Jump to content


Just how flawed are Wall Street’s BlackBerry store checks?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 +V-Tech


    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,078 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 05
  • Location:
  • OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 28 May 2013 - 16:02

Posted Image

Obviously, estimating smartphone sales volumes is fiendishly difficult. BlackBerry beat the Wall Street consensus on BlackBerry 10 device shipments by 100% in the February quarter. Most hedge funds have long suspected that most “store check” research reports are crude hoodoo, particularly outside the United States. But now former London hedge fund analyst Michael Collins has published a very detailed piece on just how dreadful the quality of even top-tier Wall Street store checks can be. The target here is Brian Modoff, the telecom analyst at Deutsche Bank, and this is a particularly relevant smack-down because we are talking about a leading brokerage.

In his piece, Michael Collins brings up a number of points, but two very blunt lines of questioning about Deutsche Bank’s store checks are pivotal.

  • Why did Modoff’s team conduct half of their U.K. store checks at the Everything Everywhere chain… before the BlackBerry Q10 was even widely available at this retailer? Did his team not realize that it’s dicey to do store checks during the preorder stage?
  • Why didn’t Modoff do store checks at Carphone Warehouse or Phones4u — arguably the most important consumer points of sale for smartphones in the U.K.? Why do checks at O2 stores, but not at Vodafone, which is traditionally BlackBerry’s strongest partner in the U.K.?
Store checks have long been one of the wobbliest parts of sell-side research on Wall Street. It’s interesting to see a British ex-buy side client finally give a detailed critique about the practice.


#2 Mr Nom Nom's

Mr Nom Nom's

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,875 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 11
  • OS: OS X 10.10.3
  • Phone: iPhone 6 128GB

Posted 28 May 2013 - 16:41

Wow, analysts once again shown up as being 'full of it' - who would have thunk it. How many more times do these analysts have to be so spectacularly wrong before people just stop paying for their inaccurate speculation that is no better than some of the posts put forward on tech enthusiasts website forums?

#3 Growled


    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 29 May 2013 - 14:26

This is why I take analysts with a grain of salt.