Talk:Whisper number

Delete proposal

The definition of whisper number can be found on investopedia, freedictionary.com, investorwords.com, encarta.msn.com, and more. This is a financial term, and the definition and information provided is perhaps the most extensive found on the net. It should not be deleted for these reasons.

To the two annonymous editors editing this article

For a start I have no knowledge of this subject what-so-ever (I was simply surfing recent changes and got dragged into this) However it seems somehow I've become part of this and from what I can see user:24.182.143.16 is certainly pushing some kind of agenda with EarningsWhispers advertising. Could the user please explain why they are doing this? I'll revert it for now but I'm not being drawn into an edit war over an article I don't know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent452 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agent452,

To make sure I am as thorough as possible I’m going to explain my additions to the page and then address 69.69.74.108’s comments. Hopefully I successfully state my position clearly.

First, you state that my revisions appear to be advertising for EarningsWhispers.com and I can see how you get to that. But really it is just because I’m including commentary about EarningsWhispers.com for the first time. If you review the discussion of the page you will see that it was originally created by WhisperNumber.com and, I would conclude, as an effort to advertise their site. However, there are really only two sites that provide whisper numbers so it is in their best interest to make sure their competitor’s site is not mentioned in a discussion of whisper numbers. In an effort to even things out, I’ve added commentary about EarningsWhispers.com.

Now, the original page (or at least the one before I made any changes) had three major themes: 1) is that whisper numbers are either expectations that are spread among professional traders or gathered from individual investors, 2) they can be useful trading tools, and 3) whisper numbers on WhisperNumber.com can be manipulated because they come from individual investors’ posts on their website rather than from a professional source so you can’t always trust whisper numbers.

Therefore, when I made my additions, I naturally included references to EarningsWhispers.com because the differences between the two sites address items 1 and 2. Including EarningsWhispers.com is important to the discussion because it addresses the difference between gathering estimates from individual investors or professionals and, consequently, whether whisper numbers can be trusted. EarningsWhispers.com gets expectations from analysts rather than individual investors, thus the numbers are not likely to be manipulated. As a result, they are shown to be more accurate than consensus estimates, are likely to be the true expectations of professional traders, and only then can they be trusted to be a useful trading tool.

Before I address 69.69.74.108’s comments, let me first say that I did not remove or change any commentary from any previous post. Furthermore, every single item I posted included a valid reference from a leading financial publication such as Bloomberg News, Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal, or a published book.

Ok, so now 69.69.74.108 claims I vandalized the page (rather than his deletions and vulgar comments) and first said “According to Alexa.com and Compete.com, EarningsWhispers.com is the source most commonly used” NO SOURCE. Alexa.com and Compete.com are the source. If you want I can link directly to the traffic pages for http://siteanalytics.compete.com/earningswhispers.com+whispernumber.com/?metric=uv which shows that EarningsWhispers.com had five times as many unique users to its website in December.

69.69.74.108 then said: “On the other hand, EarningsWhispers.com gets its whispered expectations from the analysts following the company and regularly cites the analysts, by name, for the projection. Therefore, EarningsWhispers.com]'s numbers are not susceptible to manipulation and are more likely to get the true expectations of institutional traders and that are spread among trading desks." NO SOURCE, NO PROOF. Don't take one idiots word over another....its all about sourcing, right?

However, in the latest version I posted, I did reference a Wall Street Journal article from 2000 that is appropriately titled “Consider the Source When Evaluating 'Whisper Estimates' on the Internet” that has an interview with a professional analyst stating he has given expectations to EarningsWhispers.com.

So, to summarize, it is understandable that WhisperNumber.com doesn’t want a discussion or even a reference to EarningsWhispers.com because, as 69.69.74.108 said in his comments to you, it affects his livelihood. But every single addition I made to the page was supported by a very credible reference.

Therefore, I ask that you please add back my additions to the whisper number article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To Agent, EW from 69.69.74.108:

Compete.com states: "We have little data for earningswhispers.com, so these are rough estimates. "

So this is not fact, just 'estimates'. This is not an article about whisper number companies, but about whisper numbers. If compete.com had insight into 'whisper numbers', this reference might be acceptable. It doesn't, and it's an estimate.

And if its deemed acceptable then my adding that whispernumber's visitors stay longer than visitors on earningswhispers is acceptable, yes? - see how far we can get from the article title?

The comment: "EarningsWhispers.com gets expectations from analysts rather than individual investors, thus the numbers are not likely to be manipulated." At the very least, the second half of that statement is still an opinion, not fact.

"I did reference a Wall Street Journal article from 2000 that is appropriately titled Consider the Source When Evaluating 'Whisper Estimates' on the Internet that has an interview with a professional analyst stating he has given expectations to EarningsWhispers.com."

So I can reference any 'hidden' source that I need a paid subscription to get to see? How does anyone know unless they have a paid subscription? Are there ANY current public sources that validate the claim that they receive data from analysts?

You also manipulated an actual referenced quote and added earningswhispers: "Several web sites such as EarningsWhispers.com, WhisperNumber.com and GetWhispers.com report whisper numbers. "

Look at the referenced link which has the public article and is as follows: "Two of the oldest such sites are WhisperNumber.com and GetWhispers.com. GetWhispers is currently not available as it's in the process of setting up a paid subscription format."

So its ok by your standards to add earningswhispers.com in there because....it fits your agenda? You won't win that one on Wiki.

"If you review the discussion of the page you will see that it was originally created by WhisperNumber.com and, I would conclude, as an effort to advertise their site."

Yes, absolutely, no arguement here. BUT look at the original revisions - this was finalized, changed, edited, and approved by EDITORS here on Wikipedia. I disagreed with all of it - thus you see my request to kill it. What remained was after a very long back and forth, much like the one here. Trust me, no one wins...

Look, add what you want about earningswhispers, but go through the same pain i did by being forced to cite actual articles you can prove exist and are open to the public without modifying or adding your own opinion.

And then I'll be back with even more public sources refuting everything you say. Kind of waste of both our time, eh Shannon? 69.69.74.108 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

69.69.74.108, I suggest you first add the references of the what you have already posted where it says [citation needed]. You have posted countless information without supprting it with any kind of reference. There seems to be little support for anything you've posted, but yet I had a reference for every single item added. Furthermore, many references on Wikipedia don't have links of any kind, so that fact that most of the references I posted are actually on the Internet I believe is a plus and they contain facts that benefit the readers of Wikipedia - especially since I'm sure anyone that actually uses a whisper number probably already pays for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal and probably Barron's too. Finally, the topic might be "Whisper Number", but if you read the original article it is nearly entirely about whisper number companies and whether their data can be trusted. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the readers of Wikipedia that the facts I've posted be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. It is a fact that Alexa.com and Compete.com (and Quantcast.com for that matter) say more people use EarningsWhispers.com than any other whisper number site. So, you can debate the quality of the source, but you can't argue that they say it. Just like you can't argue that Barron's said EarningsWhispers.com is the best of the whisper number sites or that the Wall Street Journal independently confirmed that EarningsWhispers.com gets their data from analysts rather than from individual investors. These are all facts, whether 69.69.74.108 likes it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just got a message saying this issue is outstanding...I thought I made it clear that I was withdrawing...I know nothing about whisper numbers or all these different sites, I have no interest in the stock markets and anything to do with them, I have very little knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and really I'm not even in a position of power in Wikipedia. However, it's my opinion that the site SHOULD be mentioned however statements like "x site is the best" is certainly not NPOV and if you can find sources to back up what you're saying (but NOT things that say it's the best or its better than x site" that are free and accessible as per the relevant policy it should be added.

However if this issue truly has no way of getting resolved I think one of you needs to put in a RfC and see what more experienced editors have to say about it. Agent452 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Agent452, I've added back my comments but removed the part about Barron's calling EarningsWhispers.com the best of the group and I've also removed the reference about more people using EarningsWhispers.com. I also removed GetWhispers.com since it doesn't really exist and just used the Barron's article for the reference to whisper number sites (which doesn't mention GetWhispers.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill this article please

Please kill this subject - I started it, I now realize that it was a mistake. It should not be listed in any format.

I ignored the recent stories in regard to wikipedia. Having been personally treated unfairly by the media in past I gave this site a chance. But my recent experience has shown me that there is a great deal of truth to those stories.

I provided clear and succinct information on the topic. I happen to be an expert on the topic having founded the first internet company involving the collection and publication of whisper numbers. And over the past eight years have immersed myself in the business and the relevant information pertaining to the subject. But your format clearly has no place for expertise in given topics - there appears to be plenty of space, however, for 'armchair experts' in the category relying on outdated and misinformed 'internet media references'.

There is no verification of sources, and you've listed information that is outdated and known to be incorrect. But you are taking for face value that 'if it's in print, and sourced on the interent, it must be correct'. You've now created a topic that is confusing and misleading, yet all of your admin appear to agree that 'its now a great article'.

Can I ask based on what?

The best quote I've found on your business is simple: 'You've (once again) created noise, not knowledge'.

John

In my opinion, you created an article that was a thinly veiled advertisement for your site. Your site is still on there, but it is no longer the focus of the article. You are welcome to provide your expertise to improve this (any any other) article, and provide up to date sources if the ones in the article are outdated. However, you aren't welcome to blank the article.

While I will concede that you may be an expert is whisper numbers, I doubt that you are the only expert. --Syrthiss 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Syrthiss,

But isn't that the point of your site? If and when any other experts visit they can enhance upon the existing article? Instead I see non-experts degrading the article by citing unfounded and outdated information. Referring to a non-existent site (getwhispers.com, which you pointed out to Uncle G) even though cited in one of the sources sends users to a pop up haven. That's not informative, that's careless.

And I did not believe this to be an article on 'Learning How to Invest and Use Financial Data'. By quoting specific information from these referenced articles (ie: "Dunnan advises caution in dealing with such sites; a thorough check of how they gather their data, because some sites tally the opinions of individual investors rather than of professional traders etc....") has now delved and opened the door into the websites - one of which is whispernumber.com. Uncle G has brought the sites to the forefront and I should have the right to correct any misinformation that was printed about my site 5 years ago, or any changes my site has made since then. (And if picking and choosing quotes from news articles are allowed, which appears to be the crux of this article, I would suspect any I provide will not be removed.)

My original data was very similar to that found on investopdedia.com, and it focused on whisper numbers. Uncle G has now made an article that focuses on the websites. If website information is an acceptable subject, as you all seem to agree, then will I be allowed to start an article titled WhisperNumber.com? I see articles on other companies, would I be excluded from doing so?

John

I agree this is a hard problem. Certainly if information there is incorrect about your company, and your company is one of the major sources of whisper numbers, then it should be corrected. Can you provide verifyable sources that support more recent information other than yourself? I know this seems circuitous, but let me explain:

If this article was about a famous person, and there was a sentence in it that said "Joe Bloe was convicted of murder in Jan 2004" we would expect that sentence could be backed up with court records and newspaper articles. If Joe Bloe disputed the facts, he shouldn't come and remove that sentence himself...but he could cite sources to show that it was Joe Bløe not Joe Bloe, or sue the newspaper for a retraction and cite the retraction.

So, what we come down to is verifiability. I don't mind neutral information about your company being added to the whisper number article, but it *has* to be backed up by something.

On the other matter, there are guidelines for what corporations should be included here. If you can support those guidelines with verifiable sources regarding Whispernumber.com, then it is likely that an article solely about your company would survive community review. If you find an article on another company that doesn't meet the guidelines, then you should recommend that article for review at AfD (or ask someone else to do it). That way Wikipedia becomes stronger.

Please realize that me and the other editors are working here in good faith. We aren't out to get you, or keep your company down, or anything of the sort. --Syrthiss 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Syrthiss, I am writing you specifically because you've been the most reasonable and actually reply in context. I believe you understand my points, and I do not believe you are out to get anyone. But I think you would agree that my points are valid in regard to the function of your site.

My experiences so far have not been positive - information that is relevant (imo) has been removed, and irrelevant information been added (and in the case of the referrence to the site that no longer exists, the data has yet to be corrected by the Uncle G or anyone else.)

I've also avoided all media interviews over the past few years as my company has been misrepresented time and time again as to what we do and how we do it. Your firm is going thru that now - is everything written about you from every media outlet 100% factual? I would think not. It gets frustrating to be represented one way and bunched in with less reputable firms while you conduct business a completely different way - with integrity, validity, and method. (There simply is no mystery in the data (whisper numbers) that we provide - its available free to the public and we've been quite transparent since day 1 on our methodology. Other sites have not.)

I will make changes per your guidelines but I believe they too will be removed although I will use the current accepted article as my reference. Since Uncle G brought in the extensive references to websites, I will maintain that direction using sources. I would appreciate your oversite on this particular article and revisions.

John

Uncle G,

It appears you are now in a pissing contest and just being pig headed - just an opinion of course. Are you studying journalism in school? You would make a great journalist - just the facts as you want them known.

Can I ask how your reversion of the changes I made were proper? How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999? (When I was growing up I was taught in school that the Earth's core was made of 'molten lava' instead of solid iron. Would you consider the older source more accurate in describing the structure of the Earth? It appears so.)

How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers? (I can provide a few more fly by night firms that supposedly provided whispers and no longer if you think it would help.)

How is leaving in the quote "because some sites tally the opinions of individual investors rather than of professional traders" helping your readers? Do you have sources that say whisper numbers from investors are less accurate than those of pro traders? You would find the opposite if you did your homework. How is one source from 1999 attacking the quality assurance processes of WhisperNumber.com ("the possibility for whisper numbers to be manipulated") considered factual and let alone relevant to the topic?

It is obvious that you want nothing but negativity to dominate this entry. My last revisions were succinct, clear, and focused. I am asking that you do the right thing and remove yourself from editing this article further as you have lost focus on the topic, and I am asking other admins to review my last revision and this one to determine the best data for your viewers.

John

Syrthiss referred you to our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy above. I refer you to it again. When it comes to "presenting the facts as you want them known", bear in mind that it is you who is insisting that your company's definition of a "whisper number" is the correct and current definition, and editing the article to label all other definitions as erroneous, "so-called", or "historical", without backing that up with anything other than your own say-so. The reference to GetWhispers.com is in the original source as an example, as is the reference to your company. And it should be blindingly obvious why the reason that Dunnan gives, for her recommendation to thoroughly check data gathering metholodogies, belongs next to that very recommendation. Uncle G 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G,

I did not present my definition - I presented a properly sourced investopedia definition - you found that not proper and removed it (see my Dec 15th edits), replacing it with a source from 1999.

And I will ask again (although you have proven you ignore reasonable questions, do not respond, and only wait for me to make changes before you address issues, thus continuing this endless cycle):

How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999? (When I was growing up I was taught in school that the Earth's core was made of 'molten lava' instead of solid iron. Would you consider the older source more accurate in describing the structure of the Earth? It appears so.)

How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers? (I can provide a few more fly by night firms that supposedly provided whispers and no longer exist if you think it would help.)

There is no need to reference any company (especially if it can hurt your readers) along side the 'recommendation to thoroughly check data gathering metholodogies'. It is why I removed the reference to any company and but maintained the 'check data' quote.

And why is the article from Dunnan (from 1999) the primary, or initial, or opening reference - can a more recent reference (ie the investopedia reference 2005) be the primary, initial, or opening reference? If not why not?

Whisper123 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G, Instead of me making changes and then you changing them back, how about answering my questions from five days ago so I have some guidance as to what is acceptable and not? Or is it your personal mission to continue this pathetic cycle? Whisper123 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, anyone care to address my questions before I make changes? 69.34.89.51 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• They've already been answered once. Read the answer again. Uncle G 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not seeing it then Uncle G, help me understand or see what you see. Where are the answers to the following:

1) Why is the article from Dunnan (from 1999) the primary, or initial, or opening reference?

2)Can a more recent reference (ie the investopedia reference 2005) be the primary, initial, or opening reference? If not why not?

3) How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers?

4) How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999?

I'll check back in two weeks for your response. Whisper123 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that John from WhisperNumber.com doesn't like that people can post information on Wikipedia about his site because they are not experts on "whisper numbers" but his whole site is based on the idea of non-experts (the individual investor vs. the experts - paid, certified analysts) posting earnings expectations? Then he criticizes Wikipedia for its innacuracy but then wants you to invest your money based on his information or, better yet, wants you to pay them a subscription fee to get their full data. I don't know about anyone else, but I call that being a hypocrite. Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia". No one losses money using Wikipedia. The biggest downside risk is you fail an exam or look stupid at a cocktail party. But five non-experts (or "individual investors") post a number on his website an you are supposed to risk thousands of dollars in the stock. Yeah, good luck.

69.19.14.29 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)JS

Isn't it funny that 69.19.14.29 has been banned from Wikipedia for consistent vandalism? Perhaps too many failed exams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.74.108 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the article from all editing for two days since there seems to be warring over the content of the page. Please try to discuss your disputes to gain consensus. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello FlyGuy649: I just posted this on my talk page to editor Shoy and will repeat here for you as well to hopefully moves things forward in a reasonable manner: The main point is that the changes made as of Nov 2007 are not valid per Wiki policy yet no editor has taken the time to review, or is willing to commit the time to review. An anonymous editor came in on Nov '07, made changes that included opinion and non sourced edits, and they were allowed. When these edits were reverted the 'war' started. This article is a mess and should be re-written. I would like to take on that task if allowed, but would like to have the oversite of an admin or editor willing to to do so that this 'unknown' and 'impersonator' do not disrupt an attempt to rectify this issue and article. I've asked three other editors for help but have been ignored (including an original editor UncleG - look at his talk page for help.) Would be more than happy to have your help. Whisper1234 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy649, I will try to resolve the issues in the talk page. However, I can assure you that this guy, Whisper1234, will not compromise and instead, every documented fact that goes against his agenda he will either try to remove on his on repeatedly or will claim it is not referenced with valid sources. For example, these are the facts in the article that he does not like:

Fact #1) Barron’s discusses only two whisper number sites.

Fact #2) The Wall Street Journal says one gets estimates from visitors to their site and says the other gets estimates from analysts. In addition, they called an analyst and asked him if he gave information to the later site and he said yes.

Fact #3) There have been multiple published articles about manipulation of whisper numbers gathered from individual investors on a website. These were discussed on the Whisper Number page several years ago and the updated version simply posts a full reference to the issue.

Fact #4) Bloomberg News found one source to be more accurate than consensus estimates but did not find the other’s numbers to be as accurate.

So Whisper1234 wants to have a discussion of whisper numbers, but he doesn’t want these documented facts to be included in the discussion. Furthermore, he would rather not have any reference to one of the sites if it includes any of this information, which is why two years ago he tried to get the whole page removed once an editor started including information other than what met his agenda.

There probably needs to be an admin in charge of editing the page, but if you want it to be a fair and fully informative discussion of the facts, based on the research of leading financial publications, then you cannot allow Whisper1234 to make changes to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we both agree that an admin/editor is required to move forward. I've asked more than three editors here to step up and accept. Any one ready to commit? Second, wikipedia is all about open editing as long as the rules are followed. I do not think that the request to not allow me to make changes is reasonable. I may be wrong, but would like input from the admin/editor. Third, I would like input on source validity - this talk board lists a number of rules already stated that may need to be reviewed again or updated. I would also hope, as requested in an earlier post, that more recent references are considered more valid as they are 'current'. Again, would like admin/editor input. I believe that the article as is or even reverted to recent edits is a mess - does not make sense, does not flow, is choppy, uses mixed references, and these are the issues I would like to clean up and address. Again, would look for admin/editor input. I would also like to get back to the actual subject - whisper numbers. While the companies that provide them will be mentioned, they have now become the primary aspect of the article. I'm not sure this should be a full page article of obscure references about the providing companies. To me this is like an article on swimming pools, and spending 99% of the article on the thousands of installers. A simple mention of "there are currently two active companies that provide whisper numbers", and list the sites and perhaps a very simple description and open source of how they collect the whispers. Beyond that the focus is back on the companies. Again, would defer to admin/editor.

I will address one of the issues mentioned by (now) wnwatch: yes, I did want the article removed because I did not understand the rules of this site nor did I have an understanding of how the site actually worked. I do believe I have a much better understanding at this point and will be able to work within the guidelines. Whisper1234 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first I would say that I at least provided sources. Best I can tell you have not provided a single source for anything you've said, so I don't see how you can complain about the quality of my sources... especially when they come from the leading financial publication in the U.S.

Second, I'm sure if you want to change the entire content of the Whisper Number page you are still going to need to discuss the source of whisper numbers and there we are going to continue to disagree and still brings about the differences between the two companies. It is the general consensus of the investing world that a whisper number is an estimate spread among professional traders and is whispered to them from analysts (though many believe the original source is the company itself that whispers the number to an analyst). These numbers were around long before the Internet was used by traders and investors, but because someone wants to poll invidivual investors on the Internet they 1) claim that is a whisper number and 2) claim it has the same validity as a whisper number.

Sentiment data is often a very useful tool for traders and investors, especially as a contrarian indicator, but it is not a whisper number and the fact that earnings sentiment is now being called a whisper number merely bastardizes the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And as long as you want to bring in and post your opinion, which is causing this whole issue, (and you continue to prove it with statements like "It is the general consensus of the investing world that a whisper number is an estimate spread among professional traders and is whispered to them from analysts"), this goes back and forth, which is why i will not address your other statements, and would like an admin/editor to catch you up on the wiki rules of editing. No personal opinion or convictions allowed. And whether we disagree or not is really not the issue here - its posting of fact not opinion, and I offered a solution to what seems to be causing you so much problem: "A simple mention of "there are currently two active companies that provide whisper numbers", and list the sites and perhaps a very simple description and open source of how they collect the whispers." I find that reasonable but again, will leave that to a wiki admin/editor.

And since you're so big on valid sourcing, then you would probably want to add the following from Forbes in regards to how earningswhisper.com REALLY gets it data:

"Earningswhispers.com call analysts on Wall Street and ask them to share their whispers, according to cofounder Shannon Puls. He insists about half of the analysts they call are willing to share their unofficial forecasts....In the end, the whisper number is a "judgment call" determined by Puls himself, a former accountant with KPMG." Here is the open and public link: http://www.forbes.com/business/2000/01/28/mu3.html

Its a valid source, right? Why didn't you include that reference? Is that the actual truth that you want on there too? Obviously not a lie, right? You have the power to end this...cause its only gonna get worse. Whisper1234 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean that there is an article that says half of all the analysts out there are willing to give their unoffical estimates to earningswhispers.com and there is an editor that ultimately has to decide which ones are valid... and you think that is a bad thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

oh, and that judgement call is made by a certified financial professional with experience at a big four accounting firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

and that article points out that earningswhispers.com's numbers are more accurate than whispernumber.com's numbers and whispernumber.com's numbers can be manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding opinion vs fact about the source of whisper numbers, all this week we've heard CNBC talk about Apple's whisper number. They never once mentioned a poll of internet users (and they do a lot of polls on their website) but instead they talked about the analysts' whisper number. I guess the financial media just got it all wrong once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it...all these obscure (not to mention outdated) media references do is hurt both companies, and obviously that's your goal here. So you are now admitting that Shannon Puls makes up the number on his site...so its not from analysts as you've been arguing this whole time? So its not a whisper from analysts, its a whisper from one person...opens up the question whether or not this person 'manipulates' the numbers for his own gain here...hmm, sounds even more fishy than a number from "just five individuals" doesn't it? again, you have the power here to end this. Whisper1234 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are manipulating the content of an article to prove an invalid point. There are multiple numbers out there and there has to be a judgement call when it comes to just one. For example, in their article before Apple's earnings release they mentioned some of the analysts that had provided expectations and said they though they had heard some secondhand expectations that were higher than theirs, they were on the high-end of the analysts whispered expectations. That was their judgement call, but they also explained it in detail. Considering Apple blew away the consensus estimate (and whispernumber.com's number), but missed earningswhispers.com's whisper number, and the stock got killed, I'd say they accurately provided the market's true expectation and the number expected by the institutional and professional traders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great stuff. Too bad you can't support the content of a referenced valid article like the one from from Forbes with all that 'back up' info here on Wiki. All a user gets to see is that Shannon Puls makes up his own number, nothing more, nothing less. Are you getting it yet?

And good point about the company missing the whisper and the stock getting killed, but you only have references that earningswhispers is a more 'accurate' number, you can't say that earningswhispers numbers have more influence on stock movement, because there is no source for that, so that point would be removed for lack of reference on wiki. Now, whispernumber.com on the other hand has an independent, published, academic study of its data proving that it has influence on stock movement (again, i know you like those valid refernces: http://www.financialdecisionsonline.org/current/Zaima.pdf),. This would be a good addition to the article that you couldn't challenge, right?

Hey, one more thing, thanks for bringing up CNBC. Funny though, how in Maria Bartiromo's book 'Use the News: How to Separate the Noise from the Investment Nuggets and Make Money in Any Economy', (page 97) she states "You can check the latest whisper numbers at www.whispernumber.com". Hmmm, no mention of getting the data from earningswhispers. Do you have a valid link to what you say CNBC said?

Ok, so we've learned one person makes up the number at earningswhispers, whispernumber data is proven more influential, and the money honey herself thought whispernumber was worth mentioning in her book Use the News. Did I miss anything? These could all be added too, what do you think?

power is in your hands.... Whisper1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, there is no mention of earningswhispers.com in her book, which is probably why she said "at websites like whispernumber.com, however, anyone who logs on to the site can contribute a number" WNWatch (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus for Apple was $1.62. Whispernumber.com's number was $1.62. EarningsWhispers.com's number was $1.85. Apple reported $1.76. Look at the stock price. Which was more influential?!?!?!?!

and that report also says that whispernumber.com's numbers were not as accurate as consensus estimates and, unfortunately, there is no comparison between stock price reactions and any other whisper site so we don't know how much better or worse other sites would do, but I think Apple tells a lot. WNWatch (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, all your points become invalid here on wiki when you start in with your opinion ("which is probably why...", "i think..."). and please don't change a factual reference, the exact quote on page 97 of maria's book states "You can check the latest whisper numbers at www.whispernumber.com". you are once again changing exact statements, and using opinion. hopefully the wiki editors will be able to help you. obviously i can't help. Whisper1234 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we include complete references for earningswhispers.com and whispernumber.com from Forbes and that will settle that issue. WNWatch (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

so you think hurting both companies is better than maintaining neutrality?? Again, i think you are missing the point here, and it all gets away from the topic. Whisper1234 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I could kick myself for spending this much time of the subject and I promise I’m not going to “war” with you anymore. I believe a whisper number is the expectation that is provided to trading desks from analysts and these spread among the firms top traders and investors. Any discussion that is different from this does a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia and I’m going to have issues with it.

Also, I’m completely fine with removing all references to any website. However, I think it is a joke to call either website “influential”. Apple’s stock didn’t sell off because earningswhispers.com posted $1.85 per share. The stock sold off because trading desks at tier 1 firms were expecting $1.85 and earningswhispers.com just happened to be a reporter of that. I’m sure visitors to a website sometimes get the true expectation, but I also believe it is just simply wrong to tell people that the market was expecting $1.62 from Apple because some people went to a website and posted it. Hopefully none of the visitors to whispernumber.com bought the stock in after hours trading thinking the company beat expectations. Primarily, I think people that own stock in Apple lowballed the estimate hoping they could keep expectations low. But the simple fact is individual investors don’t move stock prices, especially in companies like Apple. They don’t have enough money. It takes hedge funds and institutional traders to move a stock and I’m sure they weren’t even aware that some people posted an estimate of $1.62 per share. So, if there is going to be a discussion of the whisper number sites, I believe it is inappropriate to claim they both provide real whisper numbers. And, in fact, nearly every reference to both sites say the same things: whispernumber.com gets numbers from visitors and these can be manipulated and earningswhispers.com gets numbers from analysts.

I know you characterize the Forbes article to say that earningswhispers.com makes numbers up, but if that is the case, then let’s just use the complete quote for both sites because the article clearly says whispernumber.com’s numbers can be manipulated and I don’t think a reasonable person reading the quote about earningswhispers.com will come to the same conclusion as you have.

Now, I know that I’ve used phrases in this discussion with you like “which is probably why” and “I think”, but this is my discussion with you, not the page itself, so I think it is fair for me to state my opinion. So please don’t disqualify this because I didn’t site any sources on this occasion, as you are prone to do. But, I didn’t change Maria’s quote. It was a direct quote from page 187 of “Use the News” by Maria Bartiromo.

By the way, since I mentioned it is inappropriate to suggest an online poll is the market’s expectation, I should also mention that I believe it is inappropriate for a website to sum together the returns of overlapping trades and claim that as their total return… but that is a little off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNWatch (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I offered the peace pipe in my email to you, it was rejected. I told you it would get ugly and be a waste of our time. This is pretty much what I expected.

I believe a whisper number is the expectation that is provided by individual investors and these spread among the firms top traders and investors. Do I believe analysts are actually whispering to a website a better number than that provided to their own clients or to Thomson, etc.? No.

I don't beleive the references to the websites need to be removed - but its either both are included, or both are removed. I would rather that we control what is said about either site (in a neutral fashion) rather than some outsider that has no clue about the topic.

I don't think the word influential should be in there either - while I do beleive that the independent study does provide proof that the data from whispernumber can be used in a fashion to determine stock movement, it has no place here - it was added as i was initially told that "only referenced information" can be used. At that time anything and everything that could be referenced was thrown in. It does no service to the article or reader.

The 'manipulation' issue has no place here either. It was mentioned in a few articles and it was an unsubstantiated claim. There are other articles (from media that actually investigated our methodology) and found our safeguards to be more than adequate in that respect. Manipulation has many meanings and I think this board opened up an aspect of your data that does not need to be addressed any longer. If the quotes from a six or seven year old article take precedence over more recent information than we have an issue. The forbes article shoudl have no place here as both of us would then have to add additional information to clarify what we do - that starts everything all over again.

And c'mon, the last dig about overlapping returns...your just trying to start a new fight all together...there is additional information we have as well on your products and results that are questionable (direct from ex clients.)

I'm going to put a rough draft together in regard to a new article. I will post it here for your review and changes. And then perhaps that can be posted in place of the existing article. Whisper1234 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy649's comments

I will help you both improve the article. I am not online every day, so this may take some time. I have to familiarize myself with the article's history and read the considerable comments that have been added. Remember that the goal is to produce an article that is verifiable with reliable sources and is presented from a neutral point-of-view. It shouldn't include original research or opinion. I may extend the page protection for a couple of days to allow me time to get acquainted with things. Remember that although I am an administrator, I'm still a Wikipedia user/editor just like everyone else... except that I can use a couple of extra tools. I have pretty close to zero idea of what a Whisper number is and I have no vested interest in the article. I have done a bit of editing with User:Uncle G a while back, but I don't recall on which article. Other than that, I don't believe I have had any involvement with any of the editors involved in this dispute, aside from my block on User:Whisper12345 (which I have removed so he/she can request a name change) and my protection of the article.

A couple of things:

1. Thread your comments using colons to indent your responses appropriately per WP:TALK
2. Be civil at all times
3. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have extended page protection until February 1, 2008. This is intended to give me and the editors involved time to try to work through things. This is not an endorsement of the current state of the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FlyGuy, appreciated. Once you get through our little talk tantrum above (WNwatch was whisper12345), you'll see we have come to what appears to be a consensus. I know WNwatch has a similar background and knowledge of the subject as I do, the difference being we offer separate way of arriving at the data. That aside, I offered to post a new, up to current, relevant article here first for his (and now your) review. It will be a sourced, clean, neutral, and relevant draft for us to at least review and piece to start with. Whisper1234 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not starting this informal mediation, but my real life has placed large demands on my time. I will have time tomorrow evening local time (early January 31 UTC) to start things going. As well, since I am involved here, I will no longer use my administrative tools with respect to this page. Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok here's my take on what the article should look like (i've placed the references in brackets for now):

START

According to Investopedia, a Forbes Media Company (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp) a whisper number as follows:

1. Traditionally, the unofficial and unpublished earnings per share (EPS) forecasts that circulate among professionals on Wall Street. In this context, whisper numbers were generally reserved for the favored (wealthy) clients of a brokerage.

2. A company's forecasted future earnings or revenues according to the collective expectations of individual investors. In this sense, a whisper number would be compiled by a website polling its visitors. Individuals come up with a whisper number using their own analyses of company financials, market trends, gut feel, etc.

Whisper numbers are especially useful when they differ from the consensus forecast. They can be used as a tool to help spot (or avoid) an earnings surprise (or disappointment). (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp)

There are two firms that publish a whisper number and make their findings available to the public:

Earningswhispers.com (http://www.earningswhispers.com) states they publish whisper numbers collected from analysts, following the traditional meaning of the term.

WhisperNumber.com (http://www.whispernumber.com) states they publish whisper numbers collected from individual investors, following the non-taditional meaning of the term.

Gimein[Gimein, Mark. "Whispernumber.com is beating the best minds of Wall Street but nobody really knows how", Information Laundromat, 1999-10-26.] describes the data from such whisper number web sites as "both surprisingly useful and troublingly mysterious".

According to Dunnan (Nancy Dunnan. Whisper numbers. BUYandHOLD. Freedom Investments. Retrieved on 2005-12-13), investors tend to rely upon whisper numbers when the estimates provided by financial analysts are seen to be too conservative.

The author of "Trading Secrets: Seduction and Scandal at the Wall Street Journal", R. Foster Winans, mentions the rise of whisper numbers to counter the misled 'little guy' investor.

END

Let me know your thoughts. Whisper1234 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my first thought is that you had no problem going back to 1999 for a reference but you didn't include any of the recently added, newer references. I can only assume you did not include those because they a) speak favorably of EarningsWhispers.com or b) speak unfavorably of WhisperNumber.com.

My second thought is that we can use those definitions, but the truth is that no one ever called a whisper number a collection of expectations from individual investors until someone bought the domain name whispernumber.com and started collecting those expectations and called it a whisper number... thus redifining the definition for those who don't know any better. So, while that definition does have a source, it isn't completely truthful.

Third, you criticized every reference I posted, including calling some of them stale or outdated or not even linked to, but you are doing the same, which has me a little confused about what most of your ranting was about other than you simply not wanting a reference to something that speaks favorably of another site or unfavorably of your site.

WNWatch (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is my draft of the beginning of the article.

“Traditionally, [a whisper number is the] unofficial and unpublished earnings per share (EPS) forecasts that circulate among professionals on Wall Street. In this context, whisper numbers were generally reserved for the favored (wealthy) clients of a brokerage.” According to Per Afrell, a former analyst at UBS Warburg, buy and sell side research analysts generally maintain a 20 plus page spreadsheet to calculate their earnings per share estimates. When the estimate is first calculated by sell-side analysts, the number is submitted to companies such as First Call to be averaged with other analysts’ estimates for the consensus earnings estimate. As new information is made available and plugged into the spreadsheet, the calculation may change several times leading up to a company’s actual earnings release. However, the analyst is generally not going to issue a new report and revise his or her published estimate with new calculation, resulting in the analyst’s true expectations differing from his or her published number. Therefore, when someone within the firm, an institutional client, or even a retail client asks the analyst his or her expectation for the company, the response is often different than the published estimate. This number then gets passed among trading desks and professional traders as the whisper number.

References for this paragraph: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp “He’s Whispering Homerun Earnings”, Dagens Industri, Daniel Svensson, September 23, 1999

Since the rise of the Internet as an investment and trading research tool, there have been a number of Internet companies started to gather these expectations. Currently, there are primarily two websites that provide this service: EarningsWhispers.com and WhisperNumber.com but via different methods. EarningsWhispers.com goes straight to the source by gathering expectations directly from research analysts while WhisperNumber.com polls individual investors that visit their website. Consequently, some now define a whisper number as the expectations of individual investors rather than the expectations that are spread among professional traders.

References for this paragraph Websites That Earn Their Keep. Barron's. Dow Jones (2007-1-22) Consider the Source When Evaluating 'Whisper Estimates' on the Internet. Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones (2000-7-23). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp

WNWatch (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for not wasting more time....here we go again.

'First', i left in those references because they were favorable and neutral.

'Second', so our whisper number is not a whisper number because it doesn't fit the traditional method? I left out the following statement from the investopedia article so as not to create further issues, but if you want to add this additional information to support the what you call non-truth you can:

"Increased regulatory scrutiny on the brokerage industry made it much more difficult (if not impossible) to get a whisper number in the traditional sense. For example, regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley provided for stricter rules in how companies disclose financial data. Employees, financial professionals and brokerages face significant penalties if they provide insider earnings data to a select group of people. While it's impossible to know the extent to which whisper numbers still circulate among the wealthy, it's highly unlikely to be able to get this data as a small investor. For these reasons, the newer definition (expectations of individuals) is of more relevance to regular individual investors." (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp)

I guess this also means that what you provide is not a whisper, you provide an updated analysts estimate, not the true whisper that secretly whispered to favored clients. Right?

'Third', you just repeat your first statement about references. Again, they neutral and favorable of the topic. But you still don't get it. You're still looking for a fight here and its not the place and neither side will win. But again, that seemss to be what you want here.

That all aside, your attempt is not bad (fix the reference links though), yet it still leans towards more favorable opinion of your methodology. Can I follow up your full paragraph explanation with a full paragraph explanation of whispernumber.com's methodology (specifically the academic study)?

As for the Barrons article, I left that aside for similar reasons I've already stated. It paints a very favorable light on EW - thats not the problem - its contains documented and rebutted 'non truths' about WN - see the Feb 5th 2007 Barrons magazine article where the author of that same article is corrected (page M7) as having "an incomplete examination of (WhisperNumber.com) ". This article contains an explanation and updated review (of WN) on page 37.

The whole point here is to stay away from the 'methodology's', stay away from the support of either method, and stay away from any imbalance, and focus on the article name (whisper numbers), not the companies. Let people go to the companies to decide which they prefer. (in other words keep the fight on th websites).

You can come back and argue again, but why not save us both some time and just re-read the issues we've already ranted about found above. Whisper1234 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are, by far, the most difficult person I’ve ever had a “discussion” with.

So, let me get this straight. You left in “Whispernumber.com is beating the best minds of Wall Street but nobody really knows how” because it is neutral? I find that odd because there is only a reference to Whispernumber.com so what do you mean by neutral?

Second, no, I think I’ve made it very clear that I do not believe a poll of investors is a whisper number. If I create a site called dog.com and on that site I start calling cats dogs, then when someone who doesn’t know what a dog is starts calling a cat a dog because of dog.com still does not make a cat a dog. You cannot find one single reference that calls a whisper number a poll of investors’ earnings expectations until whispernumber.com started calling a cat a dog. That aside, in my draft, I still tried to come up with a compromise. If you don’t like it, please revise the draft. But I would argue that the basic premise of the investopedia link should still be the outline that says there is one, traditional, definition and now some call something else a whisper number.

Third, you are the one that said, several days ago, that the inclusion of earningswhispers.com requires a valid reference. Therefore, I’ve included a reference (and it is the most recent reference in the article) that discusses the two sites as providing whisper numbers. I did not say anything about their opinion, but if you think it is necessary to include a reference to the follow up article, by all means do so. I say include as many references as possible. However, the article that is referenced barely mentions whispernumber.com so just what is the “non-truth” you mention?

Fourth, I assume in the final article we will have all references included and footnoted appropriately, so I didn’t mess with it here.

Fifth, I don’t understand. Your draft included a discussion of the methodologies, then you ask if you can include further discussion of your methodology, but then at the end you say the whole point is to stay away from the “methodology’s”. Your hypocrisy aside, yes, by all means, include a paragraph of the academic study you reference. I believe the article needs to go on and discuss the accuracy of whisper numbers vs. consensus estimates and the market reaction to whisper numbers compared to consensus estimates. Furthermore, I believe the more references to support the idea that whisper numbers are more accurate and are a better indication of a stock’s reaction the better and this includes published articles, research studies, and even data published by both sites.

WNWatch (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the author of the Investopedia article has confused whispering from a company to an analyst with whispering from an analyst to a client. Sarbanes-Oxley restricts what companies can tell analysts and only requires analysts and brokerage firms to list any conflicts of interest. It says nothing about research and opinions analysts and brokers provide their clients (as long as it is not inside information). Whisper numbers, in the traditional sense and as defined by the article, has not been restricted by any regulations. The only restrictions are on what companies can tell analysts.

WNWatch (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing that everyone is confused but you, and only you know what a whisper number 'really' is. I will say you're right about one thing - the title of the article I included is not neutral, but the statement is. Find neutral, positive statements and titles and I'll be fine.

I'm done here for now, will wait for Flyboy to intervene. Whisper1234 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy649, please don't get offended by the Flyboy comment,Whisper1234 has trouble getting his facts straight. WNWatch (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a quick point about wasting time and neutrality. To start, let me quote an article by Ed Leefeldt in Bloomberg Personal Finance in January 2000: “John Scherr, cofounder of WhisperNumber.com, says, ‘If your article is going to include any other 'whisper' Internet firm, we would appreciate not being included.’” Statements like this and various false statements made to discredit EarningsWhispers.com, is why I said from the very beginning that I do not believe we can come up with an article that is neutral.

So now that we’ve started, you’ve merely proved my point. It is ok for you to declare neutrality while listing an article that is pro-whispernumber.com, but when I include an article that is pro-earningswhispers.com you claim that is not neutral. It is ok for you to discuss the methodologies of the whisper companies, but you then state the whole goal is to avoid discussion of the methodologies. You ranted and raved with several administrators on Wikipedia that my references were not valid because they weren’t linked to or they weren’t recent, but you then draft an article that has unlinked articles and dated as far back as 1999.

The clear truth is you want it to either be pro-whispernumber.com or nothing at all and anything else is just “wasting more time.”

So, in an effort to get things farther along before Flyguy649 has to spend his time with this, let me propose an outline.

1) we use the definitions of my draft. I’m not saying it can’t be revised some, I’m just saying I believe it is accurate and more than fair.

2) we discuss the accuracy of whisper numbers, referencing published research articles, news articles, and even our own data if needed (it would probably have to be published on the sites though). I concur that this needs to be a positive piece, so there is no need to point out that whispernumber.com’s numbers have not shown to be more accurate. In fact, I don’t believe it is necessary to discuss what methodology or definition of a whisper number or a specific site is used, but just that whisper numbers are more accurate than consensus estimates.

3) It is important to establish that they are more accurate first so that there is evidence to support the real key – that stocks react more to whisper numbers than to consensus estimates. Again, we use as many sources as necessary and keep the discussion generic.

There is an alternative outline that I believe is more accurate and, I believe, is still pro-whispernumber.com, but it would probably require you changing your beliefs about your own data. As a trader, researcher, and a publisher of financial information, everything I’ve ever read has shown that investor sentiment data is a very inaccurate source for predicting what the actual data will be but is often a good trading tool for a contrarian trade. The kid that wrote the research article you reference did not establish this in his writings, but when I look at the data, this is what I see. Since we’ve established that there are two definitions for a whisper number (though I think I’ve made it clear that one is not universally accepted), I would be comfortable if you went this route. Furthermore, as someone that looks at as much financial data as I can get, I could be sold on your data for this purpose.

I also want to make a point about the sources used in the article. Everyone from Jim Cramer to Lazlo Berini has negative things said about them in published articles. Some of it is merely opinion, some of it is probably fact, and some of it is because the person writing got his or her facts wrong - either out carelessness or, more likely, just a lack of understanding. They are, after all, generally journalists and not someone with an accounting degree or a finance degree like we are… right? I have experience working for a publicly traded company and I have experience working for an accounting and consulting firm with clients that were publicly traded. It is my experience that most articles have at least some facts wrong and, when you are on the inside, it is alarming how often the entire conclusion of an article is wrong (on side note, it is my opinion this is because they never have to follow up to see how wrong they are. they are just on to the next article). For Wikipedia, this article needs to be factual and informative to its reader. For WNWatch and Whisper1234, the article needs to be neutral. That means we are walking a very fine line here if it is going to be factual, informative and neutral for both whisper numbers and the two whisper number sites. But just because there is an article out there that is not 100% pro-whispernumber.com or even completely factual does not mean it cannot meet those objectives. Furthermore, Flyguy649 should probably care less about neutrality and more about factual and informative.

WNWatch (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a good point that should be paid attention to. You stated: "I think I’ve made it very clear that I do not believe a poll of investors is a whisper number." You even provided support for that conclusion, right? So, with that said, whispernumber.com should not even be included in the article. So there you have it - the article should only include references to earningswhispers. thanks. edit away. (and as for calling two finance professors 'kids', well that shows us where you actually stand with all your 'financial background'. good stuff.) Whisper1234 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right and I stand corrected. Normally academic research studies are written by people trying to get their masters or a Ph D and I assumed this was true in this case as well. Again, I stand corrected. However, I would still argue that someone looking at that data outside of an academic environment and someone that has experience putting their own money at risk would come up with a different conclusion from the data and that is all I really meant by "kids". I never meant to discredit them as academic researchers. WNWatch (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put together a quick draft that does not mention whispernumber.com as requested. Paragraphs 2 and 3 need more support, but I wanted to get something out before the "deadline" tomorrow.

“Traditionally, [a whisper number is the] unofficial and unpublished earnings per share (EPS) forecasts that circulate among professionals on Wall Street. In this context, whisper numbers were generally reserved for the favored (wealthy) clients of a brokerage.” According to Per Afrell, a former analyst at UBS Warburg, buy and sell side research analysts generally maintain a 20 plus page spreadsheet to calculate their earnings per share estimates. When the estimate is first calculated by sell-side analysts, the number is submitted to companies such as First Call to be averaged with other analysts’ estimates for the consensus earnings estimate. As new information is made available and plugged into the spreadsheet, the calculation may change several times leading up to a company’s actual earnings release. However, the analyst is generally not going to issue a new report and revise his or her published estimate with each new calculation, resulting in the analyst’s true expectations differing from his or her published number. Therefore, when someone within the firm, an institutional client, or even a retail client asks the analyst his or her expectation for the company, the response is often different than the published estimate. This number then gets passed among trading desks and professional traders as the whisper number.

Because the whisper number is the analysts’ true expectation, it tends to be more accurate than the officially published consensus estimates. The Wall Street Journal found one website that gathers whisper numbers from research analysts and a Bloomberg News study found these same numbers to miss actual reported earnings by 21% while the officially published consensus earnings estimates missed actual results by an average of 44%. Furthermore, a joint study by the universities of Michigan, Indiana, and Purdue also found that whisper numbers were more effective at predicting actual earnings results than the consensus earnings estimates.

Consequently, stocks have been shown to react to whisper numbers more so than the consensus earnings estimates. A 2002 research report found that stocks of companies that beat the whisper number had an average one day gain of more than 2% while the stocks of companies that beat the consensus earnings estimate but missed the whisper number gained approximately one-tenth of one percent on the first day of trading. Furthermore, the joint academic study found that a trading strategy based on whisper numbers either before the company’s earnings release or after the actual report “significantly” outperformed the S&P 500.

For a real world example, Deckers Outdoor (DECK) reported earnings of $2.69 per share after the market closed on Thursday, February 28, 2008 and provided 2008 guidance above the consensus estimates. The reported results were $0.35 per share above the consensus earnings estimate of $2.34 per share. A number of analysts had indicated in the days and weeks leading up to its earnings release that they expected the company to beat estimates and the whisper number, as published by EarningsWhispers.com, was $2.70 per share. The stock gained more than $10 during the two weeks heading into the company’s earnings release at least in part due to the expectations of the upside surprise, but on Friday, February 29, 2008, shares of Deckers Outdoor traded down approximately $10 after missing the whisper number by a penny

References that I'll appropriately footnote on the final page are:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whispernumber.asp “He’s Whispering Homerun Earnings”, Dagens Industri, Daniel Svensson, September 23, 1999 Whisper Forecasts of Quarterly Earnings per Share; Bagnoli, Beneish, Watts, March 1999 Consider the Source When Evaluating 'Whisper Estimates' on the Internet. Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones (2000-7-23). "Whispers That Roar", Bloomberg Magazine, August 1999. How to Make Earnings Whisper ® Plays, EarningsWhispers.com, January 16, 2002 The Downtrend is Still Holding, The Whisper Report, February 25, 2008 “Deckers Outdoor Corporation Reports Record Fourth Quarter Financial Results”, Deckers Outdoor, February 28, 2008 “Deckers Outdoor Guides Above Estimates”, EarningsWhispers Guidance Summaries, February 28, 2008 http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1149765/

WNWatch (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing references

A couple of footnotes do not have references supplied. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)