McKinsey's Cracked Crystal Ball

Its 2009 predictions about the future of private-equity and hedge funds might be as inaccurate as its 2007 predictions.

By Daniel Gross | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 9, 2009 | Updated: 12:43  p.m. ET Jul 13, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jimsmelley @ 07/14/2009 1:51:52 PM

    Thank you Newsweek for this timely article. This article points to a common problem among management consultants. As a management consultant myself, I know the temptation of falling under the spell of recent, immediate trends. Too many consultants, business people, authors and other gurus succumb to the temptation to forecast from the immediate past. However, this failure shouldn't obscure good long term forecasting and long term trends that have held up well over time: the rise of the stock market over time, the rise of real estate prices over time, the rise of value per dollar in computer processing (Moore's Law), etc.

    <a href="http://www.jimsmelley.com/">www.jimsmelley.com</a>

  • Posted By: Pale Rider @ 07/14/2009 8:21:49 AM

    Daniel, please apply the same snarky know-it-all commentary to the global warming crowd. All of their "models" are radically simpler trend line extrapolations of a few measurable climate variables. Maybe we can save the gigantic waste of money we're about to spend on an issue driven by a few simplistic, flawed models. Think about it, there are at least 50 times more economists than climatoligists and no economist predicted our current state, yet we're about to spend trillions based upon the opinions of a few guys using the same methods as economists. If you could bring enough skepticism to to climate forecasting as you do economic forecasting, your writing would have a real, valuable impact.

    • Posted By: no0ne_007 @ 07/14/2009 10:02:32 AM

      The global warming claims are coming from scientist at NASA (larc.nasa.gov), who actually have the equipment to monitor and test their theories. In retrospect, your post reminds me of the economist on business channels, with hidden agendas, telling people the economy is secure and labeling everyone else as ???chicken little???s???. (And where did that get us?)

      • Posted By: kenfromillinois @ 07/14/2009 11:53:33 AM

        Actually, NASA does not test its global warming theories. All of their climate models have failed. Likewise, the land measurement states have been studied and most are not up to specifications, e.g., sitting on blacktop next to an air conditioning exhaust. Finally, the global warming scare mongers at NASA are using the land based bad data and ignoring the accurate satellite data that has shown over 10 years of cooling. It is amazing how the media and politicians spread enormous lies.

        • Posted By: no0ne_007 @ 07/14/2009 12:34:09 PM

          NASA (Atmospheric Science Data Center at Langley) studies radiation, aerosols, and troposphere chemistry. We can either listen to their conclusions, or we can listen to Exxon Mobiles scientists. Considering Exxon has an agenda, my money is on NASA.

  • Posted By: kenfromillinois @ 07/14/2009 11:50:31 AM

    The leading indicator for economic prosperity is government policy. If the climate turns bad for businesses, employment goes down and the economy tanks. Fear of government policy sits right up there. If you have candidate showing strength who is anti-business, you will stimulate businesses to pull back expansion plans and probably do other things to protect themselves in what could be a bad business climate.

  • Posted By: Gilbertda @ 07/14/2009 10:30:13 AM

    Funny, isn't this the same company that in the early 80's told AT&T that there might be 1- perhaps 2million cellular customers by 2000? Why do people not think for themselves? Doug

  • Posted By: Still Free in the USA @ 07/14/2009 10:25:57 AM

    Lets ask a wise Latina. And justice for all.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse