Are Bankers Destroying Capitalism?
Are bankers destroying capitalism? It was certainly the populist pulpit preaching point of the moment a few years ago, but I didn’t buy it. After all, my sworn enemy had always been the inept regulatory structure; unwilling to put the foot down on the bad kids in the class.
Frankly, why would they? Those bad kids were making money for everyone, but at what cost?. Before we rehashing the age old argument let’s look over the following statement and think about who is responsible for what…and to what degree?
Anyone that has ever worked for a Wall Street firm is well aware of the danger an analyst brings upon himself if he refuses to tow the official corporate party line regarding stock ratings for a company that is simultaneously closing a financially significant deal with another division of his firm. Even though this atmosphere of “unspoken coercion” of inflated stock ratings existed for decades, when the bull was strong on Wall Street, very few journalists found this story newsworthy. Even though regulatory laws were passed many years ago to separate investment banking interests from securities interests within the same firm, the percent of US stocks covered by Wall Street firms rated as a “buy or hold” actually increased from 89% (2003) to 93% (2007) after the passage of new laws that were supposed to discourage firms from granting inflated stock ratings. Who in their right mind would ever believe that 93% of all stocks covered by Wall Street should be rated a “buy or hold” and that only 7% should be rated a “sell”? Of course, in Wall Street parlance, insiders know that “hold” really means “sell” but still, this is a level of deceit nonetheless.
Though this is just one of a few worthy excerpts, I think it really cuts to the core of the matter. It is almost impossible to imagine a Wall Street where an honest, unbiased valuation environment exists. Enron is the popular examples but there have literally been thousands of companies that a second year finance or accounting major would damn as insolvent, yet they all got buys. They got buys from girls and guys with years of experience who knew all too well what was up, yet played along willingly, feigning ignorance while the big dollars rained down.
Now that the environment has changed, their approach hasn’t. Wall Street is still massively rubber stamping the buy, buy, buy process. This process will inevitably continue to erode investor confidence in the industry, bring in greater regulatory presence and (the part everyone really cares about) put a molten dent in bonuses.
I know its hard out there monkeys. But that stub bonus ain’t worth your soul. Don’t sell yourself cheap, when that next Enron comes across your spread sheet…call it what it is. Call it how you see it, not how the machine of profits and lies wants you to. Money is earned, not churned.
Ethics and integrity...good on you sir.
nice said
I think there are more moving parts than that..
First of all, there is a quiet/blackout/restricted period subsequent to every IPO and secondary offering that your bankers are involved in as underwriters/bookrunners. You cannot comment, publish, or send anything out (aside from maybe referring to a management roadshow presentation when someone asks something basic). Therefore, you can't "overvalue" anything until 45 or so days later. The only reason bankers would even care about the rating you give to those companies at that point, would be to get any secondary business.
Then there is the coverage picking aspect. Most of the time you are obligated to pick up coverage on any IPO where your firm was a manager or member of the syndicate. As for all other stocks, I feel that analysts are a little biased and have criteria on which stocks they would like to add to their coverage universe. For example, so far I learned that some of the analysts tend to pick-up coverage names based on market cap (i.e. greater than $300 million), EBITDA range, management/performance history, etc. It seems that analysts have a bias towards healthier and more stable names (depends on the industry of course, some sectors are simply full of growth/speculative companies and can't be avoided). I know that I wouldn't want to add some sh*t stock to my coverage universe and then get calls from sales and clients daily with questions like "Why is XXXX underperforming? Why is it so weak relative to peers?". It's a lot easier to justify a long call than a short call. My team wants to drop 2 coverage stocks right now and it just happens that both of those are sell rated. We just don't like them and would much rather cover a stock that's considered "hot".
Lastly, much of the sell-side research is S&T driven now. Giving out Hold ratings is not favorable at all, so I don't see the logic behind bunching Hold ratings in with the Buy ratings to blow up that 93% number.
If investors are dumb enough to use Wall Street analysts coverage as the only information they consider when making an investment decision then they deserve to get burned.
Ditto for the ratings agencies.
Agreed!
Well, you have to define "Capitalism" first, as there are so many kinds of them...
I don't know. I get a couple opinions from the doctor, I tend to believe in what they say. Wall street wants to tout that they are the smartest guys in the room. 5 shops recommend a dog shit stock and then you blame the buyer for not being informed?
If you want to roll as if you are the expert, you better be prepared for people to take your word. If your nothing more than a talking head, don't expect respect or big time money.
Sell-side analyst reports are used by the buyside to understand what the 'market' is thinking, not as a recomendation to buy or sell.
My past dealings with brokers involved me asking them to put together a bullshit model or fidind out some minutae I didnt have the time or the urge to do myself. Nobody actually takes their 'big picture' opinions seriously.
Voluptatum quia velit quaerat iusto. Est fugit quidem dolor ut iste. Debitis qui velit autem nesciunt necessitatibus quas ut. Fugiat aut ad a consequuntur quos.
Cum dolores sed distinctio consequuntur molestiae. Quisquam sequi corporis quasi fugiat sunt voluptas. Doloremque quaerat minus eos ea qui facere. Voluptas asperiores soluta esse dolores. Nobis enim harum vel nobis molestias.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...