Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 16, 2002 / 5 Iyar, 5762

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Analyze this |
For the past 10 months, the attorney general of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has been investigating Merrill Lynch & Co. Although he hasn't charged anyone with a crime, he has accused the firm of misleading customers by hyping stocks to win investment-banking business; Merrill's advice, he claims, is "tainted" by conflicts of interest.

Mr. Spitzer has turned up e-mails that he says show that analysts, using colorful words like "crap" and "dog," were more pessimistic about some stocks in private than in public. Mr. Spitzer's proposed solution is to force Merrill to pay big fines and spin off its research department as a separate business, and sources say he has expanded his investigation to nearly a dozen other firms. He admits his aim is nothing less than a restructuring of the financial industry.

Mr. Spitzer isn't the only politician angry at analysts. Congress is threatening new laws, and the Securities and Exchange Commission -- under political pressure itself -- has pressured the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange into writing new regulations that would force analysts to make excruciatingly detailed disclosures of their holdings and their performance and to bar firms from linking analyst pay to investment banking.

While it's important to unmask crooked analysts and it's good for the public to understand that firms have conflicts, the current hysteria is ultimately bad for markets -- especially for small investors. New regulations will inevitably load new costs onto firms and diminish their resources -- not to mention their desire -- to provide clients with strong analysis. And the attacks by Mr. Spitzer -- and the gang of state attorneys general who will inevitably follow -- will help slipstreaming plaintiffs' attorneys file huge lawsuits. Giving investment advice could turn out to be just as risky as manufacturing silicone breast implants, and firms may simply stop doing it.

Every bear market requires a scapegoat, and this time the chosen victims are stock analysts. Why didn't they see Enron coming? Why didn't they tell clients to bail out of sooner? Why didn't they know the Nasdaq would crash? The obvious answer is that even experts make mistakes and that markets are utterly unpredictable in the short term, but that's a theory that lacks an appealing conspiracy, so reformers have seized on the notion that analysts have conflicts of interest since they work for companies that also provide investment-banking services.

Do such conflicts exist? Of course. But conflicts abound in every nook and cranny of society. Politicians themselves are pulled in different directions by their contributors, their parties, their families. But, in the end, they try to surmount the conflicts and make sound judgments. They have to -- because those judgments are held up to intense public scrutiny.

Likewise stock analysts. Their work is out there in the public arena; their records are closely examined. Publications like The Wall Street Journal and Institutional Investor make lists of analyst all-star teams. Research firms like Zack's and First Call devote enormous effort to tracking analyst recommendations. If analysts make their choices not on the basis of company fundamentals but because they are swayed by investing-banking considerations, these biased judgments will produce poor performance. The proof is not in the anecdotes, but in the broad results.

Fortunately, there's a study that looks at such results. A year ago, a group of four California economists -- Brad Barber, Reuven Lehavy, Maureen McNichols and Brett Trueman -- published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Finance the most extensive research on record of the performance of stock analysts. It showed that analysts do an exceptionally good job picking winners.

The researchers examined "over 360,000 recommendations from 269 brokerage houses and 4,340 analysts" between 1985 and 1996, classifying consensus rankings on individual stocks into five categories. They found that the highest-rated stocks produced average annual returns of 18.8% while the lowest-rated returned just 5.8%. The market as a whole over this period returned an average of 14.5%.

Mr. Barber and his colleagues then controlled for "market risk, size, book-to-market, and price momentum effects" and concluded that a portfolio composed of "the most highly recommended stocks provides an average annual abnormal gross return of 4.13% whereas a portfolio of the least favorably recommended ones yields an average annual abnormal return of negative 4.91%." In other words, an investor who bought the top-rated stocks and shorted the lowest-rated stocks would beat the market by about nine percentage points a year. This performance can only be called astonishing.

Despite the Barber research, there's no doubt that some analysts are biased and that some firms put heavy pressure on their research departments to support investment banking. How to discipline such practices? The best way is through tough reporting. Analysts operate in public; the numbers are there; journalists and other analysts should count them and publicize them.

The answer is certainly not crazy, nitpicky new NASD regulations that would, for example, require every analyst report to include "a chart that depicts the price of the subject company's stock over time and indicates the points at which a member or member organization assigned or changed a rating or price target." Is this a good idea? Maybe, but it's no business of the regulators to require it. Investment firms themselves already have good incentive to provide charts and graphs if their clients want them.

Nor is Spitzerism the answer. If crimes were committed, let him prosecute. But his designs are far more grandiose -- and perplexing for the attorney general of a state trying desperately to keep investment firms from moving elsewhere. He wants to subject analysts to what John Coffee, a Columbia University professor of corporate law, called "ceremonial humiliation" at public hearings, but his ultimate goal is some sort of "global resolution" to restructure the industry.

In the end, all of this exaggerated emphasis on analysts is misleading for investors and dangerous to markets. A positive recommendation from an analyst should only be a small element in the process of deciding whether to buy a stock. That's the message investors need to hear. Instead, Mr. Spitzer and members of Congress who should know better, like Rep. Richard Baker (R., La.), are indicating to investors that their losses in recent years are the result of biased analysts rather than simply a decline in corporate profits during an economic slowdown.

The lesson to investors from the politicians is that, if it weren't for the sleazeballs, every constituent would be raking in piles of dough in the stock market. What investors need to understand is that stocks go up and down and that history shows that the market declines, on average, every three or four years. For a stock to fall, no scapegoat is required.

JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.


04/09/02: The Dot.Con con game
03/21/02: The companies you keep
02/28/02: Trusting monopolists
02/22/02: How not to get taken when buying stocks
02/06/02: Investing After 9/11
01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock
01/24/02: Dare to be obscure
01/16/02: Bank on this
01/10/02: What goes down...
01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Tech’s Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothing’s arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesn’t cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with tech’s leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Who’s To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Where’s The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Bill’s and Larry’s continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Let’s Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clinton’s sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecom’s Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants don’t listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesn’t fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Don’t Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When It’s Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2002, Tech Central Station