2/17/11

thoughts?

Comments (64)

2/17/11

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KarateBoy

Financial Modeling

2/17/11
KarateBoy:

//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/for-er-how-much-doe...

Disagree completely. While the best analysts aren't necessarily at BBs, a junior person/associate is far better off at a big name firm. You're guaranteed to be paid at least on par with people of equivalent experience and you'll have better resources, better access to mgmt, etc. When dealing with exit ops or a career change, you'll get the benefit of the doubt of your firm's brand. It's much more common to see an analyst who was an associate at a BB vs a boutique/MM because that person's resume carries more weight. Not right, just the way it is.

I work at a boutique and I'm starting to see some of the differences (notably pay, resources, sales support). While I really like my analyst, I'd probably push harder for a BB if I could do it again. It's hard to say which firm is best but from what I've seen/heard, Barclays (ex Lehman), MS, and BofaML have stellar reputations.

2/17/11

I too work in a boutique/middle-market bank like you and I understand where you are coming from. I accepted my offer last January while it seemed none of the BBs were hiring when I was looking. It's a little frustrating to see my younger classmates with comparable resumes being offered job are Goldman Sachs, Barclay's, and JP Morgan while I had to REALLY bust my ass to get one non-BB offer.

Neither of us can know this for sure but this may be an example of non-BB juniors fantasizing of "greener pastures"

Half of the individuals I work with came from BB banks (either as associates with experiences or analyst that were invited with the promise of a big pay) and many of them feel that our boutique does a better job because

1) We care more about our companies and the research we produce
2) Typically have a longer term view
3) Typically have better relationship with management due to longer relations and, on a relative basis, high turnover that the big banks
4) Less of a slave to the I-Bankers
5) We cover less companies so the quality per note is higher

So I find it more than a little interesting to hear non-BBers complain about lack of access to resources while former-BBers rave about the higher quality of work done.

I do believe that a non-BB analyst can give you more attention than a BB analyst, especially if he is traveling 3-4 days a week chasing banking deals. Then it becomes a question of what is more valuable, a prestigious brand or being on an accelerated learning curve. I wish I had the answer to that one.

So, on a personal note. I wish I spoke with the buyside more often and had access to the top funds. HOWEVER, even if I did it would be unlikely that I would call them or that it would be worth while for them to speak to speak with me, especially if my analyst had not spent HOURS per week teaching me. I say this with confidence because I doubt junior guy (regardless of the bank he works with) knows more about about any given company and how the company's stock trades than any buysider who is considering purchasing the stock.

Dank Nugs:
KarateBoy:

//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/for-er-how-much-doe...

Disagree completely. While the best analysts aren't necessarily at BBs, a junior person/associate is far better off at a big name firm. You're guaranteed to be paid at least on par with people of equivalent experience and you'll have better resources, better access to mgmt, etc. When dealing with exit ops or a career change, you'll get the benefit of the doubt of your firm's brand. It's much more common to see an analyst who was an associate at a BB vs a boutique/MM because that person's resume carries more weight. Not right, just the way it is.

I work at a boutique and I'm starting to see some of the differences (notably pay, resources, sales support). While I really like my analyst, I'd probably push harder for a BB if I could do it again. It's hard to say which firm is best but from what I've seen/heard, Barclays (ex Lehman), MS, and BofaML have stellar reputations.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KarateBoy

Best Response
2/17/11

As said above, it is rather an "individual" game. However, ER rankings do tell which houses have a good number of recognized individuals, corporate access, execution, etc. -which is always good to know if you are starting-. The main rankings is Reuter's Extel Awards (http://www.extelsurveys.com).

They don't do US, but here is Europe, Asia and Japan for 2010. They also rank individual analysts per sector, and to avoid the subjectivity of "quality research", they do so in terms of commissions generated.

EUROPE:
1 1 UBS
2 2 Bank of America Securities - Merrill Lynch
3 3 Credit Suisse Securities
4 6 Morgan Stanley
5 4 J.P. Morgan Cazenove
6 7 Deutsche Bank
7 5 Citi
8 9 Exane BNP Paribas
9 8 Societe Generale
10 10 CA Cheuvreux
11 13 HSBC
12 11 Goldman Sachs
13 18 Nomura Securities
14 14 Sanford C. Bernstein
15 23 Barclays Capital
16 16 RBS Global Banking & Markets
17 19 Kepler Capital Markets
18 15 Natixis
19 21 Redburn Partners
20 17 Oddo Securities
21 20 ING Financial Markets
22 (-) Evolution Securities
23 (-) UniCredit
24 22 Commerzbank Corporates & Markets
25 (-) Macquarie Equities

ASIA:
1 4 Credit Suisse Securities
2 2 CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets
3 1 J.P. Morgan
4 3 UBS Asia
5 5 Citi Investment Research
6 9 Deutsche Bank
7 8 Nomura
8 6 Banc of America Securities - Merrill Lynch
9 11 Macquarie
10 7 Goldman Sachs Asia
11 10 Morgan Stanley
12 13 BNP Paribas Securities
13 (-) CIMB Securities (Singapore)
14 18 RBS Asia Securities
15 17 DBS Vickers Securities
16 14 Kotak Securities
17 (-) Daewoo Securities
18 (-) Motilal Oswal Securities
19 21 Daiwa Securities Group
20 (-) Ho Chi Minh City Securities Corporation (HSC)
21 12 China International Capital Corporation (CICC)
22 16 HSBC
23 (-) BOCI
24 (-) JM Financial ASK Securities
25 (-) Standard Chartered Bank

JAPAN:
1 6 Mitsubishi UFJ Securities
2 14 Barclays Capital
3 2 UBS Securities Japan
4 1 Merrill Lynch Japan Securities
5 21 Tokai Tokyo Research Center
6 10 Mizuho Securities
7 7 Morgan Stanley Japan Securities
8 5 Goldman Sachs (Japan)
9 3 Nomura Securities
10 13 Citigroup
11 11 Calyon Securities (Japan) (CLSA)
12 12 Deutsche Securities Ltd. (Japan)
13 15 Macquarie Equities (Tristone)
14 8 J.P. Morgan Securities Asia Private
15 9 Credit Suisse Securities (Japan)
16 19 Ichiyoshi Securities
17 4 Daiwa Securities Group
18 17 Okasan Securities

2/17/11

I like Bernstein research. Stifel is pretty good at times. All BBs research suck. Most boutiques are terrible too(e.g. D.A. Davidson or some sht)

2/17/11
bunkerbanker:

I like Bernstein research. Stifel is pretty good at times. All BBs research suck. Most boutiques are terrible too(e.g. D.A. Davidson or some sht)

Yeah all BBs suck. Barclay's product is the best, mostly b/c of the Lehman inheritance but still. Also every boutique does not suck, Argus and Janney both have great analysts in certain spaces. D.A is not a bad product also, I highly doubt you work on the buyside so this is probably a waste.

2/17/11

Janney is not bad I agree.

I mean in general, boutiques aren't much better.. like a Longbow or Suntrust. Obviously there are a few that are good (Blair and Gleacher come to mind)

2/17/11

Baird has at least a few good analysts too. I'm familiar with their transportation and industrial guy.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KarateBoy

2/18/11

Stifel Nicholaus is sick

2/18/11

Even if "Baird" or "Gleacher" are great, wouldn't it make more sense to work for Goldman -even if their research is shit- in order to keep your exit opportunities more open?

2/18/11

Why would a HF want to hire someone who writes poor research? How will you add value to the firm?

IMO, hiring people with the words "Goldman" on their CV doesn't generate as much alpha as hiring people who know their stuff.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KarateBoy

2/18/11

Good posts, I learned a lot. Can someone clarify sell-side/buy-side to a newbie? One side promotes/sells and the other advises on investments? that about right?

2/19/11

Interesting posts. I was wondering whether ER was "easier" to get in to than IB? What sort of people are they looking for?

2/21/11

BBs are the best place for equity research, at least until you are a star analyst... then it doesn't matter where you work.

At the beggining, BBs have a established training structure. Many BBs put their graduates in full classroom training from July (when the programme starts) to December (when they make them take CFA1), and this is something that boutiques cannot afford to match.

From then on, resources are always superior at BBs. Corporate access, specialized sales people, execution... Salaries are higher too.

2/19/11

Walkerr, thats a tough question to answer. I think it ends up being just as hard as
1) IBD's pedigree of candidates are higher
2) ER needs less grunts, so grad opportunities are often less. The value of your major is also lessened as ER tend to appreciate varied backgrounds alot more ie if you were a straight business major and you came up against a kid with a resource engineer + finance background.. (assuming the group was related to commodities etc)

2/19/11

Thanks for the response Wannabe. My goal is to be a portfolio manager some day, hedge fund or mutual fund. Do a lot of people make the switch to HF or MF? I guess it depends on how good you are, which is defined by how well you score with your analysis?

2/23/11

You can always start in buyside research, which is obviously the biggest pipeline to the portfolio management track, at least at mutual funds/traditional AMs.

Walkerr:

Thanks for the response Wannabe. My goal is to be a portfolio manager some day, hedge fund or mutual fund. Do a lot of people make the switch to HF or MF? I guess it depends on how good you are, which is defined by how well you score with your analysis?

2/21/11

Is that really true about how prime brokers of the companies get their results the night before?

I always just thought the associates damn near killed themselves to get the note out so quickly.

Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.

2/23/11

I never heard of this. Sounds like unfair/unequal dissemination of material information.

roar19:

Is that really true about how prime brokers of the companies get their results the night before?

I always just thought the associates damn near killed themselves to get the note out so quickly.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KarateBoy

3/12/11
KarateBoy:

I never heard of this. Sounds like unfair/unequal dissemination of material information.

roar19:

Is that really true about how prime brokers of the companies get their results the night before?

I always just thought the associates damn near killed themselves to get the note out so quickly.

This absolutely DOES happen. Certain companies do this every single quarter, although they are definitely in the minority. I work at a BB. It is called 'embargo' data, and occasionally a firm will release results to a select group the evening prior to the press release. Each Analyst has to agree to the terms of the embargo - which strictly forbids any discussion of results until they are offered to the general public. The senior IR person or CFO will then (usually) personally call each Analyst who received the embargo data to chat - the IR guy is trying to determine what kinds of questions the Analysts will ask on the earnings call in order to better prepare the CEO. I cover 15 companies and one of my companies does this. The company is a small-cap conglomerate that owns a wide range of businesses.

Usually the Associate works like crazy to update the model and publish a First Read, usually within 30-45 minutes of the numbers hitting the wire. This gives you roughly 2-3 minutes to print, 5 minutes to scan / read the PR, 10 minutes to update your model (better hope nothing crazy happened during the quarter!), 10 minutes to write the note, and 5-10 minutes to push it out the door through the publishing / compliance / editing process. And if anything goes wrong, you are going to be screwed during the Earnings Conference Call, which typically begins ~30-60 minutes following the issuance of the press release. IMO it is the most intense part of the job, especially if a major company has lots of obscure one-time events, which always become tricky with the model.

By rule, BB is definitely better than boutiques when you are just starting out. I fully agree with Dank Nugs (hilarious name btw). Pay will be better. Resources will be deeper. If an II ranked Analyst is working at a small shop, he likely has a huge pay package that keeps him there.

BB banks will have an equity sales department, which acts as a megaphone for your Analysts' "calls". When my Analyst says "Buy X", he has a huge sales force echoing his call to every PM on the Street. When a small cap Analyst says "Buy X", he has to rely on his own rolodex. The trading floor at my BB will generate significant trades from the "Buy X" call, and thus my Analyst gets his huge bonus at the end of the year.

The sales dept will also put the Associates in front of all the big hedge funds literally all day long. When the sales dept recommends the "Buy GM" call to the buyside Analyst, the buyside Analyst or PM will often want to speak directly to the sell side Analyst who made the "Buy GM" call. Often the Analyst is too busy, so the work falls on the Associate's plate.

All things being equal, working for an II ranked Analyst is better than not. And all things being equal, working for a BB vs. a boutique in ER is definitely better IMO.

I cover two sectors. The #1 guy for the first sector is at a BB. The #1 guy for the second sector is at a boutique (it's a much smaller sector).

Financial Modeling

2/23/11

Agreed. Doesn't happen.

3/12/11

on the buy-side you wanna work for asset management firms and not BB's! above street pay, great hours, better training, huge networks into HF's other investment management firms as you are already on the buy-side

3/12/11
lifesgreatmystery:

on the buy-side you wanna work for asset management firms and not BB's! above street pay, great hours, better training, huge networks into HF's other investment management firms as you are already on the buy-side

What are the best buy-sides in Mid-Atlantic and New England area. Firms like MFS?

3/14/11
jbert112:
lifesgreatmystery:

on the buy-side you wanna work for asset management firms and not BB's! above street pay, great hours, better training, huge networks into HF's other investment management firms as you are already on the buy-side

What are the best buy-sides in Mid-Atlantic and New England area. Firms like MFS?

No offense but the fact you have to ask this question, especially regarding those regions, leads me to believe you have little or no chance getting a job in AM. How can you not know about the biggest firms? Fido, Wellington, T Rowe Price, Legg Mason?

3/13/11

in the new england area, off the top of my head (you can prob. find better lists in the asset management firm)... the top "traditional" asset management firms are T. Rowe, MFS, Wellington, Fidelity

3/14/11
lifesgreatmystery:

in the new england area, off the top of my head (you can prob. find better lists in the asset management firm)... the top "traditional" asset management firms are T. Rowe, MFS, Wellington, Fidelity

I am so sick of you spewing wrong information about asset management all over the board. You just regurgitate what other people say (no matter right or wrong) and pretend that you know shit, while you are probably just another AM hopeful who's still in school. It's funny to see how people who are not even in the industry comment on issue about comps, work, career path, top firms and shit like that.

T Rowe is not even in new england. T Rowe is in baltimore.

To the other poster, good firms in the mid-atlantic are T Rowe and Legg.. In the New England area you have your usual names.

3/14/11
What-to-do-What-to-do:
lifesgreatmystery:

in the new england area, off the top of my head (you can prob. find better lists in the asset management firm)... the top "traditional" asset management firms are T. Rowe, MFS, Wellington, Fidelity

I am so sick of you spewing wrong information about asset management all over the board. You just regurgitate what other people say (no matter right or wrong) and pretend that you know shit, while you are probably just another AM hopeful who's still in school. It's funny to see how people who are not even in the industry comment on issue about comps, work, career path, top firms and shit like that.

T Rowe is not even in new england. T Rowe is in baltimore.

To the other poster, good firms in the mid-atlantic are T Rowe and Legg.. In the New England area you have your usual names.

Balty actually has a good presence, DB Asset MGMT has a sizable outfit there from the Alex Brown BT days... Also Boston Company, Harvard MGMT, and Blackrock are other large outfits in Boston.

3/14/11

what-to-do, i work in AM. i don't "regurgitate" what people say, those were just the firms i remembered off the top of my head.

sorry i forgot that t. rowe wasn't in england. i know colleagues that work at everyone of those firms other than wellington. i just remembered the few firms that came off the top of my head. sorry that upset you so much that you had to go on a major rant.

if the person who asked would like a complete list, i suggest searching AM threads or doing some reseach. but the firms i know about HQ'd in New England proper are are fidelity, MFS, wellington, blackrock, franklin templeton (used to be HQ'd in NY but still has offices there - and a rotational program in NYC for ugrads), eaton vance, State Street (Ssga), Putnam (hit hard by the recession - had to liquidate some of its funds, a friend there was laid off),

and obviously BB AM arms though those are mostly FoF with, with only very senior analysts in investment analysis roles.

3/14/11
lifesgreatmystery:

what-to-do, i work in AM. i don't "regurgitate" what people say, those were just the firms i remembered off the top of my head.

sorry i forgot that t. rowe wasn't in england. i know colleagues that work at everyone of those firms other than wellington. i just remembered the few firms that came off the top of my head. sorry that upset you so much that you had to go on a major rant.

if the person who asked would like a complete list, i suggest searching AM threads or doing some reseach. but the firms i know about HQ'd in New England proper are are fidelity, MFS, wellington, blackrock, franklin templeton (used to be HQ'd in NY but still has offices there - and a rotational program in NYC for ugrads), eaton vance, State Street (Ssga), Putnam (hit hard by the recession - had to liquidate some of its funds, a friend there was laid off),

and obviously BB AM arms though those are mostly FoF with, with only very senior analysts in investment analysis roles.

You're wrong again, Blackrock is headquartered in NYC albeit they have a sizable shop in Boston. Their presence in Boston is a lot of the State Street spillover, like the Seattle office is the Qualos spillover, the Princeton office is Merrill spillover, and the SF office is BGI spillover....

3/14/11
lifesgreatmystery:

what-to-do, i work in AM. i don't "regurgitate" what people say, those were just the firms i remembered off the top of my head.

sorry i forgot that t. rowe wasn't in england. i know colleagues that work at everyone of those firms other than wellington. i just remembered the few firms that came off the top of my head. sorry that upset you so much that you had to go on a major rant.

if the person who asked would like a complete list, i suggest searching AM threads or doing some reseach. but the firms i know about HQ'd in New England proper are are fidelity, MFS, wellington, blackrock, franklin templeton (used to be HQ'd in NY but still has offices there - and a rotational program in NYC for ugrads), eaton vance, State Street (Ssga), Putnam (hit hard by the recession - had to liquidate some of its funds, a friend there was laid off),

and obviously BB AM arms though those are mostly FoF with, with only very senior analysts in investment analysis roles.

really? less than a month ago you were asking if anyone knew anything about T Rowe, MFS and Wellington and a month later you have the audacity to claim you know shit and call them top firms? Funny how less than a month ago you didn't know shit about the firms and a couple weeks later they make up 3 out of your 4 "top firms off the top of your head"

//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/know-nething-bout-w...

lifesgreatmystery:

we all know about fido, pimco, etc...same old same old.

but ever worked at/know something about working at these companies?

Wellington - private company with 400aum

t rowe - supposedly one of the "top 25"

mfs - supposedly "invented" the mutual fund

How bout this gem?
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/question-for-buy-si...

You dont know anything about buyside equity research and is here giving advice?

3/14/11

holy shit you need to chill the fuck out

i know those firms as being good, just wanted to see what people on WSO thought. that statement "supposedly one of the 'top25'" came straight from my friend who was bragging about its rank on vault or some shit

and just because you post asking peoples opinions doesn't mean you don't KNOW about a firms perceived reputation.

please troll, go take your anger out on something else. sorry you were picked on when you were young.

3/14/11

This has been tackled before here: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/best-asset-m...

Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of "conclusions" given it heavily depends on the strength of the PMs you work under, sector teams, group-wide performance, etc.

FWIW, my view from the long-only side would be firms like Capital Group, Dodge & Cox, Fidelity, PIMCO and Wellington would cluster among the top, both in terms of comp and prestige, although some of these have brutal work hours (by buyside standards). Next, places like T.Rowe, Franklin Templeton, Blackrock, and good boutiques like Brandes and Artisan would be in the 2nd tier. Smaller boutiques and more passive style firms would be below that.

I don't know much about HFs, so would leave that to the experts. My impression is Citadel, Soros, BWater, Paulson and Carlson are all very good, but that is admittedly naive.

3/14/11

I would go with the best ranked analysts. But sector would also matter for exit opps, I think.

3/14/11

avoid Financial institutions.

3/14/11

TMT, consumer brands, perhaps healthcare.

top ranked analysts tend to be at UBS, Morgan Stanley and Merrill.

3/14/11

UBS is probably the no. 1 research house for US equity.

3/14/11

ML-BOA by far.

I've read over 60 research reports in the past week for informaton that could affect our portfolio companies and I have gotten the most of my relevant comments from ML-BOA.

3/14/11

on the industry you are looking at, different analysts stand out

in terms of general bank format i like GS actually. since i actually use research a lot for pulling numbers and stuff i like how they have all their three stmts on the second page of every report with FCF projections to boot

3/14/11

I use ML a lot for a few industries, and I really like them. MS ain't too hot, imo. Seen DB but haven't touched them much.

I also read some reports from the big Canadian banks. TD is also pretty good.

3/14/11

Solid

3/14/11

It mostly depnds on the sector, but I think JPM has some of the best credit strategists - solid in several sectors (I like them for industrials).

For equity reports, I used to read a lot of Morgan Stanley just because that's what people on my desk read. Some people were still fond of Mary Meeker post-tech bubble. MS still has some good quant/technicals reporting these days, but for equities, I'm still actually a fan of UBS.

I think GS is the best for rates and macroeconomic reporting.

3/14/11

is there anywhere I can get a hold of some of these research reports? specifically stock specific? i am looking into the ER world and want to get a better understanding of how the reports look

3/14/11

Thompson One is where you want to look for ER reports.

3/14/11

is there anywhere I can get a hold of some of these research reports? specifically stock specific?

Your school library may have access to some research report databases. As mentioned, Thompson One is a very popular / easy to use database with all the top ER reports. Unfortunately it's very expensive to subscribe to on an individual basis.

3/14/11

WSJ just came out with its annual analyst rankings, which are based on stock picking skills only. So basically whoever had the most sell ratings on his/her companies under coverage won.

The wsj ranked the top five stock pickers in each industry and GS and S&P had the most analysts in the top 5 at 22, with ML in third at 17.

Take these rankings with a grain of salt, because clients usually do not care whether you have a buy, hold or sell rating on a particular stock, plus S&P is far from having the best research team. The buyside makes its own investment decisions.

3/14/11

It depends on sector - JPM is good, Bernstein is v. good - the independents are the best - they do thorough work. Rely on the Bulge bracket at your peril.

3/14/11
ratul:

It depends on sector - JPM is good, Bernstein is v. good - the independents are the best - they do thorough work. Rely on the Bulge bracket at your peril.

Really? So what are the best overall? Is there a top ranking somewhere for independents? I guess I always assumed that the BBs would have the best desks just based on them having the most capital to throw around.

3/14/11

I think all the BBs are similar in terms of overall quality. What's more important is the individual analyst you read and/or work for.

At my BB, it's amazing to see the disparity in terms of quality between teams.

3/14/11

Always thought ML was the best, with MS coming second. Best projections, numbers that are actually usable, etc..

3/14/11

I'm going to second Bernstein Research as a top equity/macro research house. HF I interned at used their research pretty extensively.

3/14/11

CLSA - best in Asia
Redburn/JPM - best in Europe
Bernstein - best in US.

This is not because of lack of talent at BB's, but because of increasingly being pulled in many directions (corp fin, prop, etc) so little time to do proper work.

3/14/11

can't speak to the firms above, but of the BBs, definitely ML.

3/14/11

Best of the BB's I have seen is ML/JPM. Some Morgan Stanley stuff is good but it varies greatly by sector. Have found GS very hit and miss as its either very good or very bad.

Best ideas and analysis I have looked at from competitors in Europe have come from Bernstein/Redburn/other small independents with well established analysts crucially being given the time to write good research without excessive time spent marketing to institutions.

When I worked at a BB in London the lead analyst used to do 4-6 weeks in the USA marketing research, this added to 5 weeks vacation time, marketing to European instos (another 4 weeks) and earnings seasons (8 weeks) did not leave much time for independent thought and in-depth industry research which ultimately forms the basis for the best consensus challenging long/short ideas. This problem has increased as teams get smaller, each analyst is required to cover more stocks due to falling commissions and the demands from prop traders increase.

3/14/11

What about macro strategy and research in areas like derivatives, currencies, etc.?

3/14/11

Equity Research depends on the industry covered as well. GS for instance is very strong in consumers / beverages.

Breaking Bankers
http://chasingconsultantsbreakingbankers.blogspot....

3/14/11

I am a newbie with a PE firm and have access to most of the BB reports. But I am unable to judge which one I should use for understanding about a company's operations. I like GS coz they publish their excel models which makes it easier for me.

But otherwise how do you evaluate the quality of a report? I know its a naive question since the scope is broad, but if some can give pointers or give an idea as to why certain reports are bad, that can be a starting point!

3/14/11

Anyone have further insights on pepayan's question?

pepayan:

I am a newbie with a PE firm and have access to most of the BB reports. But I am unable to judge which one I should use for understanding about a company's operations. I like GS coz they publish their excel models which makes it easier for me.

But otherwise how do you evaluate the quality of a report? I know its a naive question since the scope is broad, but if some can give pointers or give an idea as to why certain reports are bad, that can be a starting point!

I'm preparing for ER interviews, and would like to know what makes a strong equity research report versus one that is crap? In short, how does one "evaluate" an equity research report?

3/14/11
3/14/11
3/14/11
3/14/11
Add a Comment
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling