Yesterday someone sent me a link to Understanding Securities Analyst Recommendations, written by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the brokerage industry trade organization.
The short article is surprisingly candid and contains important information, although couched in very abstract language.
The highlights (paraphrased by me):
–brokerage house analysts, and the brokerage houses themselves, are subject to enormous potential conflicts of interest when it come s to saying what they think the future performance of a given stock may be. For instance, –a company may select a brokerage house for lucrative investment banking business based on how favorably the firm rates its stock
–conversely, it may refuse to give corporate information to analysts who rate the stock unfavorably. The company may “forget” to return phone calls, avoid appearing at conferences sponsored by the analyst, refuse to appear with the analyst at public or private investor meetings, or not acknowledge requests for information from institutional investors that are directed through the offending analyst. The company may even more overtly try to get the analyst fired.
–very large money management companies may build up gigantic positions in the stock of a given company. Powerful portfolio managers may have large stakes riding on the stock’s performance–and the positions may well be too big to sell quickly, in any event. So they may pressure brokers and their analysts to maintain a favorable opinion on the stock. Their threat–to withhold trading commissions from a firm that downgrades the stock. Same thing about firing the analyst, too.
–as a result, the terms brokers use to rate stocks may not be self-evident. “Buy,” for example. may not be a particularly good rating. “Strong Buy” or “Conviction Buy” may be what we’d ordinarily understand as”buy.” “Buy” may be closer to “Eh” or “Hold.” Of course, analysts may also have one official opinion in writing and another that it expresses verbally to clients.
Two other worthwhile points the article makes:
–some analysts may not be highly skilled, so their recommendation may not be worth much. Rookies may not have enough experience, for instance, and they may be more susceptible to outside pressure than others. Analysts may not know a spreadsheet from a hole in the ground but have the ear of management. (Oddly, old-fashioned managements continue to give information to favored analysts that they deny to shareholders.)
–the fact that a portfolio manager owns a stocks, even if it’s a large position and if his analyst appears on TV saying positive things about it, the manager may hold the stock for completely different reasons (more on this tomorrow). Anyway, the FINRA page is well worth reading.