The economics of independence. - Views on News from Equitymaster

Helping You Build Wealth With Honest Research
Since 1996. Try Now

  • MyStocks

MEMBER'S LOGINX

     
Login Failure
   
     
   
     
 
 
 
(Please do not use this option on a public machine)
 
     
 
 
 
  Sign Up | Forgot Password?  

The economics of independence.

Nov 30, 2002

Over the past few decades the financial services industry has seen an unprecedented aggregation spanning product offering and geographical reach. Banks and insurance companies that had roots in districts or states began to move across borders widening their customer base in search of global leadership and global presence. Not being happy with offering only a deposit facility or a loan capability, banks added a wide range of products to their portfolio of product offerings. The insurance companies, having managed money for themselves in the past, began offering retail customers their investment management expertise. In many instances, banks bought insurance companies or insurance companies bought banks to enlarge the “share of wallet” that they could capture of their “owned” customer.

Not wishing to be left out, many of the larger independent Wall Street firms began offering their retail customers the equivalent of bank accounts and insurance products. Today, these global financé companies offer a host of products for the retail and corporate customers. Like Sears, these financial juggernauts wish to sell you everything from loans to credit cards to stocks. The mantra was “have product, generate transaction”.

The most visible element of this chant for generating a transaction has been in the equity markets. As we have seen from published internal communications, senior executives of respected finance firms were allegedly swapping their integrity for an opportunity to secure admission to elite kindergarten schools in Manhattan. They were willing to let sacrificial investors lose small fortunes in the process. Many times, the motive was plain greed in the forms of higher bonus pay outs from the revenues generated by these compromised opinions. The SEC and the New York Attorney General have called for an end to this blatant exploitation. The proposals have centered on the desire to separate research from the investment banks. But while this may solve some of the problems, it is not the best solution and will still leave the securities industry with an inherent conflict of interest.

The key to this puzzle is to understand that there are multiple functions within a typical Wall Street firm, namely:

  1. There is the research department which generates the stock ideas that act as a catalyst for investors to pursue a course of action with their “buy”, “hold”, or “sell” recommendations.

  2. There is the trading desk that executes the action for the investor on a stock exchange if the stock of that company is already listed, and

  3. There is the investment banking department that brings new stock to the market depending on the appetite and interest of an investor.

The monetary glue that keeps these three very different functions together is the revenues earned from the investors. Consider this. An analyst writing a “buy” report on a listed company like IBM whose stock price is currently US$ 86 would generate a commission income of 5 cents for every share bought by an investor through his firm. The 5cents would make the head of the trading desk happy. However, if that same analyst wrote the same “buy” report on IBM which would result in IBM issuing new shares and having these new shares listed on the NYSE, the analyst would have helped his colleagues in investment banking earn a 6% or US$ 5.16. That would certainly make the head of investment banking very happy. Correction: very, very happy. Under these joyful conditions, an admission to a classy kindergarten school for the analyst’s children or grandchildren would not be a problem.

The SEC and the New York Attorney General are leading the charge to dissolve this financial glue. But so far they are only attacking the more visible 6% fee and not the deceptively small 5 cent fee earned by the trading department. In the days of electronic trading where a typical non-research broking fee is 2 cents for a NYSE stock, 5 cents is a lot – 3 cents more to be precise. Take that 3 cents and multiply it by daily volumes of 1.6 billion shares a day on the NYSE alone and multiply that by 220 trading days in a year and there is a hefty “fee” of US$ 10.6 billion being paid by investors – retail, institutional, and mutual funds – to trading desks at Wall Street firms. That extra “fee” is for the advice of the research analysts. Effectively, investors are paying two bills within that 5 cent charge: 2 cents for the cost of execution and 3 cents for the research reports from Wall Street firms.

If investors still went about buying and selling shares in the same frenzied way they do today but used the electronic platforms that are now gaining in prominence, they would have US$ 10.6 billion to spend on buying independent research or they could use that money to buy more shares. Chances are that if independent research was truly independent and not a department of any Wall Street trading house, maybe the research reports would have some added value for investors and be a little more imaginative than focusing on the next quarter. And the annual research bill paid by investors will probably be less than US$ 10.6 billion.

An independent research firm receiving a flat annual fee for its research would not feel pressured to generate a trade for a 5 cent fee – actions or inactions by their clients would not affect their revenue streams at all. The attention that the internet and telecom IPOs have received - and the exposure of the incestuous relationship between investment banks and research analysts - is well deserved. But in its charge to punish the guilty the SEC and the regulators may be formulating a solution that does not address the more silent, but equally perverse, relationship between research departments and the trading desks of Wall Street firms.


Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "The economics of independence.". Click here!

  

More Views on News

Data is the New Oil but It's Also the New Sugar. Here's How to Fight it (Profit Hunter)

Jun 1, 2020

Is too much data hurting your quest for market beating returns?

Quantum Mutual Fund: Hum woh nahi hain (The Honest Truth)

Apr 29, 2020

Ajit Dayal on how the mutual fund industry robs you of your wealth.

This One Trigger Could Turnaround Yes Bank's Stock Price (The 5 Minute Wrapup)

Oct 16, 2019

If Yes Bank manages to do this, it could be the start of a much-needed turnaround for the bank.

Gold could Hit 40,000 Sooner Than Expected (Profit Hunter)

Aug 16, 2019

Domestic gold prices are firing on both engines now. Gold prices could touch 40,000 faster than you could imagine.

3 Rebirth of India Opportunities Are Racing Ahead in These Gloomy Times... (Views On News)

Jun 28, 2019

Tanushree Banerjee shares an update on the Rebirth of India and reveals her top 3 trends...

More Views on News

Most Popular

How the 8-Year Cycle Can Help Identify Multibaggers (Fast Profits Daily)

Sep 11, 2020

This is how you can apply the greed and fear cycle in the market to pick stocks.

Why We Picked This Small-cap Stock for Our Hidden Treasure Subscribers (Profit Hunter)

Sep 17, 2020

This leading household brand will profit big time in a post covid world.

Why am I Recommending Caution? (Fast Profits Daily)

Sep 9, 2020

This is why I have changed my short-term view on the market.

This Could Be the Best September for Auto Stocks (Profit Hunter)

Sep 11, 2020

Here's why I think this month could be a great for auto stocks.

More

Covid-19 Proof
Multibagger Stocks

Covid19 Proof Multibaggers
Get this special report, authored by Equitymaster's top analysts now!
We will never sell or rent your email id.
Please read our Terms

MARKET STATS