Why Wall Street Analysts Shouldn't Own the Stocks They Cover
The normally-astute Evan Newmark has gone a little crazy in his latest missive for Deal Journal: he's decided that it would be an excellent idea if Wall Street stock analysts were to start trading for their personal accounts in the very stocks and asset classes they cover.
This is what should interest investors: The true depth of a Wall Street analyst's or fund manager's conviction. When you place your chips on red, is your adviser putting a chunk on red, too?
Now with fund managers, I can see Newmark's point, although he's blind to the concept that a fund manager might be in charge of a fund aimed at investors who have a very different risk profile to his own. But analysts? They're not financial advisers. Their job is not to tell you where to put your money; their job is to analyze. The "buy" and "sell" recommendations on the front page are ignored by the clients who matter - the institutional investors. What matters is the quality of the analysis, not the future direction of the assets being covered.
Besides, if analysts had long or short positions in the companies they covered, that would inject a whole new set of unhelpful biases. Individuals who are long or short a stock often get wedded to their own thesis; that's a danger with analysts, too, but there's no point in making a bad situation worse. And what purpose in any case is really served by leaving analysts open to accusations of market manipulation and front-running? If analysts were allowed to own stocks, that would serve as an incentive to put out ever more extreme research reports, with the "buy" reports downplaying all the downsides, and the "sell" reports downplaying all the upsides. In other words, they would make the reports less useful.
Especially given the fact that asking analysts to put their own money on their own predictions isn't going to make those predictions any more accurate. Analysts don't know where stocks are going, any more than Evan Newmark does. If they were really good at predicting the future in that way, they would be fund managers, not analysts. The distinction is a useful one: let's not obliterate it.
- Super-Seniors: Your Questions Answered
- Dec 2 2008 9:52AM EST
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
- Ignoring the Stock Market
- Dec 1 2008 1:06PM EST
- When Mutual Funds Reopen for Business
- Dec 1 2008 11:50AM EST
- Credit Card Crunch
- Dec 1 2008 11:32AM EST
- Art: The Case of Ana Tzarev
- Dec 1 2008 10:13AM EST
- Tanta, RIP
- Dec 1 2008 1:24AM EST
- Extra Credit, Sunday Edition
- Nov 30 2008 11:29PM EST
- Geithner isn't Rubin
- Nov 30 2008 12:46PM EST
- Ben Stein Watch: November 30, 2008
- Nov 29 2008 11:22PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










