>It's not just guessing

You're right, there's a lot of research that goes into the forecasts. What I meant was the results are no better than guessing.

>They would have likely been right

I would have likely been right about every forecast I've ever made if it wasn't for unexpected things happening.

Covid19 had started in China in November, when the forecast was made. How did they account for it in their models? "It won't matter" was a huge miss.

How about this one?:

"According to Goldman Sachs, Brent and WTI crude oil spot prices could average $63 per barrel and $58.5 per barrel, respectively, in 2020."

We're at <$30. I mean, they correctly anticipated the breakup of "OPEC+", but blew the forecast tremendously.

https://marketrealist.com/2019/12/oil-prices-outlook-goldman...

You can endlessly Google examples. My point isn't that I'm better, but that Goldman Sachs' predictions are nigh worthless. And that's before taking into account any conflict of interest.

They would also likely have been right in 2007, if it weren't for the CDS disaster. Same as LTCM in the 90s. Same with every crash -- they're right until something their models don't correctly model have a massive, outsized effect on things.

The swings, and combined with high leverage positions, can wipe out firms.