Expert Networks: Elephant Trap?

According to Integrity Research, “at the end of 2007 at least 26 firms generate between $325 and $375 million in sales by providing expert network services to the buy-side.”

It’s undeniable that the demand for experts of all shapes and sizes has grown exponentially in the past couple of years, and will continue to grow as market volatility drives the need for more information upon which to base trade ideas. Since the implementation of RegFD, it has been increasingly hard for investors to ‘go to the source,’ for any useful/actionable information, so expert networks are a seemingly sensible way for hedge funds and other institutional investors to get a lay of the land without having to wait for company ‘spiel’ to be released.

But, with no real obligation to properly serve the interests of investors, the ‘experts’ – no matter how carefully ‘vetted’ by the network itself – are still not in any way, shape or form, accountable or held to the same standards as a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA). The further these networks expand, the more difficult it will be for networks - and regulators - to keep a pulse on credibility and expertise.

Because regulation of pure-play expert networks is still rather lax, the level of accountability for the experts themselves is minuscule. There has not been a major incident…yet. But if there were to be a major incident today, the information provider (expert) is not held accountable by any standards at all…which should cause investors to proceed at their own risk.

Of course hedge funds and other institutional investors are, by and large, big boys and girls, who should be able to make decisions for themselves about information they find credible and information they do not. But if one of these institutions loses millions or even billions after being mislead (purposely or not purposely) by a so-called 'expert' – who will be to blame?

More Landmines

Beyond the lack of regulatory oversight, there are two other downfalls for pure-play expert networks. The first is that these experts are not exclusive to any one network. So, in essence, these experts could be delivering the same insights to all of your competitors – or worse, in cahoots with the competition. With some hedge funds and other entities choosing to launch their own expert networks, it’s clear that many are not comfortable with the lacking exclusivity that exists in the industry.

The other downfall is that expert networks are a purely ‘pull’ model. What we mean by that is, you have to have the ideas first – there is no dialogue, or anything coming in to you. So, sure, you might wake up this morning and decide that pencil erasers are the next big thing, and you can find a whole range of experts to tell you why they are, why their not, and even put together a custom report outlining how and why – but you have to conjure the notion of pencil erasers as the next great investment all on your own.

At StreetBrains, we believe that the true value of expertise, in any realm, is for experts to offer both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ insights. StreetBrains calls this model the Actionable Information eXchange (AIX.) More specifically – after enduring our stringent vetting process, analysts are accessible and available to discuss incoming ideas, but also push out to clients fresh information and ideas they are encountering as they assess the markets. Furthermore, this information is delivered exclusively through StreetBrains research HUB, to a finite number of customers.

To learn more about the benefits of the StreetBrains AIX, click here.

DeCommoditizing Investment Research

In the brilliant book, Mavericks at Work (a must read) – there’s a great quote from Vernon Hill at Commerce Bank who says:

“We’ve shown that you can decommoditize a commodity business. Nobody needs another me-too bank.”

The notion of decommoditization is one that the investment research world should take to heart. The lack of insight and value in most investment research has become appalling. When the biggest difference to be found in ten research reports is a 2 cent discrepancy in target price, it’s safe to say that research has become a commodity. But how can analysts change the playing field?

Realistically, it’s not easy for in-house analysts. They are all talking to the same sources as their competitors and learning the same information at the same time (thanks to SarbOx, RegFD and other regs). They all have a mandate to cover specific companies, and truthfully – they really aren’t there to be creative and see/analyze outside of the box. This is a necessary tool, and not one to be undervalued. But is it necessary for firms to have this research from more than one source?

The answer, of course, is no. But big firms – for CYA reasons – need to have in-house analysts dedicated to the companies that their firm invests in. Makes sense. They can’t rely on outside analysts for that. But why would they pay another firm to receive the same research they produce in-house?

Right now, it’s simply because in most cases, they get the research ‘for free.’
(READ: they get it for 3 cents a share as a tack on to their execution pricing.) So why pay for MORE research in addition to that research?

Many firms are starting to understand why. They’re asking themselves what the value is in the commoditized research they currently pay for through their execution, and they’re recognizing how little new information they are accessing. This is leading to a trend in unbundling for some in the industry. It’s possible that decommoditization has already begun. But can it continue?

We believe it can. The feedback StreetBrains gets from clients is that straight forward research is important, but so is insightful, objective analysis. Value is the name of the game – and if indie research providers can step their game up and provide new insights and niche material to their clients, rather than duplicating what firms are already doing in-house or receiving as an execution add-on, decommoditization of this valuable product will occur.