Sentences with phrase «lowest level of uncertainty»

Not exact matches

These lead to «higher levels of uncertainty and lower growth GBP,» the bank said.

This vacation deficit is not that surprising, «when you consider that consumer confidence still hovers at relatively low levels coupled with uncertainty about the economy and specifically consumers» own job security,» said Laura Mandala, managing director of Mandala Research, a tourism and travel company.

Actual results, including with respect to our targets and prospects, could differ materially due to a number of factors, including the risk that we may not obtain sufficient orders to achieve our targeted revenues; price competition in key markets; the risk that we or our channel partners are not able to develop and expand customer bases and accurately anticipate demand from end customers, which can result in increased inventory and reduced orders as we experience wide fluctuations in supply and demand; the risk that our commercial Lighting Products results will continue to suffer if new issues arise regarding issues related to product quality for this business; the risk that we may experience production difficulties that preclude us from shipping sufficient quantities to meet customer orders or that result in higher production costs and lower margins; our ability to lower costs; the risk that our results will suffer if we are unable to balance fluctuations in customer demand and capacity, including bringing on additional capacity on a timely basis to meet customer demand; the risk that longer manufacturing lead times may cause customers to fulfill their orders with a competitor's products instead; the risk that the economic and political uncertainty caused by the proposed tariffs by the United States on Chinese goods, and any corresponding Chinese tariffs in response, may negatively impact demand for our products; product mix; risks associated with the ramp - up of production of our new products, and our entry into new business channels different from those in which we have historically operated; the risk that customers do not maintain their favorable perception of our brand and products, resulting in lower demand for our products; the risk that our products fail to perform or fail to meet customer requirements or expectations, resulting in significant additional costs, including costs associated with warranty returns or the potential recall of our products; ongoing uncertainty in global economic conditions, infrastructure development or customer demand that could negatively affect product demand, collectability of receivables and other related matters as consumers and businesses may defer purchases or payments, or default on payments; risks resulting from the concentration of our business among few customers, including the risk that customers may reduce or cancel orders or fail to honor purchase commitments; the risk that we are not able to enter into acceptable contractual arrangements with the significant customers of the acquired Infineon RF Power business or otherwise not fully realize anticipated benefits of the transaction; the risk that retail customers may alter promotional pricing, increase promotion of a competitor's products over our products or reduce their inventory levels, all of which could negatively affect product demand; the risk that our investments may experience periods of significant stock price volatility causing us to recognize fair value losses on our investment; the risk posed by managing an increasingly complex supply chain that has the ability to supply a sufficient quantity of raw materials, subsystems and finished products with the required specifications and quality; the risk we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings if our goodwill or amortizable assets become impaired; risks relating to confidential information theft or misuse, including through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion; our ability to complete development and commercialization of products under development, such as our pipeline of Wolfspeed products, improved LED chips, LED components, and LED lighting products risks related to our multi-year warranty periods for LED lighting products; risks associated with acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or investments generally; the rapid development of new technology and competing products that may impair demand or render our products obsolete; the potential lack of customer acceptance for our products; risks associated with ongoing litigation; and other factors discussed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including our report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2017, and subsequent reports filed with the SEC.

These risks and uncertainties include: Gilead's ability to achieve its anticipated full year 2018 financial results; Gilead's ability to sustain growth in revenues for its antiviral and other programs; the risk that private and public payers may be reluctant to provide, or continue to provide, coverage or reimbursement for new products, including Vosevi, Yescarta, Epclusa, Harvoni, Genvoya, Odefsey, Descovy, Biktarvy and Vemlidy ®; austerity measures in European countries that may increase the amount of discount required on Gilead's products; an increase in discounts, chargebacks and rebates due to ongoing contracts and future negotiations with commercial and government payers; a larger than anticipated shift in payer mix to more highly discounted payer segments and geographic regions and decreases in treatment duration; availability of funding for state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); continued fluctuations in ADAP purchases driven by federal and state grant cycles which may not mirror patient demand and may cause fluctuations in Gilead's earnings; market share and price erosion caused by the introduction of generic versions of Viread and Truvada, an uncertain global macroeconomic environment; and potential amendments to the Affordable Care Act or other government action that could have the effect of lowering prices or reducing the number of insured patients; the possibility of unfavorable results from clinical trials involving investigational compounds; Gilead's ability to initiate clinical trials in its currently anticipated timeframes; the levels of inventory held by wholesalers and retailers which may cause fluctuations in Gilead's earnings; Kite's ability to develop and commercialize cell therapies utilizing the zinc finger nuclease technology platform and realize the benefits of the Sangamo partnership; Gilead's ability to submit new drug applications for new product candidates in the timelines currently anticipated; Gilead's ability to receive regulatory approvals in a timely manner or at all, for new and current products, including Biktarvy; Gilead's ability to successfully commercialize its products, including Biktarvy; the risk that physicians and patients may not see advantages of these products over other therapies and may therefore be reluctant to prescribe the products; Gilead's ability to successfully develop its hematology / oncology and inflammation / respiratory programs; safety and efficacy data from clinical studies may not warrant further development of Gilead's product candidates, including GS - 9620 and Yescarta in combination with Pfizer's utomilumab; Gilead's ability to pay dividends or complete its share repurchase program due to changes in its stock price, corporate or other market conditions; fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate of the U.S. dollar that may cause an unfavorable foreign currency exchange impact on Gilead's future revenues and pre-tax earnings; and other risks identified from time to time in Gilead's reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).

Risks associated with the Consumer Discretionary sector include, among others, apparel price deflation due to low - cost entries, high inventory levels and pressure from e-commerce players; reduction in traditional advertising dollars; increasing household debt levels that could limit consumer appetite for discretionary purchases; declining consumer acceptance of new product introductions; and geopolitical uncertainty that could impact consumer sentiment.

In the past year a number of news reporters and others have asked if the CBOE Volatility Index ® (VIX ®) was at an unusually «low» level in light of all the worldwide geopolitical uncertainties.

There will be some short - term benefit to U.S. module makers from import duties on solar, but it is not clear that this will offset lower levels of deployment incurred by both the higher price of imported solar and the uncertainty created by the Section 201 process.

The increasingly strident rhetoric from both sides and absence of consensus among major powers on how to respond to North Korea's actions increased uncertainty, and by early September benchmark Treasury yields had fallen to their lowest level so far this year.

«There is tension and uncertainty and a low level of trust.

Although many artificial sweeteners are legal under FDA rules, the scientists wrote, «there is still uncertainty, particularly about long - term use and about low - level exposure effects on the health and development of children.»

Many no doubt will argue that this high sum traded - off uncertainty for genuine anxiety amongst many voters, and that a lower level of basic income may have been a more prudent approach.

Their survey uncovered significant uncertainties in current climate projections of the intensity and vertical structure of the low - level convergence of moisture to and upper - level divergence of heat away from the tropics.

While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales.»

The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large - scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.»

Companies operating in industries that are exposed to a high level of business risk and uncertainty would generally prefer to maintain lower level of financial risk (by lower debt financing) and higher interest cover ratios.

However, when the result is at the upper level of the diagnostically low range or the lower end of the equivocal range, there is inherent uncertainty.

This uncertainty of where the lowest level of acceptable care lies is precisely the problem that we as a society face in this sort of case.

Game quality is often lowered, due to the uncertainty of the game's success, where millions of people could play, and with a decent level of experts and quality of work, most will not invest money into the game, and the project will come back at a loss to the company.

When I read the media PR on this, it looked like BEST claimed better statistical methods, leading to lower estimates of the uncertainty in the temperature change - even at the decadal level.

I suppose that if all uncertainties are resolved in the direction of lower risk, we just might get away with BAU for the next few decades without a complete disaster (though continued sea level rise, ocean acidification and 2 degrees Celsius actually sound pretty risky to me, and the risk that there are other factors in play seems to be reinforced by paleo data on glacial - interglacial transitions).

While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales.»

It has several major advantages over PCA including that it doesn't produce negative (non-real) results and you can incorporate uncertainty into the analysis so you can limit significance of low - level or missing data.

The numbers would have become slightly lower, but this approach would not have mixed up very different levels of uncertainty, and it would have been clear what is included in the table and what is not (namely ice flow changes), rather than attempting to partially include ice flow changes.

Because of the uncertainties in projected sea level rise over the remainder of this century, Sasmito and his co-authors use both the low and the high sea level rise scenario from the most recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (AR5).

One of the many things that puzzle me as non scientific citizen of average scientific knowledge in trying to follow the debate concerning AGW is understanding how, given the many «low» levels of uncertainty admitted by most experts, can anyone claim to «know» such a complex question?

For the near future the uncertainty in climate prediction justifies choosing polices that guide us towards net negative emissions as quickly as possible and the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases at levels significantly lower than today.

In spite of these very fundamental uncertainties, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, insists on lowering emissions in the hope of reaching stabilization at some level, preferably one that is not too high.

If analysis of historical data on GHG rise and net effects of aerosols establishes beta = 0.5, then TCR = 1.2 C. But, beta is uncertain and might be as low as 0.4, in which case TCR = 1.3 C. But, TCR (1 + beta) = 1.8 C and only has uncertainty introduced by uncertainty in the historical GMST and CO2 level rise.

But the first issue here is: where is the logic in assigning such a specific value and uncertainty range to something that the IPCC declares to be associated to a * low * level of scientific understanding?

It's correct to take the precautionary principle into account in the estimate of the damages giving more weight to the unfavorable outcomes than to the favorable, but the uncertainties in the efficiency of the mitigating measures should be also taken into account and taken them into account means that the correct level of tax is lower than it would be without this uncertainty.

Choosing lower and upper limits that encompass the range of these results and deflating significance levels in order to account for structural uncertainty in the estimate leads to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that TCR is less than 1 °C and very unlikely that TCR is greater than 3.5 °C.

The shading indicates a measure of uncertainty about future sea level for two different scenarios — a low emissions scenario where carbon emissions are rapidly cut (blue RCP 2.6) and a high emissions scenario with no carbon cuts (red RCP 8.5).

(3) Current estimates of surface and lower to mid-tropospheric temperature trends are subject to a level of uncertainty that is almost as large as the apparent disparity between them.

The new report, for example, slightly reduces the lower end of the estimated uncertainty range for the amount of warming scientists expect in response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations compared to preindustrial levels.

«However, Fig. 15 and the associated uncertainties discussed in Section 3.4 show that long term estimates of time variable sea level acceleration in 203 year global reconstruction are significantly positive, which supports our previous finding (Jevrejeva et al., 2008a), that despite strong low frequency variability (larger than 60 years) the rate of sea level rise is increasing with time.»

However, at the moment, uncertainty about how factors such as low wind speeds, high levels of turbulence, noise, visual impact, and animal strikes influence the performance of micro wind turbines make it hard to determine their true potential in this form.

The uncertainty in the global mean sea level trend is estimated to be of ± 0.5 mm / yr in a confidence interval of 90 % (1.65 sigma), whereas the uncertainty of the regional mean sea level trends is of the order of 2 - 3 mm / yr with values as low as 0.5 mm / yr or as high as 5.0 mm / yr depending on the region considered (Legeais et al., 2018, under review).

Most of the systemic «Type B» uncertainties in climate change have not been dealt with — eg ignoring the PDO etc, Hurst - Kolgomorov persistence, low level driving of coupled oscillators by solar / cosmic / planetary influences.

Assuming a CR - cloud connection exists, there are various factors which could potentially account for a lack of detection of this relationship over both long and short timescales studies, including: uncertainties, artefacts and measurement limitations of the datasets; high noise levels in the data relative to the (likely low) amplitude of any solar - induced changes; the inability of studies to effectively isolate solar parameters; or the inability to isolate solar - induced changes from natural climate oscillations and periodicities.

Deep uncertainty persists about the likelihood of a rapid ice - sheet «collapse» contributing to a major acceleration of sea - level rise; for the coming century, the probability of such an event is generally considered to be low but not zero (e.g., Bamber and Aspinall, 2013).

Add the facts in trend: The oceans are acidifying, The climate has already shifted 4 degrees of latitude in the past 30 years; the Arctic will likely be virtually ice free during the summer melt within the decade, all the uncertainty ranges are positive and none of them are negative, CO2 is plant food, but what does that mean when the oxygen levels are dropping, the Hoover dam is supposed to shut down in 2023 due to no water (latitudinal shift), the Yangtze in China is getting very low, etc. etc..

Feedbacks involving low - level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections.

The uncertainty resulting from inconsistent lower court decisions on the existence of a tort of harassment will likely not be resolved until an appellate level decision is rendered.

However, low levels of exposure and contamination led to reduced power to detect effects; combined with issues relating to the application of RCTs in this setting means that uncertainty remains.

However, low levels of exposure and contamination mean that uncertainty remains.

Not surprisingly, these relationships tend to be characterized by more uncertainty and lower levels of positivity, love, and satisfaction compared to stable relationships that don't cycle.1, 2