**Disclaimer: This entry was written by a disgruntled Pats fan who dropped $5k to take a whirlwind trip to AZ only to watch my team fall from grace in the most despicable fashion. The SuperBowl views reflected here are not supported, nor endorsed by the obnoxious, gloating Giants fans I contemptuously call "colleagues."
Whether you were a Patriots fan, a Giants fan, or an agnostic viewer, this weekend’s SuperBowl proved one thing:
The unthinkable can occur on Any Given Sunday...and it did.
If you were tuned in, what you might have seen was an up-until-today mediocre Eli Manning have the game (or 4th quarter, at least) of his career – which included the luckiest of all lucky plays when he scrambled away from an imminent sack and tossed a prayer up to Tyree for a miracle completion.
Impressive? Yes. The result of a calculated and well-designed play? Not so much.
The SuperBowl MVP-crowned quarterback, happens to also be the leader of a much less glamorous NFL category: Turnovers. And Sunday certainly didn’t go by without a few near additions to this category, as Eli, on three separate occasions, threw the football directly into the fumbling hands of the Patriots defenders. Despite being in the right place at many of the right times, the Patriots were unable to capitalize on these errors.
Not to take anything away from the well-executed Giants defeat of the New England Patriots, but our question is this:
Despite one All-Star performance on a random Sunday in February, who would you rather have as your QB:
An 18-1, League MVP, Tom Brady or 14-6, Turnover-leader, Eli Manning?
Take Care of the Ball
We ask about Tom versus Eli, because we think it makes for an interesting parallel to how firms identify their top independent research providers (IRPs). You’re probably wondering, “How so?”
First off, let's understand how many IRPs receive payment. Some firms who utilize the research and insights of IRPs have implemented broker votes for paying outside IRPs. These votes are ultimately set up so that brokers can provide payouts to analysts who make the most accurate calls. Some of those broker vote systems use analytics that will help them to ‘calculate’ who provided top results, and others are arbitrarily decided upon.
I guess our question is really, is this the most reasonable way to pay for – and encourage the consistent production of - quality research? Wouldn’t firms rather pay an analyst that consistently provides quality insights and information, rather than one who happens to accurately nail a quarterly EPS down to the penny? It could happen any given quarter, and you might just be the one to capitalize on this lucky call. But that doesn’t mean his prediction is indicative of future success - just a lucky, one-off guesstimate.
Analysts that provide accurate information should absolutely be rewarded – however, a ‘call-by-call’ comparison against their peers seems to be a flawed model for identifying top quality research and insight.
Bottom line: I’m sure most of us secretly pull for a Cinderella story…but more times than not, smart money is best placed on proven success. When in doubt, it may not be as glamorous, but it’s probably best to hand over the reigns to the guy who’s proven time and again he can take care of the ball.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Lessons Learned From Sporks
If you made it through elementary school, chances are, you’ve used a spork at some point in your lifetime. Upon introduction to this odd tool, you likely thought to yourself “in theory, this makes a lot of sense.” After all – why have two separate utensils when you can just have one?
But as you moved on through life, this tool seldom reemerged. It seems that most people preferred to have two separate utensils, each to be used at the appropriate time and for its designated purpose, despite the convenience of the bundled item. Apparently, the multi-use tool often proves not to perform either of its jobs as efficiently as the separate utensils.
And therein lies the key differentiator between success and failure of bundling. The services or items bundled must produce equal or enhanced quality performance than the a la carte items or services.
Why are we talking about sporks?
The spork is a fitting parallel to the ‘bundling’ of execution and research that takes place in the financial industry – while it makes sense in theory, it fails in practice.
Like the spork, neither function is able to deliver optimal performance in the bundled model, and therefore, the bundled model is flawed and unsustainable. Like a TV with a built in VCR, the convenience and seeming practicality is undercut by the problems that occur when one of the bundled pieces or services fails. Upon failure, the entire system needs to be replaced, and worse, it can be difficult to assess which piece actually caused the issue so that future problems can be avoided.
The bundling of execution and research has the same inherent problem. Consider this:
Joe pays $.03 a share for execution, despite the fact that best execution pricing could get him execution for less than a penny. But Joe gets research as an ‘add-on’ because he pays $.03 a share, so he pays more for the ‘bundled’ service.
But now, Joe’s paying outrageous fees for minimal returns, and he doesn’t know why so he can’t figure out how to fix the problem. Is he paying too much for execution? Is the research he’s buying poor quality so it isn’t delivering trade ideas that will generate great returns? There’s no way to tell, because the services are bundled together, therefore masking which piece of the bundled product is the source of the failure. This is a detrimental disservice to Joe – and to all investors.
The UK has already implemented requirements for execution and research to be unbundled. It is still unclear whether or not the US will implement similar rules, but hopefully the SEC will acknowledge the inefficiencies that occur in the bundled model. Many firms are taking the shift in the UK as a cue that similar requirements will be imminent in the US, and are using this as an opportunity to offer more transparency to their investors.
More…ehem…’Shortcomings’
In case you’re curious, here are some other bundled items that seem practical in theory, but never quite made it big:
Smell-O-Vision (movies with scent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision
Flowbee (vaccum/haircut system) http://www.flowbee.com/
Umbrella Hats http://www.umbrellahat.net/
Windshield-wiper glasses http://www.shadesoffun.com/Nov-CP/wiper_sunglasses.html
But as you moved on through life, this tool seldom reemerged. It seems that most people preferred to have two separate utensils, each to be used at the appropriate time and for its designated purpose, despite the convenience of the bundled item. Apparently, the multi-use tool often proves not to perform either of its jobs as efficiently as the separate utensils.
And therein lies the key differentiator between success and failure of bundling. The services or items bundled must produce equal or enhanced quality performance than the a la carte items or services.
Why are we talking about sporks?
The spork is a fitting parallel to the ‘bundling’ of execution and research that takes place in the financial industry – while it makes sense in theory, it fails in practice.
Like the spork, neither function is able to deliver optimal performance in the bundled model, and therefore, the bundled model is flawed and unsustainable. Like a TV with a built in VCR, the convenience and seeming practicality is undercut by the problems that occur when one of the bundled pieces or services fails. Upon failure, the entire system needs to be replaced, and worse, it can be difficult to assess which piece actually caused the issue so that future problems can be avoided.
The bundling of execution and research has the same inherent problem. Consider this:
Joe pays $.03 a share for execution, despite the fact that best execution pricing could get him execution for less than a penny. But Joe gets research as an ‘add-on’ because he pays $.03 a share, so he pays more for the ‘bundled’ service.
But now, Joe’s paying outrageous fees for minimal returns, and he doesn’t know why so he can’t figure out how to fix the problem. Is he paying too much for execution? Is the research he’s buying poor quality so it isn’t delivering trade ideas that will generate great returns? There’s no way to tell, because the services are bundled together, therefore masking which piece of the bundled product is the source of the failure. This is a detrimental disservice to Joe – and to all investors.
The UK has already implemented requirements for execution and research to be unbundled. It is still unclear whether or not the US will implement similar rules, but hopefully the SEC will acknowledge the inefficiencies that occur in the bundled model. Many firms are taking the shift in the UK as a cue that similar requirements will be imminent in the US, and are using this as an opportunity to offer more transparency to their investors.
More…ehem…’Shortcomings’
In case you’re curious, here are some other bundled items that seem practical in theory, but never quite made it big:
Smell-O-Vision (movies with scent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision
Flowbee (vaccum/haircut system) http://www.flowbee.com/
Umbrella Hats http://www.umbrellahat.net/
Windshield-wiper glasses http://www.shadesoffun.com/Nov-CP/wiper_sunglasses.html
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
We Called It
As the adage goes…
“It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true!”
StreetBrains analysts have spent the first 24 days of 2008 beefing up the benchmark for correctly calling market moves. Below are some of the items that StreetBrains independent analysts have nailed in the past few weeks.
(See how smart analysts can be when they’re able to say what they’re really seeing and hearing, rather than being muzzled by investment bankers, traders, and compliance departments?)
Steve Digilio, The Bank Notes, told us in November ’07 that ’08 would bring at least one major bank consolidation or acquisition, and 3 top bank CEO departures/ousters. 24 days in, we have already seen Countrywide acquired by Bank of America, and Jimmy Cane step down as CEO of Bear Stearns.
In September ’07, Larry Rothman of DebtVisions made the definitive call that retail was in a tailspin. To date (from his call on 9/28), the RLX has declined 13.8%.
On January 9th, 2008, Jim Sterling of the Sterling Account (who was up a whopping 44% last year on his calls) wrote a report titled “Throwing In the Sponge” where he advised the exiting of all energy stocks. He still loves many of the companies, but the stocks are going to continue to be battered for a long while out, he claims. Since January 9th, the XLE is down 7.95%.
Gotham Research proves that there’s money to be made, even in a bear market – if you’re nimble. The following 3 pairs have brought in generous returns when closed out today:
IEF/XLE – iShares Lehman 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund vs. Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund. Closed long IEF and short XLE spread from 9/21/07 with an advance of 26.04%.
USB/SPY – U.S. Bancorp vs. SPDR Trust Series I. Closed a long USB and short SPY spread from 1/10/08 with an advance of 17.35%.
ONB/VTI – Old National Bancorp vs. Vanguard ETF Total Stock Market. Closed a long ONB and short VTI spread from 12/12/07 with an advance of 18.46%.
Last but certainly not least, Steve Frenkel of PatternWatch, whose several CNBC appearances in the past few weeks you can find in blogs below, has also been consistently spot on in calling the Dow, S&P, Gold, and CCI Index moves. Click here to view his most recent television appearance, where he discusses the current state of the market.
“It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true!”
StreetBrains analysts have spent the first 24 days of 2008 beefing up the benchmark for correctly calling market moves. Below are some of the items that StreetBrains independent analysts have nailed in the past few weeks.
(See how smart analysts can be when they’re able to say what they’re really seeing and hearing, rather than being muzzled by investment bankers, traders, and compliance departments?)
Steve Digilio, The Bank Notes, told us in November ’07 that ’08 would bring at least one major bank consolidation or acquisition, and 3 top bank CEO departures/ousters. 24 days in, we have already seen Countrywide acquired by Bank of America, and Jimmy Cane step down as CEO of Bear Stearns.
In September ’07, Larry Rothman of DebtVisions made the definitive call that retail was in a tailspin. To date (from his call on 9/28), the RLX has declined 13.8%.
On January 9th, 2008, Jim Sterling of the Sterling Account (who was up a whopping 44% last year on his calls) wrote a report titled “Throwing In the Sponge” where he advised the exiting of all energy stocks. He still loves many of the companies, but the stocks are going to continue to be battered for a long while out, he claims. Since January 9th, the XLE is down 7.95%.
Gotham Research proves that there’s money to be made, even in a bear market – if you’re nimble. The following 3 pairs have brought in generous returns when closed out today:
IEF/XLE – iShares Lehman 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund vs. Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund. Closed long IEF and short XLE spread from 9/21/07 with an advance of 26.04%.
USB/SPY – U.S. Bancorp vs. SPDR Trust Series I. Closed a long USB and short SPY spread from 1/10/08 with an advance of 17.35%.
ONB/VTI – Old National Bancorp vs. Vanguard ETF Total Stock Market. Closed a long ONB and short VTI spread from 12/12/07 with an advance of 18.46%.
Last but certainly not least, Steve Frenkel of PatternWatch, whose several CNBC appearances in the past few weeks you can find in blogs below, has also been consistently spot on in calling the Dow, S&P, Gold, and CCI Index moves. Click here to view his most recent television appearance, where he discusses the current state of the market.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Frenkel's 'Tea Leaves' Suggest Throwing in the Towel
For the second time this week, Steve Frenkel, chief technical analyst with PatternWatch - a member of StreetBrains' Actionable Information eXchange (AIX) - was invited to come on CNBC to discuss his views of the market.
In a segment titled 'Reading the Technical Tea Leaves' on today's 'Powerlunch' program, Steve got to talk about what he does best: analyzing and interpreting technical charts.
Although Frenkel's assessment of the current state of the market may not coincide with popular opinion, he certainly doesn't lack conviction in his calls (as Michelle Caruso-Cabrera points out.) And to the dismay of many investors, his calls for a vastly declining market have been spot on.
Click here to view the segment.
In a segment titled 'Reading the Technical Tea Leaves' on today's 'Powerlunch' program, Steve got to talk about what he does best: analyzing and interpreting technical charts.
Although Frenkel's assessment of the current state of the market may not coincide with popular opinion, he certainly doesn't lack conviction in his calls (as Michelle Caruso-Cabrera points out.) And to the dismay of many investors, his calls for a vastly declining market have been spot on.
Click here to view the segment.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Gold Losing Its Luster
Yesterday, StreetBrains technical guru – Steve Frenkel of PatternWatch – was on CNBC to discuss whether or not there are still investment opportunities in Gold.
While Douglas Doyle of Blanchard & Company (which on their website boasts they are “the largest and most respected retail dealer in rare coins and precious metals in the United States”) called for Gold to reach $1150 this year (shocking prediction from a firm that specializes in precious metals), Frenkel countered that Gold technical indicators show that Gold is well on it’s way back down to $720.
At the time of this posting, Gold sits at $877, down $33 from where it was yesterday just moments prior to our CNBC appearance, and down $39 from it’s $916 high (which Frenkel had previously targeted as the high).
Click here to watch the video.
While Douglas Doyle of Blanchard & Company (which on their website boasts they are “the largest and most respected retail dealer in rare coins and precious metals in the United States”) called for Gold to reach $1150 this year (shocking prediction from a firm that specializes in precious metals), Frenkel countered that Gold technical indicators show that Gold is well on it’s way back down to $720.
At the time of this posting, Gold sits at $877, down $33 from where it was yesterday just moments prior to our CNBC appearance, and down $39 from it’s $916 high (which Frenkel had previously targeted as the high).
Click here to watch the video.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The ‘Race to Zero’ Zooms On
The fact that commissions are drying up, and that brokers are competing over a half or a quarter of a penny at this point to win execution dollars, is nothing new. However, the Race to Zero will kick into high gear in 2008, as research desks get slashed at large firms (which used to be an ‘add on’ that justified higher execution pricing), and the surge in unbundling execution from research sends clients searching for best execution providers.
Brief History
With the onset of the tech era, commissions started facing their first hurdles in the 90’s. New execution providers flooded the market promoting faster and cheaper execution than ever before. Existing brokerage firms were able to implement similar technologies that also touted volume scalability that kept them in the game. As technology improves commissions become increasingly more commoditized, and thus coined was the ‘Race to Zero.
Current State of the Union
Large brokerage firms now look primarily to volume, not pricing as the key to feeding the execution beast. However, as most large brokerages look to slash their workforce, the research departments – long considered a ‘cost center’ and often referred to as the ‘red-headed stepchild' of the brokerage world – will certainly take a hit. With less research being written internally to justify higher execution pricing, unbundling research will almost evolve organically from the current issues in the market.
Mid and small executing brokers who provide research – despite their hopeful musings that the sky is not in fact falling - are facing some trouble. Many seem to have hung their hat on the idea that hedge funds want to continue to use an over-abundance of executing brokers, so that competitors won’t be able to follow their trading patterns. Based on our talks with market insiders, this notion seems rather unreasonable. We’re not suggesting that any hedge fund out there is handing his entire trade book over to one execution firm, but minimizing the number of executing brokers is not only something most have said they’re willing to do – from a cost point of view, it’s a priority.
Mid and small guys who recognize the threat on the horizon still have the opportunity to choose a business, any business – either research OR execution – not both – and have a chance at survival.
Brief History
With the onset of the tech era, commissions started facing their first hurdles in the 90’s. New execution providers flooded the market promoting faster and cheaper execution than ever before. Existing brokerage firms were able to implement similar technologies that also touted volume scalability that kept them in the game. As technology improves commissions become increasingly more commoditized, and thus coined was the ‘Race to Zero.
Current State of the Union
Large brokerage firms now look primarily to volume, not pricing as the key to feeding the execution beast. However, as most large brokerages look to slash their workforce, the research departments – long considered a ‘cost center’ and often referred to as the ‘red-headed stepchild' of the brokerage world – will certainly take a hit. With less research being written internally to justify higher execution pricing, unbundling research will almost evolve organically from the current issues in the market.
Mid and small executing brokers who provide research – despite their hopeful musings that the sky is not in fact falling - are facing some trouble. Many seem to have hung their hat on the idea that hedge funds want to continue to use an over-abundance of executing brokers, so that competitors won’t be able to follow their trading patterns. Based on our talks with market insiders, this notion seems rather unreasonable. We’re not suggesting that any hedge fund out there is handing his entire trade book over to one execution firm, but minimizing the number of executing brokers is not only something most have said they’re willing to do – from a cost point of view, it’s a priority.
Mid and small guys who recognize the threat on the horizon still have the opportunity to choose a business, any business – either research OR execution – not both – and have a chance at survival.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Alpha or Artifice?
A story titled “And God Created Alpha” from the January 5th edition of The Economist, knocks some fund managers off their high horses by making an important point about replicators and other tools/products being developed to mirror the returns of well-performing funds:
“…If those returns can be reproduced by a set of mechanical rules, is skill really involved?”
We’re not here to throw under the bus any fund managers who’s masterpiece-like returns have made them the idyllic poster-children for knock-offs and frauds, but investors should know that the faux-Picasso and the Canal Street Prada purse have found their way to the fund industry. The difference here is – if the returns are the same, will anyone care that it’s a fake? Probably not.
In a volatile market where hedge funds themselves are not able to generate the same volume of returns, can replicators really find their place in the market? Or will it be survival of the fittest, where only the top performing hedge funds will survive, the rest will fold, and replicators will vacuum up the dollars left behind by the vacating failed funds and go on to match the leaders?
Is there such a thing as ‘alpha’? If replicators succeed, will ‘alpha’ find itself thrown into a category with wives’ tales and urban legends? It could be a true concern down the road, but for now, replicators can’t win if they don’t have great fund performance to replicate. So, at very least, the top-performing funds won’t be closing their doors anytime soon.
However, with these new competitors trying to steal a piece of the pie, there won’t be any room for mediocre performance amongst hedge funds that have been riding the gravy train of ‘hedge fund’ allure. Where artifice substitutes for alpha, there will be abundant failure.
Securing Alpha
The surest way to ward off replicators is to outperform the indexes. Funds that find top-quality research and information to set them apart from the pack will be crucial if they are to outperform ‘synthetics’.
As The Economist story points out, “it’s certainly not a crisis yet…but it ought to be a long term worry.”
“…If those returns can be reproduced by a set of mechanical rules, is skill really involved?”
We’re not here to throw under the bus any fund managers who’s masterpiece-like returns have made them the idyllic poster-children for knock-offs and frauds, but investors should know that the faux-Picasso and the Canal Street Prada purse have found their way to the fund industry. The difference here is – if the returns are the same, will anyone care that it’s a fake? Probably not.
In a volatile market where hedge funds themselves are not able to generate the same volume of returns, can replicators really find their place in the market? Or will it be survival of the fittest, where only the top performing hedge funds will survive, the rest will fold, and replicators will vacuum up the dollars left behind by the vacating failed funds and go on to match the leaders?
Is there such a thing as ‘alpha’? If replicators succeed, will ‘alpha’ find itself thrown into a category with wives’ tales and urban legends? It could be a true concern down the road, but for now, replicators can’t win if they don’t have great fund performance to replicate. So, at very least, the top-performing funds won’t be closing their doors anytime soon.
However, with these new competitors trying to steal a piece of the pie, there won’t be any room for mediocre performance amongst hedge funds that have been riding the gravy train of ‘hedge fund’ allure. Where artifice substitutes for alpha, there will be abundant failure.
Securing Alpha
The surest way to ward off replicators is to outperform the indexes. Funds that find top-quality research and information to set them apart from the pack will be crucial if they are to outperform ‘synthetics’.
As The Economist story points out, “it’s certainly not a crisis yet…but it ought to be a long term worry.”
Friday, January 4, 2008
StreetBrains Top Reads for 2008
If you haven’t already immersed yourself in the following books, you’re missing out. Some are new, and some are ‘oldies but goodies’ that stand the test of time, but all are required reading for any self-professed market junkies. Enjoy!
Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win
by William C. Taylor, Polly G. LaBarre
Hedge Hunters: Hedge Fund Masters on the Rewards, the Risk, and the Reckoning
by Katherine Burton
The Predictors
by Thomas A. Bass
Blood on the Street: The Sensational Inside Story of How Wall Street Analysts Duped a Generation of Investors
by Charles Gasparino
(an oldie but goodie…or a great re-read!)
Liar's Poker: Rising Through the Wreckage on Wall Street
by Michael Lewis
The Coffee Trader
by David Liss
Running Money: Hedge Fund Honchos, Monster Markets and My Hunt for the Big Score
by Andy Kessler
My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance
by Emanuel Derman
The Last Tycoons: The Secret History of Lazard Freres & Co.
by William D. Cohan
The Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons
by Edward J. Renehan
Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win
by William C. Taylor, Polly G. LaBarre
Hedge Hunters: Hedge Fund Masters on the Rewards, the Risk, and the Reckoning
by Katherine Burton
The Predictors
by Thomas A. Bass
Blood on the Street: The Sensational Inside Story of How Wall Street Analysts Duped a Generation of Investors
by Charles Gasparino
(an oldie but goodie…or a great re-read!)
Liar's Poker: Rising Through the Wreckage on Wall Street
by Michael Lewis
The Coffee Trader
by David Liss
Running Money: Hedge Fund Honchos, Monster Markets and My Hunt for the Big Score
by Andy Kessler
My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance
by Emanuel Derman
The Last Tycoons: The Secret History of Lazard Freres & Co.
by William D. Cohan
The Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons
by Edward J. Renehan
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Wall Street Analysts Avoid the “B” word
If you were off drinking egg nog martinis in Saint-Tropez in late December, you may have missed “Settling for ‘Hold’” - a very informative piece of commentary from Bloomberg’s David Wilson. (click here for full story.)
Wilson first relies on Bloomberg’s own database of research to present his case. Most notably, he points out:
- Just 43 percent of the calls made [in December were] buy ratings or equivalents, including ``overweight,'' ``outperform'' and ``accumulate,'' according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The percentage is the lowest since these numbers were first tallied a decade ago.
- Sell ratings and comparable calls have amounted to 5.7 percent. That's less than half the peak reached in July 2003, when brokerage firms were reeling from then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's investigation of Wall Street research.
- Analysts are retreating into the relative safety of ``hold'' recommendations, telling investors who own shares to keep them and those who don't to avoid buying them. The number of ratings in this category surpassed 50 percent for the first time in October and rose to 52 percent this month.
Wilson goes on to make an important point. He says, “Analysts' growing reluctance to say ``buy'' on companies, including securities firms, is understandable. U.S. stocks more than doubled, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, in the five years ended Oct. 9. They have since gone through a so - called correction, or a more than 10 percent loss.”
We agree that collectively, it is understandable that analysts have been reluctant to say ‘buy’ and that the overall sentiment of the market led the ‘abundance of ‘hold’ calls. However, we also think that the reluctance of analysts to seek out new ‘buys’ sheds light on the fundamental problems inherent in the Wall Street research model.
When analysts are siloed off to exclusively cover specific companies, they are pigeon-holed into making some sort of call on those names, rather than seeking out new names that are more primed for investment. If the sector the analyst covers doesn’t do well, their position may become obsolete within their firm. This is precisely the problem – an analyst who is on the front lines is most qualified to see trouble in the sector or company he covers. He should be rewarded for identifying coming problems and threats - not punished by his firm, or stonewalled by a company he downgrades. The model is inherently flawed.
We’re not suggesting we have the solution for fixing the way research is handled, but we do believe that the industry is long overdue for an overhaul. The current model is not scalable, and does not lend itself to improving the quality of research.
A Ray of Hope
One encouraging sign reflected in Wilson’s story was uncovered in research conducted by Greenwich Associates:
Stock recommendations dropped to 8 percent of commissions from 18 percent during the period, the Greenwich, Connecticut-based research and consulting firm found.
This finding suggests that good information and new insights and ideas – not straight stock recommendations - are gaining ground as the benchmark for quality research. This is not particularly helpful to research desks at large brokerage firms, where stock recommendations will continue to govern coverage until ‘the powers that be’ come to their senses – but for independent analysts and research firms, like StreetBrains, this shift can be capitalized upon immediately by increasing the information channel, and scaling back on stock recommendations.
In our experience, PMs are plenty qualified to pick stocks, and don’t really need many recommendations from outside sources. What they do appreciate are new insights and valuable information upon which to base those picks.
Friday, December 28, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The End of Pollyanna Propaganda?
It almost pains us to ‘pile-on’ with yet another blow to Wall Street’s favorite punching bags, but let’s be honest, they’ve brought this upon themselves.In yet another story this week that bullies research analysts about their collective incompetence (to make the distinction, we are referring to the 'mouthpieces' at big firms who are payed to spew rhetoric, not analysts who are independent and conflict-free), Geoff Colvin, writing for Fortune, brought us ‘Analysts in Fantasyland.’ To excerpt from the painfully accurate account delivered in Geoff’s story:
Although their hand was somewhat forced, in-house analysts are finally able to call it like they see it (as long as they talk ONLY about what has already occurred/is occurring). Perhaps it’s better late than never? Could the days of Pollyanna Propaganda be over?Maybe Wall Street analysts are more honest and less compromised than they were pre-SarbOx, but recent events show that they're still awful at their most important job: predicting bad news. They haven't lost their habit of falling in love with the companies they cover and refusing to face unpleasant realities until everyone else has already done so. Now, eight years after they were inflating the bubble, we again have to question whether analysts do retail investors any good.
The latest evidence: Analysts have only just discovered that corporate profits in the fourth quarter aren't going to be nearly as strong as they had supposed a month or two ago. The consensus view going into the quarter was that S&P 500 profits would go up 12 percent to 15 percent, a large jump coming on top of the 20 percent rise in last year's fourth quarter. In light of the credit crunch, the housing collapse, and the towering price of oil, that forecast seemed highly - one might say insanely -optimistic. This it proved to be, but only after the quarter began did the consensus view finally lurch into the real world. Their growth forecast is now about 1.5 percent and still falling.
It has been obvious for many months that profit growth would have to slow way down simply because it couldn't continue at recent rates. Profits have been rising sharply the past few years, which makes sense after the hole they fell into in 2001 and 2002. But by early this year they had grown to 12 percent of GDP, way above their historical average of 9 percent. Analysts knew all this, and in case they didn't, various commentators (including Fortune's Shawn Tully) were insistently pointing it out. But the analysts, ever hopeful, chose to believe that U.S. companies would perform magic.
We doubt it, but at least they’re not denying the sky is blue….for now.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Wall Street Swarmed With McFlys
For those of you who remember the 80’s classic, ‘Back to the Future’, I’m sure you’ll agree – George McFly is the most spineless character in cinematic history.Sadly, it seems that McFly has cloned himself a thousand times over, and his spawn have infiltrated Wall Street in the form of research analysts.
In Scott Patterson’s ‘Ahead of the Tape’ column in today’s Wall Street Journal, he pulls the lid off of Wall Street research in his story titled, ‘Analysts Botch Profit Forecasts on Home Turf.’ (click here for full story.)
While the entire article goes on to point out conflict-ridden research coming out of the Street, particularly in the wake of the subprime mess, one quote in particular stuck with us.
Paul Hickey, co-founder of Bespoke Investment Group is quoted in the article, saying, “You often see brokerage companies giving their peer companies the benefit of the doubt, so they don’t get in this shooting match.”
What is it exactly that has stripped Wall Street analysts of their backbone? Fear of being fired? Perhaps. But that exists for all employees, no? Even full out whistleblowers out there in the past 5-10 years have stood up to ‘The Man’ and been rewarded, so the fears of these analysts to issue negative or contrarian reporters seems unfounded. Yet Wall Street analysts seem to cower in their corners, doing as they're told, content to simply keep their heads down, collect their paychecks, and pray they aren’t asked to become a profit center. McFlys.
With only 7% ‘Sell’ ratings on the year, and with all of the Biffs out there pointing the bullying finger in their direction, in-house analysts are going to have a tough go in ’08. Independent analysts have a tremendous opportunity to make inroads with players on the prowl for valuable research.
Appropriately, here’s the dialogue from a scene between Biff (the bully) and McFly (the spineless wuss):
Biff Tannen: And uh, where's my reports?
George McFly: Uh, well, I haven't finished those up yet, but you know I... I figured since they weren't due till...
Biff Tannen: Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think! I gotta have time to get 'em retyped. Do you realize what would happen if I hand in my reports in your handwriting? I'll get fired. You wouldn't want that to happen, would ya? Would ya?
George McFly: Of course not, Biff. I wouldn't want that to happen. Now, look. I'll finish those reports on up tonight and I'll run 'em on over first thing tomorrow. All right?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
We Called It
As previously mentioned, every couple of weeks we will be highlighting some of the big calls made by StreetBrains’ portfolio of independent analysts.
Remember: StreetBrains provides conflict-free research – the analysts do not hold positions in the stocks they cover, and are not affiliated to any investment banking outfits. Period.
Below are some of our calls:
Remember: StreetBrains provides conflict-free research – the analysts do not hold positions in the stocks they cover, and are not affiliated to any investment banking outfits. Period.
Below are some of our calls:
- Boo-hoo, Mickey - PatternWatch put the squeeze on Walt Disney (DIS) this past Friday, when they pointed to technicals and fundamentals that supported shorting this stock. Click here to read ‘Mouse Trapped’ by Carrie Coolidge from the 12.24.07 issue of Forbes, now on newsstands.
- Known best for great pairing ideas, Gotham Research recently was up 15% on a Bob Evans (BOBE) (long) / Brinker (EAT) (short) pairing. They worked their magic again when they closed out up 11% on a Commerce Bancorp (CBH)/Bancolumbia (CIB) play last week.
- Photizo Group continues to cultivate their contrarian calls by putting a BUY rating on Xerox (XRX) this past week.
- Coming from very different sector perspectives, both Sterling Account and inMotion issued BUY ratings on Schlumberger (SLB) recently. Perhaps they’re on to something….
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, December 7, 2007
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.
“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.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
On Wall Street, Sell = Salmonella
If you read Dana Cimilluca’s story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled, “Research Analysts: Best-Paid Concierges?” (click here for story) and thought, “That’s just absurd!” - you’re with us.
In the independent research world, we tackle this issue on a daily basis. Some independent research providers pride themselves on their abilities to set up company management meetings for their clients. In fairness to them – in many cases, this is what clients want. We are constantly surprised at the interest and desire amongst our hedge fund and bulge bracket firm clients to have such meetings. Not to suggest that company management doesn’t have anything insightful to say – but when have you ever been to a company meeting where the company provided insights into how they are falling short or worse - failing?
What is the true value of these meetings? And more importantly, are they really worth paying commission pricing for? Are there actually companies out there who are unwilling to sit down and meet with hedge funds and other institutional investors without a middle man (analyst) being involved? Wouldn’t it be much more simple and cost effective for these high powered investors to go directly to company management and arrange a meeting?
"The Catering Business"
We affectionately refer to our research counterparts who focus on company management luncheon schmooze sessions as ‘The Catering Business.” In the catering business approach to research, an analyst issuing a SELL (GASP!) recommendation on the host company is the equivalent of serving up salmonella to the black-tie crowd at Cipriani.
Besides the fact that regulatory rules won’t allow for companies to really open up in these meetings, does any party involved really expect an analyst to offer up an objective, insightful, potentially critical report after a company has played host to interested investors?
If so, we respectively contend these people reside in FantasyLand.
Since access to companies is important to analysts’ abilities to do their jobs, it’s no wonder sell recommendations this year have dropped to 7% (according to WSJ story). Our question is, why would anyone want such conflict-ridden research, let alone pay for it? Do these people still have Jack Grubman on speed-dial?
Isn’t it about time that analysts band together and raise the bar for objective research? Isn’t it up to analysts to manage companies’ expectations about what a company meeting entitles them to? It should be a chance for them to be heard – not an automatic guarantee of a buy rating.
Analysts should take a page from journalists and recognize that their job is to provide objective and insightful perspectives – not make friends. Fears of being stonewalled, bruised egos, and negative market impacts should not have any impact on the integrity of an analyst’s research.
StreetBrains believes analysts should leave the catering to Cipriani, and focus on writing insightful, objective research.
In the independent research world, we tackle this issue on a daily basis. Some independent research providers pride themselves on their abilities to set up company management meetings for their clients. In fairness to them – in many cases, this is what clients want. We are constantly surprised at the interest and desire amongst our hedge fund and bulge bracket firm clients to have such meetings. Not to suggest that company management doesn’t have anything insightful to say – but when have you ever been to a company meeting where the company provided insights into how they are falling short or worse - failing?
What is the true value of these meetings? And more importantly, are they really worth paying commission pricing for? Are there actually companies out there who are unwilling to sit down and meet with hedge funds and other institutional investors without a middle man (analyst) being involved? Wouldn’t it be much more simple and cost effective for these high powered investors to go directly to company management and arrange a meeting?
"The Catering Business"
We affectionately refer to our research counterparts who focus on company management luncheon schmooze sessions as ‘The Catering Business.” In the catering business approach to research, an analyst issuing a SELL (GASP!) recommendation on the host company is the equivalent of serving up salmonella to the black-tie crowd at Cipriani.
Besides the fact that regulatory rules won’t allow for companies to really open up in these meetings, does any party involved really expect an analyst to offer up an objective, insightful, potentially critical report after a company has played host to interested investors?
If so, we respectively contend these people reside in FantasyLand.
Since access to companies is important to analysts’ abilities to do their jobs, it’s no wonder sell recommendations this year have dropped to 7% (according to WSJ story). Our question is, why would anyone want such conflict-ridden research, let alone pay for it? Do these people still have Jack Grubman on speed-dial?
Isn’t it about time that analysts band together and raise the bar for objective research? Isn’t it up to analysts to manage companies’ expectations about what a company meeting entitles them to? It should be a chance for them to be heard – not an automatic guarantee of a buy rating.
Analysts should take a page from journalists and recognize that their job is to provide objective and insightful perspectives – not make friends. Fears of being stonewalled, bruised egos, and negative market impacts should not have any impact on the integrity of an analyst’s research.
StreetBrains believes analysts should leave the catering to Cipriani, and focus on writing insightful, objective research.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Rejecting Researchecution
Just as Hollywood’s got Brangelina and TomKat, Wall Street has Researchecution: a hybrid coupling that seemed like a good idea once upon a time, but ultimately has the shelf-life of canned fruit.
The days of Researchecution – the ‘bundling’ of research and execution costs - are very close to numbered here in the US, and are already a thing of the past in the UK. Increasingly more Wall Street firms are asking themselves why they continue to bundle these services, and the case for client commission arrangements (CCAs; commission sharing agreements/CSAs; soft dollar arrangements, etc, etc.) to aid ease of payment for a la carte research - while enabling best execution pricing - is gaining traction. However, this isn’t the first divorce that some on Wall Street have been reluctant to embrace.
Not long ago, you may recall the painful breakup of investment bankers from their beloved research desk counterparts. Although research had been a supportive and loyal partner, investment bankers abused the relationship, and eventually divorce ensued.
The same separation is imminent for research and execution. The issue of transparency over what monies pay for execution vs. what monies pay for research will eventually come center stage – whether it be on a regulatory level, or internally at firms as they struggle to justify all spending in the current volatile market.
The questions that firms are starting to ask themselves are: “What are the benefits to unbundling research from execution? Will it save my firm money? Is it necessary? If so, why has the SEC not implemented a rule requiring unbundling? What advantage will it provide? Will it cost me more in compliance?"
Integrity Research’s blog on Sunday offers a ‘state of the union’ for the current environment for CCAs. At StreetBrains, we’ve been having these same discussions with clients and potential clients as well. The landscape for CCAs is still somewhat uncharted territory and some firms are hesitant to jump on the CCA bandwagon. However, an increasing amount seem to see the value and advantages to unbundling.
To answer the questions above:
1) The benefits of unbundling research from execution are many. First, you will be able to ensure you are getting best execution pricing (since you won’t be ‘factoring in’ research costs.) Second, you can pay solely for research you want and use, rather than being bombarded with research you neither want nor need. You can establish relationships solely with those research providers you value and trust. Third, unbundling research costs from execution costs make for more transparent bookkeeping – and although there is no rule that currently requires that level of transparency, the likelihood of such a rule coming about is imminent.
2) There is little research out there thus far showing whether or not unbundling saves money. What we do know is that unbundling helps firms to more accurately assess the value of their research purchases, so they are able to adjust spending accordingly. Although the cost savings are still unclear, what is clear is that unbundling provides a clearer picture to assess what you are paying for. In a market environment where purse strings are tightening, the ability to pinpoint the cost: value ratio is of utmost importance.
3) Although there is no rule currently requiring research to be unbundled from execution pricing, such a rule is likely to come – and soon. So, using CCAs would seem (and does seem, to many of our clients) to be a no-brainer – stay ahead of the regulatory curve; get a clearer picture of what your firm is spending its money on; and pay for what you value. (best execution, and great research.) Additionally, unbundling improves transparency without adding to compliance costs.
Many more firms are beginning to understand the implicit value of unbundling, and are looking to independent research providers such as StreetBrains as they divorce Researchecution. To learn more, please visit our complete “Myths and Facts” page that helps dispel some common myths about paying for independent investment research.
The days of Researchecution – the ‘bundling’ of research and execution costs - are very close to numbered here in the US, and are already a thing of the past in the UK. Increasingly more Wall Street firms are asking themselves why they continue to bundle these services, and the case for client commission arrangements (CCAs; commission sharing agreements/CSAs; soft dollar arrangements, etc, etc.) to aid ease of payment for a la carte research - while enabling best execution pricing - is gaining traction. However, this isn’t the first divorce that some on Wall Street have been reluctant to embrace.
Not long ago, you may recall the painful breakup of investment bankers from their beloved research desk counterparts. Although research had been a supportive and loyal partner, investment bankers abused the relationship, and eventually divorce ensued.
The same separation is imminent for research and execution. The issue of transparency over what monies pay for execution vs. what monies pay for research will eventually come center stage – whether it be on a regulatory level, or internally at firms as they struggle to justify all spending in the current volatile market.
The questions that firms are starting to ask themselves are: “What are the benefits to unbundling research from execution? Will it save my firm money? Is it necessary? If so, why has the SEC not implemented a rule requiring unbundling? What advantage will it provide? Will it cost me more in compliance?"
Integrity Research’s blog on Sunday offers a ‘state of the union’ for the current environment for CCAs. At StreetBrains, we’ve been having these same discussions with clients and potential clients as well. The landscape for CCAs is still somewhat uncharted territory and some firms are hesitant to jump on the CCA bandwagon. However, an increasing amount seem to see the value and advantages to unbundling.
To answer the questions above:
1) The benefits of unbundling research from execution are many. First, you will be able to ensure you are getting best execution pricing (since you won’t be ‘factoring in’ research costs.) Second, you can pay solely for research you want and use, rather than being bombarded with research you neither want nor need. You can establish relationships solely with those research providers you value and trust. Third, unbundling research costs from execution costs make for more transparent bookkeeping – and although there is no rule that currently requires that level of transparency, the likelihood of such a rule coming about is imminent.
2) There is little research out there thus far showing whether or not unbundling saves money. What we do know is that unbundling helps firms to more accurately assess the value of their research purchases, so they are able to adjust spending accordingly. Although the cost savings are still unclear, what is clear is that unbundling provides a clearer picture to assess what you are paying for. In a market environment where purse strings are tightening, the ability to pinpoint the cost: value ratio is of utmost importance.
3) Although there is no rule currently requiring research to be unbundled from execution pricing, such a rule is likely to come – and soon. So, using CCAs would seem (and does seem, to many of our clients) to be a no-brainer – stay ahead of the regulatory curve; get a clearer picture of what your firm is spending its money on; and pay for what you value. (best execution, and great research.) Additionally, unbundling improves transparency without adding to compliance costs.
Many more firms are beginning to understand the implicit value of unbundling, and are looking to independent research providers such as StreetBrains as they divorce Researchecution. To learn more, please visit our complete “Myths and Facts” page that helps dispel some common myths about paying for independent investment research.
Friday, November 30, 2007
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We Called It
Moderator’s Note: Every week or two, we’ll be putting together a brief update section, such as the below to give our readers an update on how our analysts are doing and where their insights are being published. Check back for more calls-come-true!
As mentioned in the previous post, Photizo Group – part of StreetBrains independent research consortium – was the sole analyst group (1 out of 14) on the Street to have a BUY rating on LXK (Lexmark International). After having this fact highlighted in an article in Sunday’s Barron’s, the stock jolted up 2.08% on Monday - a day when the DJIA was down 1.66%!
Also over the weekend, DebtVisions was cited in the FT, after calling that the Alltel deal would have trouble getting done.
Two other StreetBrains analysts kicked off the holiday week with timely calls:
More to come....
As mentioned in the previous post, Photizo Group – part of StreetBrains independent research consortium – was the sole analyst group (1 out of 14) on the Street to have a BUY rating on LXK (Lexmark International). After having this fact highlighted in an article in Sunday’s Barron’s, the stock jolted up 2.08% on Monday - a day when the DJIA was down 1.66%!
Also over the weekend, DebtVisions was cited in the FT, after calling that the Alltel deal would have trouble getting done.
Two other StreetBrains analysts kicked off the holiday week with timely calls:
- MediValu was one of very few analysts to have a BUY rating on Pharmion (PHRM), with a $55 price target. Pharmion was acquired by Celgene (CELG) for $72 a share.
- The Bank Notes put a BUY rating on Franklin Bank Corp (FBTX), calling the15.28% drop off in the stock price on 11/19 “unfounded.” The analyst covering FBTX for Keefe, Bruyette & Wood seemed to have the same sentiments – he issued the same call this morning. Together, they seem to be the only two analysts ready to stick their toe back into the water of this stock.
Last but not least, have we mentioned that StreetBrains’ oil analyst, Sterling Account, is up over 43% on its calls for the year? (As per Sterling Account, please click here for full details of their calls.)
More to come....
Sunday, November 18, 2007
He Who Stands Alone....
Henrik Ibsen once said, “The Strongest Man in the World is He Who Stands Most Alone.”
The same can be said for investment research – the strongest research is that which sets itself apart entirely from its peers.
In a story in this week’s Barron’s, one of the Street’s brightest, most well respected investment columnists, Michael Santoli, pointed to insights from StreetBrains’ analysts, Photizo Group, to support the idea that LXK (Lexmark International) is a BUY - despite the fact that 13 of 14 analysts on the Street have a SELL or HOLD rating on the company.
Photizo Group – the leaders in imaging industry research – are the sole analysts rating LXK as a BUY.
StreetBrains clients who read Photizo Group research have been privy to these insights about LXK for months. This Barron’s story underscores the value of StreetBrains research: Our analysts are experts on niche industries, companies and sectors, and we provide insights that our clients aren’t hearing anywhere else.
In addition to the Barron's placement, DebtVisions - also part of StreetBrains research consortium - was featured in the Financial Times this weekend, discussing the unlikelihood of the Alltel deal getting done. (click here to read the full story.)
The same can be said for investment research – the strongest research is that which sets itself apart entirely from its peers.
In a story in this week’s Barron’s, one of the Street’s brightest, most well respected investment columnists, Michael Santoli, pointed to insights from StreetBrains’ analysts, Photizo Group, to support the idea that LXK (Lexmark International) is a BUY - despite the fact that 13 of 14 analysts on the Street have a SELL or HOLD rating on the company.
Photizo Group – the leaders in imaging industry research – are the sole analysts rating LXK as a BUY.
StreetBrains clients who read Photizo Group research have been privy to these insights about LXK for months. This Barron’s story underscores the value of StreetBrains research: Our analysts are experts on niche industries, companies and sectors, and we provide insights that our clients aren’t hearing anywhere else.
In addition to the Barron's placement, DebtVisions - also part of StreetBrains research consortium - was featured in the Financial Times this weekend, discussing the unlikelihood of the Alltel deal getting done. (click here to read the full story.)
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
“[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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
