Trends in Equity Research

abacus

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
A Top Retail Analyst Takes Her Rolodex Into
Independent Research By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED (FROM NYT)

Dana L. Telsey is a familiar face on CNBC and the �Today� show, making observations on the retail industry. Since August, however, she has been appearing not as a retail industry analyst for Bear Stearns, but as the chief of her own firm.

On Aug. 1, she initiated coverage of nearly 40 retail companies at her boutique research firm, the Telsey Advisory Group, providing analyses on businesses as diverse as Target and Tiffany.

�This is the right time for constructing a research firm; I think the demand for it is there,� Ms. Telsey, 43, said in her Midtown Manhattan office, around the corner from a Best Buy and a J. Crew and a few blocks from a gleaming string of Fifth Avenue shops.

Yet there is also evidence that this is a challenging time to start an independent research firm. Nearly four years after Wall Street made a sweeping settlement with regulators over conflicts involving research analysts, research is a commodity whose value has come increasingly into question.

In the 2003 settlement, Wall Street�s 10 major investment banks paid $1.4 billion. About $450 million of that was designated as subsidies for independent research, or that unattached to one of the major investment banks.

Yet despite those subsidies, which will expire in three years, third-party research still faces high hurdles. A study done this year by Integrity Research, a consulting company that tracks the research industry, found that independent research has had mixed success in the years since the global settlement.

The study concluded that the independent research sector could expect waves of consolidation as firms struggled to find viable business models. Within the
last year alone, at least four major independents, including big names like Fulcrum Global Partners and the Precursor Group, have either sold their research businesses or closed.

Several factors have contributed to such woes, according to the chairman of Integrity Research, Michael Mayhew. A vital source of revenue dried up as the use of soft dollars � or extra commissions that institutional investors pay the brokerage unit of such firms to finance the research � declined.

Moreover, the field has become increasingly crowded, putting the squeeze on third-party analyst firms, especially those in the fundamental research business. While established giants like Sanford C. Bernstein & Company have and will continue to thrive, Mr. Mayhew
said, smaller players that proffer only buy-sell-hold ratings and financial modeling have found their wares increasingly ignored.

The nature of research has changed as hedge funds have emerged as a dominant market force. A recent survey by Greenwich Associates, a consulting firm, found that the number of hedge funds that said they had increased their business with a particular dealer as a reward for valuable research increased to 42 percent his year, from 19 percent in 2005.

And hedge funds increasingly favor research shops that can provide proprietary analysis, often based on expert knowledge.

According to the Integrity Research report, newer models like expert-network providers, which link customers to an array of industry specialists rather than provide their own research, have grown sharply. A firm like the Gerson Lehrman Group has been very
successful in developing expert networks for its clients to tap into.

Forensic accounting shops, which are not new but are not widespread, have found some success with hedge funds, especially those focused on short-selling, or bets that particular stocks will fall in price. And those firms that can offer access to companies� management teams hold great allure for hedge funds seeking a trading edge.

�For fundamental research firms, if you don�t offer management access, it�s going to be hard to find someone on the buy side who will pay you,� Mr. Mayhew said.

Yet the landmark Wall Street settlement did help promote the value of independent research.

�This turning the spotlight on the independent industry has helped give independents additional credit and the opportunity to work with these hedge funds, because independent research has become a little more mainstream now,� said John M. Eade,
president and director of research at Argus Research.

Despite the challenges, Ms. Telsey maintains that her firm offers a model new enough and sophisticated enough to be successful.

While the Telsey Advisory Group, which has a staff of 27, offers fundamental research, it also does channel checks, or inspections of stores, warehouses and supply lines to determine whether a company can meet its predicted sales. It offers no buy, hold or sell
ratings, instead giving long-term assessments that look forward at least a year.

Because it has no brokerage or investment banking arms, Telsey Advisory Group can focus purely on research, Ms. Telsey said. That product also features exclusivity: its analyses are not published on First Call, a major clearinghouse for research notes. Instead, clients access the notes through Telsey Advisory Group�s Web site (telseygroup.com).

�A lot of our independence comes from our subscription model,� Ms. Telsey said. �And clients can help guide our research. We follow what our clients want.�

Yet while other independents offer similar products, Telsey Advisory Group has one unique difference. That would be Ms. Telsey herself, who says her experience and fat Rolodex enable her to sniff out trends that others cannot.

Ms. Telsey began working at Baron Capital as assistant to its founder, Ron Baron, rising to become vice president of its Baron Asset Fund. She then moved to C. J. Lawrence, eventually becoming its retail analyst.

In 1994, Ms. Telsey joined Bear Stearns, developing a specialty in luxury retail. By the time she left in March as a senior managing director, she had tracked more than 70 companies and racked up several awards, including being ranked by Institutional Investor magazine as the No. 1 analyst in her sector seven times.

With the white canvas that is Telsey Advisory Group before her now, Ms. Telsey said, the challenge is to put the ideas she has mulled for years to the test.

�I�ve always asked, �How much better could this be?� � she said. �Now we�re challenging the bulge brackets, and we have a lot more control over our time and our research.�
 
This is a neat article and I have some thoughts on it. Good post, but some of the observations are a bit mundane or oversimplified in my view. I hope my commentary can shed some light from a different perspective as well. Anyone else have thoughts? Please discuss.

<<On Aug. 1, she initiated coverage of nearly 40 retail companies at her boutique research firm, the Telsey Advisory Group, providing analyses on businesses as diverse as Target and Tiffany. >>

*Forty* initiations? That should tell you about the quality and depth of this research (if quality and depth actually exist).

<<In the 2003 settlement, Wall Street�s 10 major investment banks paid $1.4 billion. About $450 million of that was designated as subsidies for independent research, or that unattached to one of the major investment banks. >>

That's because most people don't have the care or time to read "independent" research There's a reason why independent research has faced high hurdles -- usually it has something to do with the quality of the research or the analysis, and you have to wonder why any good research analyst would rather go independent instead of working as part of a larger institution where they'd actually have the supporting infrastructure, financial security, and sales and trading platform to promote their visibility.

<<Several factors have contributed to such woes, according to the chairman of Integrity Research, Michael Mayhew. >>

Integrity Research...who?

<<Mr. Mayhew said, smaller players that proffer only buy-sell-hold ratings and financial modeling have found their wares increasingly ignored. >>

That's because nobody cares for research that just has some graphs showing arbitrary valuation metrics or that just have a buy/sell rating. Anyone reading fundamental research cares about the depth and quality of the fundamental analysis. Conversely, anyone who doesn't care about fundamental analysis won't read sell-side research anyway.

<<The nature of research has changed as hedge funds have emerged as a dominant market force. A recent survey by Greenwich Associates, a consulting firm, found that the number of hedge funds that said they had increased their business with a particular dealer as a reward for valuable research increased to 42 percent his year, from 19 percent in 2005. >>

This is actually a good point. But I think a main reason why compensation for research itself has gone up has been due partially to unbundling. This means that in order to get attention from the best analysts and thus get access to investment advice, management meetings, and so forth, hedge funds will need to increase the amount that they're willing to put out for research itself. Elsewhere, the big companies still have the best trading platforms, and smaller hedge funds are more reliant on big banks to run their trades because of the speed and streamlined processes.

<<While the Telsey Advisory Group, which has a staff of 27, offers fundamental research, it also does channel checks, or inspections of stores, warehouses and supply lines to determine whether a company can meet its predicted sales. It offers no buy, hold or sell
ratings, instead giving long-term assessments that look forward at least a year. >>

Nothing special here. Good sell-side research does this too. Otherwise, all research would be the same, and some people already contend that too many research notes look the same anyway!

<<Yet while other independents offer similar products, Telsey Advisory Group has one unique difference. That would be Ms. Telsey herself, who says her experience and fat Rolodex enable her to sniff out trends that others cannot. >>

Yes...goes to show that whether you are at a small shop or at a major bank, connections are everything.
 
That's because most people don't have the care or time to read "independent" research There's a reason why independent research has faced high hurdles -- usually it has something to do with the quality of the research or the analysis, and you have to wonder why any good research analyst would rather go independent instead of working as part of a larger institution where they'd actually have the supporting infrastructure, financial security, and sales and trading platform to promote their visibility.

===========================================

numi:

When I was looking for a position in research, about 15 months back, banks were still cutting their research staff. Few alumni, from BB, even commented that research had become a cost center for their company. Maybe the situation has changed now.

When there has been hiring within research, it has focused on emerging markets (FT talked about Citigroup hiring more analysts a while back with similar geographical focus). This should not surprise anyone when companies like GE expect to get 70% of their revenues from outside US within the next 10 years.

However, in your opinion, does a good research analyst even need a support infrastructure? Telsey's case in unique in that she has vast contacts, has built her reputation on the street, and buy-side clients know her. Her model may not work for others.
 
With respect to research being a cost center, this is probably true to a large extent. However, just because it's a cost center doesn't make it a bad thing. A cost center is defined as a division that adds to the cost of the firm but only contributes indirectly to the bottom-line. However, that is clearly different from something that doesn't add value -- in fact, R&D divisions of any company are cost centers as well, and nobody will ever say that R&D isn't important to firms like Merck, Pfizer, Genentech, etc.

As such, the key is to position and leverage the research resources such that they contribute to earnings expansion for the firm, and what you've described has to do with different firms adopting different strategies in order to better leverage their research resources. Citigroup has definitely been ramping up their commitment to research, though other firms have begun to do so as well. Like you said, emerging markets are key -- investment banks realize that given the growing number of hedge funds, there is an increased demand to cover underserved or underpenetrated areas of the market. Companies like Citigroup may arguably be better positioned to do this because they have the balance sheet and the retail sales force to support the budget expansion for a research infrastructure.

As for whether a good analyst needs a good support infrastructure, I'm sure that varies on a case by case scenario. One could argue that being affiliated with the prestige of a BB can only help, but others will say that once the analyst has built a reputation for their franchise, they're already known for their views and their investment theses and they take their intellectual ideas with them wherever they go. Based on the article you posted, I would infer that Telsey has leveraged her reputation and her rolodex in building her own independent research franchise. However, given the amount of securities analysts out there relative to the ones that are actually good and provide differentiated, value-added propositions, I would guess that only a small minority would be able to leverage their independence successfully.

Hope this helps. I would be curious to hear more thoughts from you and others on this topic. We could have a good discussion going on this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 09:34AM by numi.
 
numi Wrote:
>
> *Forty* initiations? That should tell you about
> the quality and depth of this research (if quality
> and depth actually exist).
>

Keep in mind that she was on the sell side covering the space when she started her own firm. She was covering many of the same companies at Bear - it's not like she had to start from scratch on 40 names.
 
With respect to research being a cost center, this is probably true to a large extent. However, just because it's a cost center doesn't make it a bad thing. A cost center is defined as a division that adds to the cost of the firm but only contributes indirectly to the bottom-line. However, that is clearly different from something that doesn't add value -- in fact, R&D divisions of any company are cost centers as well, and nobody will ever say that R&D isn't important to firms like Merck, Pfizer, Genentech, etc.

===================================================

numi: Since you work in research, you probably have a better view on the importance of research to a brokerage house now. In the late 90's, research was helping investment banking snare more deals. After the cleanup, it has new clients in hedge funds.

At this point, I'm not sure if equity research & R&D can be compared since equity research - with the focus on hedge funds - has shorter time horizons versus industrial R&D which supposedly has a long-term focus. Even when both are viewed as cost centers within their organizations.
 
I'm not sure how relevant time horizon is for a couple reasons. First, I would say that clinical R&D always has potential near-term implications, primarily because people aren't nearly as concerned about what's distant in the pipeline -- they're a lot more focused on what's likely to materialize sooner rather than later. Also, I don't see why the time horizon for returns is that relevant as far as whether something is considered a cost center -- can you explain?
 
Back
Top