Might be a bit of a chill in the air during the Q&AEveryone likes a beat, but when the beat is for more than 250%, the analysts look like mugs.
Financial analysis in the investment industry is like the WWF in that it looks real, but is mostly a well rehearsed act. The analysts don't have time to do the deep dives expected of them, so they rely upon being spoon fed by the CFO's of the companies that they follow.
CFO's want to promise low and deliver high as it makes everyone look good. However, when the analysts are wayyyy off, it begs the question of whether the analysts were misinformed (bad light gets shed on the CFO), or the analyst missed something (bad light gets shed on the high paid analysts that are supposedly sheppharding our investments), or if the analyst is just plain stupid or lazy. Either way, the "game" gets a black eye.
I will be interested to listen to the questions during the call in the morning. Nothing blatant will be said because to do so would be a flagrant foul in the game, but you better believe that there will be some noses out of joint. It will be fun for me to listen to the nuances.
SU has a reputation as a sub-par operator and paid the price for it this past year. Embarassing the analysts is not a good way to make friends on the street when you are on the rebound.
Companies need to resist the urge to "stick it to the the street for punishing us".
I think we can expect a number of analyst upgrades this week, which imo should have come earlier.
I will be particularly interested in what Travis Wood (National Bank) has to say as he reduced his target a couple of weeks ago to $29. At the time, I posted that I thought he probably simply adjusted his input due to the shift of some of the maintenance into Q1 and that he likely didn't have time to check his numbers going forward.
Regardless of my ramblings above, the Q1 numbers were strong and the market should have anticipated them. I continue to ask myself if the share price is being managed.