remain in IT and will always be in IT.
I'm sure a native Spanish speaker wouldn't be too impressed with my ability to speak Spanish either. But I would hope they would have more class than to "laugh out loud" at a native English speaker putting forth significant effort at learning their language.
What do you think about the importance of this announcement, given your training?