Seems Like Old Times

It’s déjà vu all over again!

The Financial Times published an article on their website yesterday detailing the apparent plan by Citigroup to shift its equity research operations into its institutional securities division. The Global Research Settlement encouraged Citi to keep these two entities separate, but this news indicates that Citi is looking to cut costs and perhaps fold research back into banking.

Mom always said…

… If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all. Ironically, that’s the problem.

The reality is that the research coming out of investment banks has never been conflict-free. No legislation imaginable could force Citi, or anyone, to write truly unfavorable recommendations for a given company. When such a high percentage of investment bank (IB) research is positive, it’s difficult to say that the insight is uncontaminated. Investment banks don’t want to make enemies.

Therein lies the problem. There is a significant difference between the research churned out by Wall Street and that which is delivered through alternative providers. No legislation could possibly curb the inherently lopsided predisposition of IB research. This new plan by Citigroup is just one indication that any concession made by the investment banks is probably on the way out the door. Seems like old times, indeed!

Making Sense

Citigroup wants to turn a cost center into a profit center; the only way to do it is to fold equity research back into institutional securities. It makes sense, but at what expense?

This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. There’s no real incentive for investment banks to continue dividing these segments of their business. The last decade was just a dream – we saw attempts to make research more unbiased, but the world where IB research is infallible never really existed.

But what will this mean for the future? Once the research settlement ends in 2009, there’s no telling what will happen. If the IBs go back to doing business the way they’ve always been, then independent research providers will be even more attractive. Conflict-free, unbiased research will always have a place in our market considering that the IBs will likely revert back to their old ways.

The Information Pendulum: Swinging Back to Pre-’03?

On Sunday, Integrity Research blogged about the consolidation they continue to anticipate amongst the 1,735 alternative research providers (ARPs) in their database. The blog got us thinking about the future. We certainly agree with Integrity that a consolidation period is coming, and it’s not a matter of if – but when.

We would anticipate that mid-2009 (if not sooner), when the global settlement ends, there will be an enormous shake up in the industry – the effects starting to occur now, as many struggling and mid-tier ARPs are looking to anchor onto larger entities in anticipation of losing settlement dollars.

The actual settlement dollars are fairly confined to a select few beneficiaries, but the demand for alternative research that came about as a result of the global settlement will still be threatened when the ‘cease and desist’ order ends in 2009.

The end of the global settlement will probably be a lot like Y2K – something that will drive a lot of buzz, but other than that, will be much ado about nothing.

Still, the attention that will be placed on independent research as a result of the pending ‘end’ to the settlement will drive many firms to reassess their research needs, and to consolidate accordingly.

The Consequences of Consolidation

Consolidation in the research industry is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are independent entities that band together and remain independent in their thoughts, ideas and transparency, and they remain entirely separated from their influential investment banking and trading brethren. Once that pendulum swings too far back in the other direction, investment information could end up back at square one.

The risk that lies ahead is if research becomes too consolidated, and those entities eventually become larger, more ‘groupthink’ type delivery models, much like the pre-’03 research that came out of Wall Street. The danger of ‘consolidated’ ideas is that it creates an unhealthy imbalance to the financial markets when many investors are making their moves based on commoditized information. As we all know too well from both the current credit crunch as well as the ’01 bubble burst, irresponsible investment research consumed by the masses can lead to fatal consequences for our financial markets and economy.

Consolidation in the research world is likely inevitable over the course of the next year. However, providers of independent/alternative research would be wise to band together in the name of independence, and to continue to push the envelope by delivering a diverse offering of products through a variety of channels to limited audiences.

'Mad Money' Causes Mad Losses

Whether or not Jim Cramer ‘knew better’ about BSC when he made the statement below to Erin Burnett on CNBC yesterday afternoon:

“Look, let’s understand two things, I said the common stock was worthless on Friday, as soon as this thing was at 36 because we saw a look at the bonds. If you kept your money in Bear you made out. You got the liquidity. Keeping money at Bear – I guess I could have caused a run on the bank and said take your money out of Bear. I guess people could say hold it, he’s saying buy the common stock. I mean, what the heck. I cannot cause a run. It turned out the Federal Reserve guaranteed the money. I’m not going to tell people to pull money out of these places. The Federal Reserve is guaranteeing the money. They are not guaranteeing the equity. I got a lot of things wrong in my life, but I don’t regret the fact when I said don't take your money out of Bear. If you have your money in Bear you still got it today. Remember, there’s Bear Stearns the common and that person was going to pull the money out of Bear. We got a guarantee. JPMorgan is now Bear.”

One thing’s for certain: this is the danger that exists when a large group of investors rely on a single source as their primary source of investment information – and suddenly, that source is wrong.

We don’t mean to go lightly on Cramer – I mean, if he did in fact make the ‘strategic decision’ that he ‘could not cause a run,’ then 20/20 hindsight given what’s occurred tells us his response was irresponsible. But quite frankly, we think this was just one of those situations where it was impossible for him to come out unscathed. Would we have rather had him ‘cause a run’ on the bank? Would that have been responsible? I suppose we’ll never know.

The real problem is the bigger picture issue – when investors are looking to one source, and when that source understands the power (as Cramer well understands) and credibility their recommendations have with their audience, we’re treading into dangerous territory. Dangerous for the investment ‘advisor’ because he needs to responsibly weigh his influence into the words he chooses; and dangerous for investors, because this ‘skewing’ – no matter how honorable the intentions – can result in conflicted advice.

Clearly we didn’t learn any lessons from the Global Settlement back in 2003, or investors would recognize that when they blindly follow the direction provided to them by a single source, they know how the story ends: massive losses.

Hopefully investors – and maybe even Cramer himself – will learn a lesson from this situation and recognize that diverse views strengthen our market structures and help in educating investors so that they are more capable of making sound investment decisions.

Uh-oh, Client 9! You got Hook-Winked!

We won’t beat the dead horse by recapping one of the ‘most glorious days on Wall Street’ (according to one floor broker), but the hypocrisy of the Client 9 scandal is deserving of its own definition.

How does a guy who tears down Dick Grasso by tearing apart his personal life (affairs, lovechild, whatnot) get off saying things like, “I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals, it is about ideas, public good, and doing what is best for the state of New York.” My how the rules do shift when people suddenly find themselves under fire.

Grasso’s likely throwing himself a party, as he now gets to play the role of the helpless victim who was unjustly taken down by a corrupt politician. Hats off to you, and your turn of luck, Mr. Grasso. We can’t wait to see the 60 Minutes exclusive interview we’re sure you’re already working on.

From a business perspective, we have to wonder what this will mean for the Global Research settlement, which is set to end in ’09. Will Spitzer’s fingerprints undermine the importance of the original causes behind the settlement?

We certainly hope not, but in the meantime, plenty of Wall Street types are going to pull up a front row seat to watch him squirm.

Will Wall Street ‘Misremember’ the Lessons of the Global Settlement?

It’s safe to say that not much good came out of yesterday’s Clemens vs. McNamee battle on Capitol Hill. Both parties seemed to be on a crusade to display the most loathsome qualities of humanity, as Congress (having no more pertinent matters to tend to) refereed the clash.

If nothing else, the one good thing that came out of yesterday’s battle royale was that Mr. Clemens, in his infinite wisdom, pulled out his finest Bush-ism, and reminded us all that sometimes people simply “misremember.”

This got us thinking – misremembering is not a plight suffered solely by fallen heroes representing our national pastime. Misremembering runs rampant in our financial markets as well. We won’t delve deeply into this topic (we think you can probably recall enough instances on your own) but as one example, the brilliant financial wizards putting together subprime loans (as well as the mindless lemmings who jumped into this market with both feet) must have ‘misremembered’ the tale of The Junk Bond King. You get our gist.

With the global research settlement set to end in April 2009, we couldn’t help but wonder: Will Wall Street ‘misremember’ its lessons from 2003?

A Journey Back in Time, To Avoid Misremembering

To briefly recap history, the global settlement was the result of Spitzer’s investigation into Wall Street research which found that many (primarily bulge bracket) firms were providing tainted/conflicted research to their investors. The firms were forced to pay fines, and also to offer independent (i.e. outside) research in addition to ‘cleaning up’ their own research offerings.

Much has changed in the research world since 2003, as many new Independent Research Providers (IRPs) have jumped into the market – if for no other reason than to capitalize on the terms of the global settlement. With so many IRPs in the market, the definition of an IRP has expanded greatly as well. From expert networks, to quants and research tools, to traditional research providers – these offerings all fall under the IRP banner.

While it is a very positive move for firms to utilize and offer more independent research, it seems they may misremember the problem at hand. In-house research at the large firms has not made any great strides to improve quality or be less tainted. As a matter of fact, in December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wall Street research hadn’t cleaned up its act at all – there were still only 7% ‘Sell’ ratings in Street research as of then.

Given the current state of the markets, we find it hard to believe that only 7% of stocks deserved sell ratings as of last December. So, either the analysts a) are in a stranglehold by their trading desk or investment banking counterparts, or b) they’re incompetent. As much as we do not believe the waffling accounts of either McNamee OR Clemens, we also do not believe Wall Street analysts are incompetent. We do believe, however, that many are the puppets of their bullying investment banking and trading brethren.

So, the question remains what will happen as of April 2009? Will Wall Street immediately drop its IRP counterparts, and open itself up to closer SEC scrutiny of their internal research? It wouldn’t seem to make sense, but, as firms look to eliminate any and all expenses that can help alleviate some of the pain of the subprime woes, it’s not entirely out of the question.

The SEC plays a major role as well, as they still have not issued guidance to require unbundling that mirrors the requirements in the UK. Although unbundling has steadily gained traction in the past couple of years, this key driver to the ongoing success of independent research has not yet been pushed through.

So, much like the Clemens/McNamee case, it’s hard to tell which way things will play out for the post-global-settlement research world – but we can only hope that the eventual outcome includes cleaner, clearer policies and programs designed to avoid these stumbling blocks in the future.

Dispelling Common Myths About Independent Research

We spend a lot of time talking to our clients and to potential customers, and most days, the issues they discuss with us are the same. So today's blog will address the 7 most common misconceptions we hear - and offer our responses to the issues.

7 MOST COMMON RESEARCH MYTHS

MYTH #1: “All investment research is the same.”

FACT: StreetBrains takes research a step further than what currently lands in your inbox – our research focuses on specialized sectors, niche trends, and unique companies that will help you to garner unmatched returns.

MYTH #2: “There’s no such thing as truly independent investment research.”

FACT: StreetBrains has no investment banking arm or broker-dealer, so our analysts are able to offer opinions free of any conflicts of interest. Period.

MYTH #3: “My firm doesn’t pay for independent research – We get it for free.”

FACT: If your firm pays for execution and is provided with research as an ‘add-on’ or ‘bundled’ service – your firm is paying for that research. “Bundling” of research and execution makes for opaque record keeping, and will soon become extinct.

MYTH #4: “Unbundling research from execution services probably wouldn’t save my firm any money.”

FACT: By unbundling research from execution, you can secure best execution pricing. Then, you are able to take your research dollars and pay separately - and more transparently - for high quality research that delivers actionable information and profitable returns. Unbundling is gaining steam as the preferred approach to obtaining quality research.

MYTH #5: "When the global research settlement terms end in 2008, firms will do away with independent research."

FACT: Although the ten firms involved in the global settlement will not be required to distribute independent research, these firms, as well as most other large firms, have publicly noted their intentions to continue offering third-party research. Because the global settlement required firms to handle their in-house research differently, independent research continues to be a valuable asset to the firms.

MYTH #6: "Soft dollar payments for research will soon be eliminated."

FACT: Although the issue of soft dollar payments looks likely to move to the SEC's front burner before the end of 2007, it is unlikely that soft dollars will be eliminated. It is unlikely that more disclosure and regulation will be required under current soft dollar arrangements, however, the SEC will be looking for ways to show mutual fund boards how they can easily distinguish proper soft dollar arrangements from bad. License-fee payment models - such as StreetBrains' - help deliver transparency of pricing in soft dollars arrangements.

MYTH #7: "Fundamental research is still the most widely used and desired investment analysis."

FACT: According to a recent study by Integrity Research Associates, specialized research has outgrown fundamental research as the leading category of analysis for independent research providers in the UK. As fundamental research becomes increasingly more commoditized, institutional investors continue to search for analysis that gives them an edge on their competitors.