Wall Street Sings the Executioner's Song

Yesterday, Sara Hansard at Investment News wrote a brief update announcing that the SEC will soon be releasing new guidance on soft dollars. Although there is no indication that the SEC plans to mandate the explicit separation of research dollars from execution dollars, it seems clear that they endorse the value this separation of services brings to investors, and will be watching carefully to be certain that firms are providing this level of transparency to their clients.

In the article, Jennifer McHugh, senior adviser to the director of the SEC’s division of investment management explains that the separation of research and execution has “had a positive result.”

Although soft dollars (or CCAs/CSAs) were not immediately embraced by most large U.S. brokerage firms, the inevitable separation of research from execution services is leading many large firms to seek opportunities to partner with independent research providers (IRPs). By doing so, these firms are hoping to keep a tight leash on their execution dollars - even if it means abandoning their own in-house research offerings for the more lucrative/less overhead option of IRP partnership.

To no one’s surprise, in-house research may once again face the internal firing squad, as their execution-focused counterparts have increasingly less success selling their commoditized research.

The New Arm Candy

While IRPs may be the new arm candy for execution providers to shop around to clients, this could potentially be a detriment to the end user. Great research will have a difficult time setting itself apart from the pack as more providers gain the ‘endorsement’ of execution firms who are looking to coattail on IRP trade ideas by securing the execution business on the back end of the trade.

For this reason, anyone using independent research will need to be very selective about research providers they choose to work with. The vetting process for finding quality research is a critical component for finding top quality ideas and insights.

Click here to learn more about StreetBrains vetting process.

Fund Fees: What are you paying for?

It’s probably safe to say that anyone with money to put into a hedge fund doesn’t mind paying a high percentage management fee as long as you’re getting a phenomenal return. It all comes down to value.

Same goes for Manhattan real estate – if a broker shows you your dream townhouse, but you have to pay a 20% broker fee, you wouldn’t blink. You’d be ecstatic that you could stop sifting through all of the unsuitable apartments, and the value of finding what you’re looking for would justify the expense attached to finding it.

In both of these scenarios, the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, for less risky investments, the returns are not high enough to eliminate the question:

What are you paying for?

In the case of mutual funds and pension funds, which, by design, are not typically risky investments, of course the rewards are not usually as exponential as might come from a hedge fund investment. Yet, they have more hidden fees attached to them than Paris has boy-toys. The lack of transparency in fund administrator services and 12b-1 fees as well as management fees, loads, expense ratios, turnover rate, taxes…goes on and on.

(Is your head spinning yet?)

The unbundling initiative that is being largely lead by the independent investment research world would likely help alleviate some of these incurred costs, while also putting money back in the pocket of the Portfolio Managers (PM).

Say what?

That’s right. The guy making you money, should make good money. No one disagrees with that statement. His management fee – if he’s made you 30% this year - is a non-issue. The part that should be called to question is – what other fees are you paying that are unjustified, or being billed to you for unused or under utilized resources?

Like that $150 gym membership you pay each month to have access to something you don’t use – at some point it’s time to reassess the fees you pay and ask: What exactly am I paying for?

Bundled research – the research provided as an ‘add on’ to execution - falls into that camp. This research is often redundant, lacking of value, and gets as much use as your dormant gym membership. Yet it continues to be purchased because it is as common practice in the industry.

Part of the reason this cycle has yet to be broken is that PMs fear unbundling would create more work for them. Though it may take some work on the front end to seek out the top providers for execution and research, respectively – the pay off on the back end of having insightful, actionable research on one hand, and best execution on the other would alleviate headaches for both PMs as well as investors.

The clock is already ticking for PMs to jump on the unbundling bandwagon. Regulators are taking a look at how unbundling can help paint a much clearer picture of incurred fund fees and now it’s only a matter of time before requirements are enacted here in the US as they have been in the UK.

Unbundling could potentially revolutionize the way that funds do business, and bring in some serious revenue for those who embrace it. In a business where being late to the game can cost you everything, we think we will continue to see firms jump on board the unbundling bandwagon.

What Makes Research 'Valuable'?

One of the annoying buzz phrases that all independent investment research companies and analysts grapple with is:

What is our value proposition?

While the term itself is cliché and overused, the question is a pertinent one. The simple answer would be to say ‘it’s all relative.’ To some extent, that’s true. Instead of trying to define value, we’re going to outline the questions we (and our analysts) find ourselves grappling with as we develop research that reflects the needs of our clients.

First, does the investor need new, fresh investment ideas? Are they looking for new trends/sectors to look at that they have not paid attention to before?

Does the investor have ideas and just needs to see research that supports or clarifies the ideas? Or does he want research that says the opposite of what he’s thinking/seeing, so that he better understands the full picture?

Perhaps the investor is looking for new, smaller companies who are up and coming? Or insights that are contrarian?

How far ahead do they want to look? Are they long or short term, and are they trying to shift that strategy?

The truth is –it’s simply not a perfect science. Unfortunately, research needs don’t fit nicely into any single one of these boxes.

Perhaps the proper differentiator is much more simplified. What if the analysts are able to tell a story that no one else could possibly tell? For instance, an oil analyst who’s been an oil company CEO, and spent a lifetime in the energy sector; or technical analysts who use a proprietary analytical technique; or analysts who cover 6 times as many companies in a specific sector as most of their competitors?

What better way to ensure that your insights are valuable than to bring to the conversation something that no one else can?

The jury is still out as to whether we’ve re-discovered fire, but, feedback from the StreetBrains ‘Ask the Analysts: 2008 Outlook’ panel yesterday certainly suggests we’re doing something right. (click here for materials from the panel event.)

November 27th, 2007: Happy New Year!!

Remember when you were in college, and you would set your clock ahead by 45 minutes to ‘trick’ yourself into getting up in time for class?

Today, we’re encouraging all investors to ‘trick’ themselves - think like today is the start of 2008. Pop some corks, throw some confetti - and reevaluate the information you base you’re trading decisions on – get yourself back on track to succeed.

As we embark on this New Year, keep in mind that there’s one simple investing mantra that separates the savvy from the inept:

Buy on Call, Sell on News.

Many investors seem unable to avoid the plight of piling onto a sinking ship. Not to overuse our boating metaphors, but, once a ‘call’ is in the news – it’s safe to say that ship has sailed.

Particularly in a world where investing ideas are sanitized and Cramer-ized – trading decisions are often hinged more on what has happened than what will happen. While that strategy might sometimes work in a bull market, the bears will eat you alive.

Unfortunately, many investors don’t have the discipline to resist the allure of a company that’s being hyped in the news. Particularly in today’s world where access to company information is so abundant, many investors mistake awareness [of a company’s present] for insight [about a company’s future] and as a result of the poor investment decisions that ensue, they are left with miniscule returns – or worse – losses.

This week, StreetBrains is hosting an event to help reset the focus for investors. Our ‘Ask the Analysts: 2008 Outlook’ panel will address some of the big calls our analysts are making for 2008 to help investors get out in front of the ball. The analysts will discuss what they are forecasting for their coverage sectors; what will happen to the economy; what will be different by 2009. These are the issues that seed lucrative trading ideas – not today’s Wall Street Journal headlines.

Thinking out ahead of the news – not following the news – is a tough tactic to constantly deploy when most of us find it overwhelming just to keep up with and digest the information that is current. But, discipline and great investment insights will be key to navigating the turmoil that will take place in the markets in 2008.

Here's to '08!

In-House Research: Threat Level: Elevated

Tumultuous markets are leading to an increasingly treacherous landscape for in-house analysts at large and mid-sized firms alike. While the majority of the blame game is taking place in the credit arena, soon, it is likely to penetrate other areas as firms search for ways to regain some of their lost revenue. Before long, the in-house research desks will be asked to stand before the tribunal and prove their worth.

In-house research has been the red-headed stepchild within firms since the fallout in 2001. Seen as a cost center, the research desk has been tossed around from division to division within firms, with no one wanting to take on the ‘overhead’ of supporting them. In a tightened market, the ‘hot-potato’ toss will likely resume for who is responsible for the in-house trading desk.

Are the days of in-house research over? Will we see all research end up being outsourced, where firms can more easily scale their usage of research with the rise and fall of commissions and revenues? It would seem that the day is nearing where these questions are seriously asked.

In any case, it is likely that an increasing number of great in-house analysts will jump ship and move into the independent side of the business to places like StreetBrains.


Making the case for independence

While having a big firm's name to put on your business card used to grant instant credibility for analysts, now, many industry peers will instead make the assumption that your research is a) tainted or b) commoditized. You turn on CNBC, and more and more lesser known firms are popping up as credible, independent sources, whose insights are not commoditized. The playing field is leveling – and rightly so – where the success and credibility of an analyst is more a reflection of track record than affiliation.

Independent analysts are also helping their own cause by proving time and again that it’s not just the big boys who have the tools to get calls right. On the contrary, in a constricted market, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that leaks and cracks in those ‘Chinese walls’ between investment bankers and research desks may deteriorate quickly when a firm’s best interests are at stake. For many institutional investors, it’s just not worth the risk to rely on this type of questionable intel when placing big trades.

So, while highly scrutinized (sometimes unfairly) large investment firms walk the tightrope of finger-pointing and protectionism – the path is being cleared for independent analysts to step up to the plate and establish their value.

While the internal battles ensue at the big Wall Street firms, those analysts who have found the right formula and business model are in a position to capitalize.

Indie vs. In-House Research: What’s the Difference?

A brilliant economist once said in a conversation with the media:

“[Brokerage] firms providing only their own research to clients (and no independent research) is like Gideon shoving Bibles in motel room drawers.”

The case for independent research has certainly been made – particularly after the global research settlement, but what still seems to be unclear is: what’s the difference?

From where we sit, it seems to play out like this:

Big brokerage houses have a research desk that covers, by and large, only the companies and sectors that it is expected to. That is not meant to be a criticism. Let’s put it this way:

If you’re an investor trading GE, and your brokerage house doesn’t have an analyst in house who covers GE, aren’t you going to be a little skeptical? Meanwhile, firms have had to cut back on a lot of research, so as not to cover companies or sectors that no one cares about.

As a result, it’s no real wonder why most firms have in-house research desks that seem to be in place more as a ‘CYA’ for the firm, rather than as the center for intel that they should be.

This is also no fault of the in-house analysts. Many of these guys would love the opportunity to make more ‘edgy’ calls. But for many, it could be an uncomfortable position inside the firm to be labeled as the ‘boat-rocker.’

Some might argue that it is the trader who has devalued the in-house research desk – because most traders have ideas and insights of their own, and really only rely on in-house research to support the ideas they already have – not to help generate new ones.

The in-house research model has become inherently flawed, but there’s no clear direction to point the finger at who’s to blame.

Independent research, almost more as the result of a forfeit, rather than a showdown, has become a champion in the research equation. Particularly truly independents – those who have no broker/dealer component - where analysts have become the ‘trusted advisors’ traders – entrusted to generate fresh ideas and offer new insights.

There could be room for everyone in this sandbox. Independent researchers to generate fresh, new ideas and insights. Traders to add onto those insights with some of their own, or to choose which insights to follow through on. And in-house research to support the traders’ decisions, and help protect the integrity of traders’ investment decisions.

But the hard truth is: Egos will always get in the way. Everyone wants to have the good idea. So all parties will want to prove that they are the source of the best investment ideas. That’s what we’ve set out to do with our analyst roster here at Streetbrains.

The good news for all independent researchers is that, for now, the regulatory environment; in-house turmoil and reporting changes; the volatility of the market – and of course, Gideon and his Bible-shoving - all underscore the need out there for our product.