- Comments (13)
- Text Size: Down Up
moneysense.ca, 7/11/11
Why stock ratings should be taken with a big grain of salt
If you invest in stocks, you may want to check out a recent column in The Wall Street Journal titled Why Wall Street Can’t Handle the Truth. In it, Mike Mayo, a sell-side analyst offers one reason why so few stocks are ever slapped with “Sell” ratings:
Analysts almost never said to sell specific companies, because that would alienate those firms, which then might move business for bond offerings, equity deals, acquisitions, buybacks or other activity away from the analyst’s brokerage firm. Say the word “sell” enough times, and you win a long, awkward elevator ride out of the building with your soon-to-be-former boss.
Mr. Mayo also says that analysts such as himself who nevertheless brave “sell” ratings on the stocks they cover are “yelled at, conspicuously ignored, threatened with legal action and mocked” by company executives with the intention of silencing them. Fear of getting into trouble may not be the only reason why analysts are almost never negative on the stocks they cover. As Preet Banerjee pointed out in a recent column, analysts put lipstick on every pig due to herding behaviour. Career-wise it is much safer to move with the crowd because while going against the crowd can make one a hero, it can also make one a goat.
Analyst reports may be a good source of useful data on stocks but investors should keep the conflict of interests in mind when looking at stock ratings.
moneysense.ca, 7/11/11









Thanks for the mention Ram – cheers!
What is your feeling about Morningstar’s ratings? In theory, they wouldn’t have the same conflict of interest issues. Though I’ve noticed that it’s hard to find one and two star stocks.
@CC: I usually take a “buy” rating on a stock by an analayst firm to mean that the firm either benefits from the stock going up or benefits from making company management happy.
@Viscount: Morningstar ratings on mutual funds are not predictive of future success of the fund. So, whether there is any bias or not, the ratings are essentially useless.
Good post and coments by all. Does “hold” really mean “sell”?
@Viscount: I think you are referring to Morningstar ratings of stocks, right? I haven’t looked into it in any detail. Morningstar says the star distribution depends on its estimates of fair value of a stock rather than a fixed percentage in every category. It would be interesting to look at star ratings over time. I wonder if there is any research on this topic.
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=223383
@Michael: Agree. Like Preet says it’s putting as much lipstick on pigs as possible.
…yet another reason why the large financial institutions need to be broken up into parts.
What this really shows is the tension between the retail investment analysts and the investment bankers. The investment bankers always win because that’s where all the money in the business is. Brokerage clients are usually pretty cheap and won’t pay much for good analysis. Sell-side analyst is a bit of a low-prestige job in the finance industry. Lots of sell-side analysts would rather be on the buy-side or working in investment banking.
I wouldn’t trust their “buy” ratings either. Often, they want to unload the stock from their own brokerage accounts or are distributing the stock for the company. However, it must work otherwise they wouldn’t be saying it that often.
Isn’t it surprising that companies often meet analysts’ earning estimates exactly – to the penny. That means they were able to predict all the lines (or their net value) in the balance sheet exactly several months in advance! I want to get my palm read by one of these “analysts”
@Robillard: Your comment reminds me of SEC employees who are also (relatively) low-paid and are apparently constantly looking to work in the companies they are supposed to regulate. Hard to be critical of the people one might be working with the next year or so.
@Evan: Actually it works both ways. Analysts put together their spreadsheets to estimate earnings and some of the inputs in there come from forward looking statements of the companies themselves. And if there is any doubt, analysts get clarifications in the Q&A after the earnings call. Then, companies try their darn hardest to meet analyst consensus numbers. Companies that miss expectations are often punished and if companies beat by too much they make analysts look bad.
@CC In trying their hardest to meet analyst expectations companies can make use of a wide variety of techniques to manipulate earnings. I think many of the techniques are legal but the line is very blurry.
[...] overview of the new Vanguard products with pricing and ticker information. He also told us why stock ratings should be taken with a big grain of salt. Absolutely CC, maybe a whole [...]
[...] Canadian Capitalist shares why stock ratings should be taken with a big grain of salt [...]
[...] Capitalist cautions people from using stock ratings to buy and sell [...]