inv1977

FROM

http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-prudentman/article?mid=2515

JL談外資-如何看待外資投資論壇與媒體報導外資分析師升降評與調目標價?--(回答談程淑芬-回應文)(訪鴻海中國誌)(3月瑞信亞洲投資論壇與美林科技論壇)

分類：JL外資投資投機思維與點滴 2009/03/16 00:40 (6/15)瑞銀舉辦今明辦台灣論壇,  媒體又大作文章, 如果不是無知就是作手工具,  ..
(中央社)6/15-瑞銀投資論壇主題鎖定兩岸開放題材，金融股如富邦金、中信金、元大 金，傳產股亞泥、統一、台肥、遠紡。電子台積電 、宏碁、宏達電、友達、奇美電、聯發科...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23瑞士信貸本周在港舉辦--亞洲投資論壇,評論相似...(3/19) 果然如預期,為追補金融股營建資產股籌錢,主力與法人投信趁美林科技論壇,大賣IC股與電子股-如旺宏世界先進,也開始賣小飆股,一方面居高思危,另一方面留現金,最後 一周拉抬用.
(例如:小飆股基本面最佳龍頭,立錡近6週投信約賣1萬多張,近兩天約出2千張,外資近8週也約賣1萬多千張這2天賣近3千張,散戶接走,致新近6週投信約出6千張,近4日約3千張.還有聯陽投信賣約一半持股.)

本文內容順便解答前文--相關外資問題--(2/8)從-美林十年的檯柱程淑芬離開談外資故事--陪你等天亮---我們最終會等到天亮, 那時你還要醒著,並且要有力氣大幹一場.//外資如何考評分析師

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3/17)外資券商美林年度科技論壇在3/17~19舉辦,有心的作手,當然會利用無知的媒體,引誘後知的散戶入彀,以便先知大股東與作手的吹牛嘎空股下車,股市叢林爾虞我詐,小飆股又到紅包行情衝鋒收割期,
投資人如何看待外資科技論壇與媒體上外資分析師升降評等與目標價調整?

(還記得去年外資舉辦的論壇,多以新總統--台股中國聯結打敗世界經濟衰退為主題,多家還喊出和平紅利,股市上萬點,當時在營建資股頂峰,全力看好營建資產股,還記得嗎?--可查閱預言家與水晶球--最典型如下:

08年4/23時報-戎鵬丞-里昂.. 蘇廷翰仍鍾情於資產族群，強調最看好台肥  和中華電豐富的土地資產，以及可望受惠於商用不動產市場的保險族群，將新光金  加入里昂台股投資組合名單中...
08年6/7時報-營建資產.,昨(6)被摩根大通研究主管賴以哲---大舉喊進,首選鄉林台肥....

09年-2/6（中央社葉代芝）里昂:07年預售屋今年底 前陸續交屋，.預估下半年修正更顯著；今年房價修正幅度約25%至40%， 房市..2010年底前才觸底.. 下調評等:長虹 降「低於大盤」華固 和遠雄 降至賣出.
評:09年2月6日:回去看台灣選舉前後,里昂全力看好的營建資產股(信義房屋目標價200),在大跌60%~80%後,終於下調ˊ評等,....別忘他們多頭時是啦啦隊,大跌空頭市場是踹踹隊,越跌越踹,陷入杜氏恐慌陷阱... )

可見世界經濟大趨勢,不會因外資論壇就改變,外資絕大多數,充其量只是啦啦隊或踹踹隊.好像老人溜狗,狗狗或許短期內,會跑得離人遠遠的,最後狗狗總是會回到老人的身邊.

注意僅為方便教育研究用,絕不為個股推薦或投資建議,投資決策自行負責.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

外資是有所謂買方與賣方--什麼是買方?什麼是賣方?
我記得剛接外資券商部門時,1992~3年間,蘇格蘭老闆回答我的疑惑?
為什麼券商叫Sellside?
他 說,因為我們賣--股票的故事(-賺錢--會漲或會跌的故事--sell some stories to buyers)給資金管理者(共同基金/退休基金/冒險基金等...),
他們如果買我們的故事,給我們生意,下單給我們--可能買或賣,最好賣掉舊部位換 新部位,(賺兩趟),所以客戶他們就叫Buyside.
簡單說券商是Sellside,投信/退休基金與壽險等是Buyside.(我大部分在Sellside,大約兩年在Buyside)

在台外資賣方--券商大約有十家,媒體上講外資降評升評,調整目標價應該都是那十家左右券商,
台股買方外資--共同基金/壽險/退休基金/冒險基金/主權基金/各類ETF等---總計可能有千家.
每天統計外資買賣表---指的是全世界一千多家各類基金-(買方為主)--買賣台股各個別股得匯總表,
....絕不是單一家,也絕不是賣方的券商自己的進出,(也有自營資金,但那相對少..)
,台灣散戶常常混在一起,媒體常常搞混就顯得很無知了.

台灣媒體另一個無知是搞不清楚摩根大通,摩根史丹利與摩根資本市場指數,摩根真正本家是摩根銀行,後來摩根與大通合併,大通合併前,吃下怡富母公司富林明,所以摩根美國叫摩根大通,台灣這幾年叫摩根富林明.
摩根史丹利是1930年大蕭條,改革金融體系,將投銀分拆出去時,被摩根分拆出的.因此,大摩指的如果是老牌應該是摩根大通,不信看百年老店還享有道瓊成分股金字招牌的,不是摩根史丹利,而是摩根大通.
至於摩根資本市場指數是摩根史丹利與資本(Capital:世界前5大資金管理公司)合資設立,是獨立編制指數單位,很多媒體提到MSCI指數,常常說這是大摩指數,它們完全不知道有CI--資本國際這個公司也是大股東.
MSCI是獨立於摩根史丹利.

大約是1994~5年,我舉辦了外資在台的第一個台灣投資論壇---
當時邀倫敦愛丁堡紐約波士頓香港東京新加坡客戶來台參加,當時電子股很少,
上市公司端得上國際台面的不多,所以請來公司免不了就是長榮/遠紡/台塑/台泥/國賓/東元/國壽/新壽/三商銀/東鋼/國產實業/統一//遠百/三商行/台達電/華通等等.
科學園區必訪,聯電/台揚/宏基/神通/致幅/全友(有些公司現在已幾乎消失)..是當時必訪,後來續辦,訪台積電-張忠謀親自接待.
看中鋼要拉到高雄,我還帶外資繞去台南去看統一和統一實,順便看安平古堡/赤崁樓,
英美外資,當時對荷蘭人向鄭成功跪著受降塑像,有些不以為然,令我印象深刻.
(像我看到越南人的文宣品---宣稱他們打敗世界兩強--美國與中國一樣的感覺....)

那時候,倫敦愛丁堡紐約外資,常常向我抱怨,台股常常1~3月飛漲,他們沒跟上車,一直觀望,..
等到他們終於下決心買,3月多,下場買,買後沒幾週,
4月中下旬,股市大反轉,他們就套住.,一套就很久....
不只一個外資客戶向我抱怨,所以,從那時起,我就發現這個現象見牛年台股紅包資金行情吹衝鋒號

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


通常外資券商上媒體有下列數種情形:

1.年度行禮如儀的定期大拜拜,被媒體堵到,敷衍幾句,被有心媒體與相關作手拿來興風作浪--

通常外資券商為服務買方客戶,每年有兩次大拜拜(才能收錢)
每家公司時間不同,但分析師與戰將挖來挖去,後來服務架構都差不多,


1)通常上半年3~5月間,外資基金經理人,每年寒冬過後,春暖花開,都要開始幹活,投資亞洲的基金經理人(Buyside),要到亞洲實地訪視公司,看公司決定續持或換股,一定也要寫訪視投資報告交差,

券商(Sellside)則扮演接待與安排行程角色,安排客戶大家一起來,幾百個基金經理人不用車舟勞頓,為方便他們一次看個夠,

上市公司也不用重複講幾百次,於是形成一年一度的春天-行禮如儀的外資大拜拜(台灣投信法人也搭便車,報告全程使用英文,.)...不必太大驚小怪,....,

通常在亞洲辦投資論壇,從世界到亞洲投資人可能300~400多人不 等,
一次邀50~100家上市公司來報告,
邀的公司大約要1~2個月作業期,通常前瞻性不足,
一部分是大家都有也關心的核心持股,剩下多是追逐當時流行的.

大客戶另安排一對一.通常3~5天,而且亞洲整體整合,例如科技股整合台韓-有時台北有時首爾召開.
中概股--整 合台股中概+港股+中股,在港或滬或北京等輪流召開,
東南亞整合可能新加坡,吉隆坡,或曼谷或普吉島等輪流召開......行程整合,
典型如下:台北 3~4天,接著飛香港或上海3~5天,接著新加坡3~5天,
資深負責多市場較累,資淺看自己負責市場與產業,........這次美林科技....


沒主辦的外資券商也沒閒著,要有報告,也要跟客戶擠時間,找到飯店,在場外時間堵客戶,
見見一年一次的遠方客戶.
(見面三分情,以前我在外資,自己主辦時,行程一定包括娛樂,緊湊地不要讓其它外資有太多機會;相反的,別人主辦時,一定要我的人,包括我自己,主動熱情邀約,必要時,到飯店大廳去站崗賭人.......)

因 為基金經理人回去歐美都要完成訪視報告,外資分析師也都在開會前,努力向上市公司挖資料寫報告,

以前我都戲稱是大家舉行--作文比賽.比較大咖的外資可享有優 先與上市公司一對一對談的機會.
找政治人物或財經首長,也不必大驚小怪,那像蛋糕上的(icing on the cake)---互相取暖用.
上市公司通常不會有驚人之舉,如果有也要立即對所有投資人公告,否則就觸法,......

台灣許多無知媒體,守在場外,抓個人,拿篇例行作文比賽報告,如獲至寶,用放大鏡用頭條處理,
投資人盲目跟著一頭熱衝衝衝!
急漲後有些外資乾脆逢高調節一些,
投資散戶買了就套,於是開始怪外資不準,說外資坑人!

其實投資人冷靜想一想,3~400位來自--美英歐日港星的客戶,來前吃住行娛樂安排,
分析師報告準備,上市公司老闆來報告安排聯繫與協助準備內容,
以及報告公司最新資訊最漂亮宣傳品(有時還有精緻小紀念品).
也要盯公司高層主講人,早期常常要協助新上市公司主講人潤飾報告內容,
還幫忙做多次Rehearsal與矯正英文口音,
-最後要多次緊盯確認50~100家主講人出席,行程不能出錯,書面備份要夠.

當下,長年電話或網路分隔兩端的客戶,多半是一年見1次面的遠方客戶(分析師見2~3次),
終於到台北來時,要全神貫注熱情接待(通常倫敦紐約當地營業員也會陪同),
全力服伺好這3~400位客戶,有時這見面三分情的感受,當下的重要性不比報告差,.....
通常送走最後一批客戶,整個人癱了,要連睡24小時.

試著想一想,你如果是外資,在這時候忙得焦頭爛額,誰還有時間去注意台灣媒體操作???
這時說--說外資藉投資說明會坑人!說外資不準!
說的人大概不知上述外資的運作流程吧!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3/9 工商─張志榮--台股抗跌，吸引國外法人來台一探究竟。美林證券本月17至19日在台北舉行的年度投資論壇，報名出席人數已暴衝逾400人；加上 總統馬英九、金管會主委陳?、證交所董事長薛琦、科技業大老台積電執行長蔡力行、宏達電執行長周永明均親自出席，外資月中齊聚台北，預期會對台股是否為 「有基之彈」正式定調。

外資圈打趣，「美林證券這場投資論壇抓的時間點實在太好了！」據了解，受惠於急單效應，及今年以來台股相對美日股市力抗跌勢，原本打算上半年都不再看台灣科技股的國際機構投資人，紛紛踴躍報名，出席人數一下子暴衝至400人以上。

為爭取國際機構投資人支持，過去鮮少出席外資圈sellside的蔡力行與周永明等科技大老也允諾與會。美林證券這次邀請117家上市櫃公司，台灣廠商就佔105家，除了台積電、聯發科、宏達電、日月光等大廠外，還包括致茂、綠能等體質不錯的中小型科技股。

馬英九、陳沖及合辦單位證交所董事長薛琦、英國富時指數（FTSE）董事總經理霍阜（Paul Hoff）等，將在會場擔任專題演講人。

由於美林證券亞太區研究部門策略的調整，及台灣研究團隊正處於組織調整階段，今年美林證券投資論壇嗅到濃濃的「科技味」，過去幾年與會比重非常高的非科技廠商，今年則僅有38家、佔所有117家廠商32％，科技廠商主要是由何浩銘（Dan Heyler）與曾省吾邀集。
..............................................................................................

2).另一次,通常是外資休完夏天長假,10月財報公告前後,
,約10月,在紐約,或波士頓或倫敦歐美地召開,一樣地,幾百個基金經理人群集紐約或倫敦或波士頓一週,從所有亞洲上市公司挑選邀幾十家老闆或經理人來報告,重要客戶一樣有一對一訪談.

以前服務公司,通常有兩次,一次夏天蘇格蘭愛丁堡風和日麗時有原物料投資論壇(澳洲南非分公司主辦),
十月在紐約有亞洲投資人論壇.我在歌劇魅影音樂劇文章提到,陪台灣上市公司老闆或CEO或CFO看紐約百老匯歌劇,一大部分就是這種場合.

通常在紐約舉辦,比亞洲辦得更具挑戰性,主講者呼嚨,老外如不滿意,會更直接反映,更不給情面,
同 樣要做功課,分析師要作文比賽,
我們也要協助上市公司高層做好報告給外資經理人的內容,練習他們的英文發音,
而且找了Q&A--模擬問題與題庫.

這是上市公司的國際財務行銷,許多公司的投資人已30%以上是外資,有些甚至50%以上.
應答得好,大退休基金持有10億元以上部位,長抱2~3年不會進進出出,
 對公司經營權穩定,與長遠不斷成長需求長期穩定資金,都有長遠好處.

像這類大拜拜,書面作文比賽報告一定要先準備好,同時也給國內投信,
如果傳好幾手,終於有心人把它傳到媒體,媒體作文章,也是看看就好.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.月營收,季法說會,季報,半年報,年報與公布前後的作文比賽,和預言家事前-公布水晶球內容大賽

台灣所有上市上櫃公司,依法定期公布下列財務資料,券商分析師要預測及因應調整.比預期好調上,反之調下,有些趕在公布前,先預測搶當半仙......

---每月10日前必須依法公告上月營收,
---台灣的大型國際級公司,每季結束的下個月,就會召開國內外投資人說明會,會中公告上季財報,
---每年4月底10月底前,所有上市櫃公司,必須依法公告年報季報等相關財報(含上季),
---- 最離譜是上年10月公告後,次年4月底前才再公開財報,.這六個月財報空窗期,上市公司大股東有內線資料,其他投資人被蒙上眼睛,大股東睜大眼與被蒙 上眼睛的其他投資人對打,最後輸贏早已成定局.大股東吃香喝辣,小散戶如果不貪心,跟著大股東(主利通常可直達大股東,或者大股東通常是地下大主力)反市 場操作,也許可喝喝湯.
----在上市公司,是外資分析師報告內容主要提供者的生態下,尤其是否掌握新產品進度,新客戶新訂單進度等(會讓股價跳空連連的資訊),這是要比賽誰跟上市公司高層或內線人關係熟,誰的消息較靈通.所以,很多分析師成上市公司傳聲筒,或是外圍,兩者有時有水幫魚效果.
不過,大部分分析師沒有特別關係,用功一點從跨國上下游去比對,有些獨立看法,大部份拿財報或剛公告資料,玩數字拼圖遊戲(Crunch the numbers;Torture the numbers....)
(不管多新都已是歷史...股價通常反應一大部分,像拿後視鏡開車),
多頭時,需要個觸媒,分析師因為上述各個財報資料公布更新,例行調整評等與目標價.就成媒體與主利興風作浪的藉口觸媒.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.分析師作上述目標價調整時,常常在多頭頂峰有恐慌趕頂,及空頭恐慌趕底現像,去年前年例子,
在預言家/水晶球早已不勝枚舉,常常一致性羊群現象發生,盤勢就反轉,...
例如去年總統選舉後,幾乎一致性看好上萬點,結果...............
以及過去5個月分析師一致恐慌踹股價到股底時,股價就大反轉的杜氏恐慌陷阱---
,例如台積/矽品/華碩/華固/國泰金/....
見股市像酒鬼,聽到好消息哭,聽到壞消息笑//3/4新的杜氏恐慌陷阱驗證-國泰金-(股市或個股--崩跌末跌段恐慌急跌加速趕底後,要避開反轉前的杜氏陷阱)-
本質上,比較像我多次提到---多頭時,像啦啦隊,空頭時像踹踹隊.

4.發ECB或GDR,參加承銷團的作文比賽----這種報告,看到時,大部分可以拿去丟到垃圾桶,..
極端的,像網通泡沫時,花旗高盛摩根都因為IPO--上市賣網通股,為推初次上市網通股,寫誇張欺騙報告,
官司纏身,最後賠幾億到幾十億美元了事.(我以前英國老闆與我們私下戲稱這種報告的暗語--Crap..)

5..不定期就專題專訪(房產熱訪房產地基/傳產熱訪傳產---),但過去5~10年最流行中國熱,
當時,大約有5年以上,我每年帶團訪中國台商.
參加者除港星基金經理人,通常還有台灣主要壽險公司投資長,或資深投資經理人,
或上市公司第二代,或高層,或操盤人,或投信基金經人,研究員.....
較盛大的,一定也出研究報告,必要時,我們分析師也先到公司拜訪.......
有一年到中國訪鴻海較特別,2008年11月15日舊文,分享如下:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
附.

(11/15)TSMC/Auo/Spil/奇美/仁寶/華碩/宏基/宏達電/聯發科...等一流企業,上月底前,就都公佈財報,且召開法說會,回答相 關問題,並展望下季,不是只有上季才這樣做,上述那些企業是每一季底的下個月,不論好或壞都固定召開.今天是幾月幾號?

11月15日,鴻海落後大家3~4 個星期才公布資料,而沒有定期法說會回答大家問題,且公布是因股價跌太深為打擊謠言,不是每季固定讓大家知道,所以常讀我部落格的人,回想一下,在鴻海 200元以上時,我不斷重複外資法人對它的看法,

其中最大的憂心就是財務透明度極差,連帶對它報表可信度就會打問號?現在已是電腦化網路時代,上述那些跨 國企業老早就把報表結出,沒有人拖那麼久?公不公布還看企業高興與需要,而不是因應廣大投資人的應有需求!!??

大約1991年,第一次帶外資拜訪鴻海,郭董還像典型台灣中小企業老闆,熱誠積極,他主動表達他想走向國際化,希望與我們更進一步往來,公司也願接 待外資參訪.在那年代是很先進想法.

由於當時台北辦公室離我公司走路只要5分鐘,所以它幾乎是我們安排外資訪台必看的電子樣板公司,外資通常必訪台積電,從新竹參訪2~3家返 北,趕土城,時間很緊(土城工業區看起來很像,找鴻海還經常迷路),

所以外資如不堅持看工廠,我們不到土城,就在台北辦公室.這麼多年下來,相關部門的人,就有些瞭解.其間,也曾有幾次景氣低迷,市 場謠傳財務吃緊.

郭董最大成功,就是10多年前大規模布局中國,公司從此發展越來越快,越來越大,文化也有些許變化,

舉個例子,大約1997~1998年間,鴻海財務主管來電,告訴我,他們深圳廠完工後運作很順利,可以供法人參訪,他通知4~5家劵商,誰籌組最好就給誰主辦(規劃主行程),時間剩一個月.注意:他們開始依其所需主導.

後來我用了一些香港老外老闆教我的小技巧,那次我帶了台灣30~40多位國內投資機構與幾位上市公司高級主管與操盤人,與10~20多家香港新加坡外資法人,殺到深圳廠 參觀,

到了,發現其它外資也來參予盛會,但多半只帶1~2個客戶,台灣劵商也有2~3團也來,每團最多十幾位,團員多是投信壽險資淺研究員,

而他們的老闆 --投資長,投資主管都跟著我,為什麼?這個秘密以後再揭開.

我們同時也參觀台達電寶成正新等,也到上海蘇州等,看了仁寶和成統一永大等.....

印象最深的還是 鴻海的數倍大規模擴充,那時想著,哪來那麼多訂單?後來知道答案,因為他善用低製造成本優勢,其他老3或老4以下都被他打死了.

以後我的學長加入鴻海--他的背景是投銀併購,我當時預言,鴻海開始要用併購加速成長,順便玩一些投銀Arbitrage PER 遊戲,其後幾年也看到了相關發展.

近20年長期觀察鴻海,景氣總有高高低低,鴻海度過景氣低迷後,總把別人擠出市場,更茁壯,鴻海也經歷幾次成長大轉折拓展新產品線,其中利用中國低 製造成本擴大市占策略最成功.過去它的股價,因此創台股記錄.

但 投資股票是看未來.
它過去Business Model--Low Cost+Max Market Share似乎達瓶頸,
產品下一步-NB,面臨廣達/仁寶/緯創/華擎強烈抵制,.....
它畫下新大餅---電影/生技/軟體/晶圓代工.....又有失焦之 虞,這才是股價不振原因.
法人對它的一般印象,可查我過去評論,
這次大概是它成立來最大的挑戰,也許財務透明度可再加強,長線發展策略可再說明更清楚些.
 最近又有一位很優秀資深,具矽谷科技背景加策略規劃的朋友加入鴻海團隊,
我也在觀察,這對鴻海長遠發展的意義.如果鴻海有新的,不失焦的成長動力,那這個 股價才更有吸引力.

否則,就是跌深反彈,隨大勢浮沉,他用來灌業績的小雞,會比控股公司更有潛力.

--------------------------------------------------------

(11/15)【時報】電子一哥鴻海昨日公佈第3季底的合併報表，其中現金及約當現金高達1506億元，推翻了近期市場盛傳鴻海資金不足的傳言，力抗空頭的企圖心十分強烈.....

(11/16)【時報】晶圓代工廠元隆 (6287) 私募現金增資昨(15)完成，以每股3.7元發行...折價約12.11％，..籌措1.42億元.. 本次私募由鴻海旗下鴻揚創投與寶鑫國際,擬分別以8,140萬元及6,142萬元全部吃下元隆的私募案，合計持股16.03％..半導體產業非核心事業， 參與元隆私募目的頗另外界好奇。..元隆總經理陳弘元是國民黨榮譽主席連戰女兒連惠心的先生，連戰..也是郭台銘與曾馨瑩婚禮的證婚人。外界因此揣 測，..參股不無雪中送炭之意。

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
附:如果你是券商或投信從業人員,想了解買方/賣方最新發展趨勢,可在繼續讀下去.否則以下不用讀......

And traditional research might not as valuable as the Sellside would think. Forget about worthless portfolio strategy too...what the BuySide values is quite simple, according to a recent survey by Integrity Research Associates LLC:

The suite of services provided were seen as extremely important, including access to management, analyst visits, conferences, written materials, trade ideas, portfolio strategy, etc.  Timeliness and turnaround of research was also considered to be important.  The predictive ability of the research was also seen to be critical (performance of their recommendations) to some investors.  The cost, ease of use, and the uniqueness of the information provided was also considered an important part of the research valuation process.  Some even noted that they compared research providers with other providers of similar services to help determine the fair value of that research. Integrity Research

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tale of Two Buy-Side Investors – Integrity Research Associates LLC
Part 1

 

New York, NY – Anyone who has ever sold investment research services to the buy-side for any length of time will tell you that not all institutional investors are alike, depending on their assets under management, their investment strategies, or their business models.  However, what we recently discovered is that these differences even impact how buy-side firms source and value external research.  And while many might find this self evident, we suspect these differences could have significant consequences for institutional investors – particularly as convergence prompts many long only asset managers to offer alternative investment products like 130/30 or 120/20 funds.

In October of 2007, the team at Integrity Research Associates conducted an informal survey of 43 Directors of Research at US based hedge funds and non-hedge fund institutional investors (long only asset managers, mutual funds, etc.).  Slightly more than half of the survey respondents (53%) worked at traditional long only firms, whereas slightly less than half (47%) worked at hedge funds. 

The purpose of this study was to ascertain how institutional investors sourced the external investment research they used and how they valued that research.  The following is a review of the findings of that survey and a discussion of the implications of these findings.

It must be noted that this survey was in no ways "statistically significant" and therefore the results can only be considered indicative readings and not quantitatively reliable.

How the Buy-Side Identifies External Research

One of the initial questions we asked the group of DOR's was how their firms identified good external investment research.  Over 9 out of 10 survey respondents (91%) indicated that their analysts and PMs were their primary vehicles to source good research.  Over 8 out of 10 (84%) said that they discovered good research as a result of being contacted by the salespeople at the research firms themselves.  Slightly more than one quarter (28%) explained that others at the firm helped identify good research.  An identical number (28%) also noted that they relied on external sources like the commission management groups at their investment banks or brokers, independent research consultants, or other research aggregators to help them identify good research.

All of the Directors of Research at Long Only Asset Managers and Mutual Funds explained that their PMs and Analysts helped them source good investment research (100%).  This compares to 80% at hedge funds.  Close to 9 out of 10 traditional asset managers (87%) also cited research salespeople as a major way they discovered good research, whereas 80% of hedge funds got their research leads from salespeople.  Approximately one quarter (26%) of long only asset managers noted that others within the firm helped them source good research, compared to 30% of hedge fund managers.  Slightly more than one out of ten (13%) of the DOR's at non-hedge funds surveyed explained they used external sources to identify good research.  However, the big surprise came from the results we gathered from hedge funds for this question, where slightly less than one half (45%) of all hedge funds claimed to use external sources to help them find good investment research.

Confidence in External Research Sources

A second question we asked of Buy-Side Directors of Research was how confident they were that they had found and included the best external research as a part of their investment process.  As you might expect, a large percentage of institutional investors were highly confident they had found the best investment research, while a relatively low percentage were concerned that they might not have found the best external research.  On an overall basis, 42% of all buy-side directors of research felt either extremely or very confident that they had found and included the best external research as a part of their investment process.  In addition, only 24% felt Somewhat or Not Too Confident they had found the best external research.

Slightly less than half (48%) of the Directors of Research at Non-Hedge Funds felt either Extremely or Very Confident they had found the best sources of external investment research.  This result was more than two and a half times the percentage (18%) of Non-Hedge Fund DOR's who felt Somewhat or Not Too Confident they had found the best external research.

However, Hedge Funds revealed significantly less confidence that they had been able to identify the best external investment research as a part of their process.  Slightly more than one third (35%) of those surveyed indicated they were Extremely or Very Confident they had identified and integrated the best external research as a part of their investment process.  This compares to slightly less than one third (30%) who were either Somewhat or Not Too Confident they had found the best external research.  Surprisingly, the percentage of hedge funds that were not confident they had found the best research was almost equal to the percentage that were confident they had found the best research.

 

A Process to Value External Research

Buy-Side Directors of Research generally agreed that developing a rigorous process to value external research is important to the firm, with 40% of those surveyed noting this was either Extremely or Very Important.  Slightly less than one third (32%) of those surveyed felt that a rigorous research valuation process was either Somewhat or Not Too Important to their firms.

Slightly more than one-third of Non-Hedge Funds (35%) felt that developing a rigorous process to value external research was Extremely or Very Important to their firms.  This was identical to the percentage who felt it was Somewhat or Not Too Important.

On the surface, Hedge Funds had a similar view with 45% feeling that developing a rigorous process to determine how to value external research was either Extremely or Very Important to the firm.  This compared to 30% who felt it was Somewhat or Not Too Important.  One interesting difference between hedge funds and non-hedge funds was the fact that 25% percent of hedge funds felt that developing a rigorous research valuation process was Extremely Important to the firm, whereas only 13% of non-hedge funds felt the same way.

When asked if they felt such a process would become more important in the coming twelve months, a large percentage of buy-side investors felt that it would for a variety of reasons.  A few reasons that were cited most often for this increase in importance includes the decline in the value of Wall Street research and the increased difficulty in finding unique research that others do not have.  Some also noted that commission transparency and unbundling was forcing many asset managers to have to pay more and more research out of their own pockets.  Consequently, these managers want to make sure they only pay for the research that is "must have" versus paying for whatever research their PMs and analysts would like to have.

Buy-Side Directors of Research were also asked to explain the primary factors they included as a part of their research valuation process.  Despite the fact that most acknowledged that they used a qualitative process of gathering analyst and PM input to value their external research (broker vote system), most also disagreed over what metrics mattered most to them to determine value. 

The suite of services provided were seen as extremely important, including access to management, analyst visits, conferences, written materials, trade ideas, portfolio strategy, etc.  Timeliness and turnaround of research was also considered to be important.  The predictive ability of the research was also seen to be critical (performance of their recommendations) to some investors.  The cost, ease of use, and the uniqueness of the information provided was also considered an important part of the research valuation process.  Some even noted that they compared research providers with other providers of similar services to help determine the fair value of that research.

 

The European Independent Research Space

New York - As part of Integrity's ongoing efforts to monitor the global investment research industry, we have recently updated data on all the Europe-based independent research providers in database. Our database now includes 155 such providers. 

The chart below shows the breakdown of this universe by methodological style. As the chart indicates, the largest percentage of IRPs in Europe fall into the "specialized" methodological classification. This includes a range of different methodological styles, including ESG (environmental, social and governance) analysis, industry analysis, forensic accounting analysis , insider trade analysis, IPO analysis, and merger/risk arbitrage analysis, as well as a range of "other" styles that do not fit neatly into any category.

In addition to independent research providers, Integrity maintains coverage on European "brokers" that provide research and investment banking services. There are literally hundreds of these firms across Europe. Most of them provide standard fundamental "maintenance" research. However, Integrity has identified a number of brokers that have unique, value-added offerings.

According to industry studies, many Europe-based analysts regard idea generation as the most important quality in a research provider. Integrity's own experience working with buy side analysts and portfolio managers has generally corroborated this fact. Our analysis has shown that independent research providers are generally a better source of idea generation than the brokers. There are, however, some "diamond-in-the-rough" brokers that consistenty provide fresh ideas.

ch於2009/03/19 ->沒主辦的外資券商也沒閒著,要有報告,也要跟客戶擠時間,找到飯店,在場外時間堵客戶,見見一年一次的遠方客戶.-------我果然就是在各大夜店被劵商堵到阿! 哈哈哈...

 

 學習中於2009/03/17--原來不是外資坑殺散戶,而是媒體和主力坑殺散戶,媒體大人呀  你坑殺股民也就算了  別沆殺人民呀//從  J大的文章 看到投資學  社會學 人性 心理學//J大人  謝謝你讓我們開了眼界
bioinfo2於2009/03/17 --如醍醐灌頂，十分受教---

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++