Here's what happens if you rely on machine d

Seeking Alpha headline: “Shopify adjusted loss of -4 cents misses by 30 cents”. Now WE all know that Shopify guided to a larger loss for the quarter than they had, and Zacks has the consensus as -22 cents. Did Seeking Alpha’s computer grab that off another stock? Did it reverse the sign on the consensus estimate? Did it…? We’ll never know.

By the way, Schwab has it right at “Shopify beats by 6 cents, beats on revenues, guides higher”.

They raised annual revenue guidance from 580-620 to 615-630, which is a considerable raise.

They are currently up a slight 1% in pre-market, but they have run up for days already, and may pull back somewhat when the market opens, to rest before the next rise.



Ah, Here’s the correction from Seeking Alpha. I guess a live person checked up on the machine.

CORRECTION: Shopify beats by $0.06, beats on revenue

Business is “wetware,” physics is “hardware,” and Zacks is “crapware.” I make a point of not reading anything they publish.

Denny Schlesinger


And I relied on a recent SA article that had SHOP grossly overvalued so I trimmed, waiting on the pull back as it was advised to buy back. Despite that that hasn’t happened SHOP has managed to move back into my #1 position. So I guess I shouldn’t complain, but there really is too much advice out there. Have to learn to be more selective.

1 Like

A good start to being more selective is to use caution with Seeking Alpha articles. Many of which are Bear spam.
SA authors get paid related to those who view so the idea is to be outrageous enough to attract viewers.
With possibly a few exceptions, why would a great stock picker waste his time writing SA articles when he could be buying and selling stocks , making ten times the money??

You will find a lot more useful information right on this Board. And on a few other MF boards.