Quattrone's State of the Union?

The New York Times published an article yesterday by Andrew Ross Sorkin (“Analyzing Wall Street’s Research”) detailing Frank P. Quattrone’s statements at the AlwaysOn conference in California. At the conference, Quattrone offered his distaste for Eliot Spitzer’s Global Settlement, making the argument that it has hurt small cap business and dulled the competitiveness of these companies in the US financial markets.

In the end, Quattrone would like a repeal of the settlement but would still expect to see disclosure of banking / research conflict.

Quattrone’s argument is quite compelling (and self-serving). After all, it doesn’t really matter if research and investment banking sleep under the same roof – the key to keeping it rewarding to the industry is through disclosure. Even with the Global Settlement, we are not working in a conflict-free world, thus the purpose of the settlement remains terribly unresolved even though its aftermath is still being felt by the small cap. The fact remains that there is still enough space in the market for everyone – independent research providers continue to clearly add value.

Better disclosure at investment banks benefits the industry greatly, and might be the answer we’ve been looking for. In our opinion, if you want to distribute conflicted research, it should run with an asterisk that discloses that conflict. Certainly, this would be more conducive than putting asterisks next to Barry Bonds’ home run record. If you want to play ball, play by set of rules.

That would be fair, right? Investment banks should be held to such expectations. Disclose your conflict, play ball; in a park with rules where disclosure terms are fair, there’s enough room for all the players.

There will always be an audience for independent research. If the investment banks distribute research with proper disclosure, then Quattrone’s right – there’s no reason not to tear down the wall.

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.

The Value of Vetting

We see it in all sectors, professions, and projects: A vetting process for identifying value. Whether it’s the A&R guys who find us the best bands; the headhunters that find us the best executives; or the search engines that finds us the best information – we are a society that has come to value the processes that fast-track us to top results.

We’re learning the same is true for StreetBrains and its vetting process for qualifying the analysts we add to our brand. To give a rough idea, 400+ analysts have been through StreetBrains vetting process in the past 8 months. However, we have only launched 10 of those as brands. Our purpose has always been that we want to represent great insights and analysis, so we’ve been extremely selective in bringing on new brands who offer insights that cannot be found anywhere else. But we’ve learned from several clients recently that the value of our vetting process is actually much bigger than that.

A recent study by the Noble Group – a UK investment bank – found that financial directors of AIM (Alternative Investment Market) listed companies had a very low awareness of independent research.

The findings show:

75% of respondents could not name an independent research company.

58% did not even try to name an independent research company.

17% thought they could name one but named a broker or an information service rather than an independent research company.

Only 24% could name an independent research company.

Part of the problem with even the best of the best independent analysts is that most clients don’t have the time to go out and seek out and assess the quality of every independent researcher they come across. In theory, they like the idea of using independent research…but, where to find them? We’re hearing more and more often that firms find this ‘discovery’ process to be a daunting task.

By bringing a variety of analyst brands onto one platform after a stringent vetting process, StreetBrains is able to cut an enormous amount of ‘vetting’ time out for the client. That client is now able to focus on finding tradable insights, rather than trying to assess credibility, writing style, or brand focus. In essence, we bring the mountain to Mohammed.

The Noble survey also found that 84% of the surveyed AIM financial directors think that broker research is biased.

While this comes as no surprise to us, it underscores the importance of increasing the awareness and visibility of truly independent analysts. (Truly being the operative word…but that’s a topic for another day!)

Bottom line: if the objective insights of independent analysts can be more easily accessed, it seems that their insights would be welcomed by clients who are clamoring for non-biased research.

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.