This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Grading Equity Analysts: Failed & Over Bullish for 25 Years

asiablues's picture




 

By Dian L. Chu, Economic Forecasts & Opinions

Investment analysts' upgrades/downgrades have historically served as benchmarks for the markets, and could mean life or death to stock prices. However, the story of a 15% price swing in ATP Oil and Gas's (ATPG) stocks due to a $450-million math error by a JP Morgan (JPM) analyst probably has prompted some to question the value and validity of analysts' forecasts. 

McKinsey Quarterly published a study in April to answer just that.  Here is what McKinsey has to say after comparing analysts' earnings forecasts vs. the actual for the past 25 years:

"Analysts, we found, were typically overoptimistic, slow to revise their forecasts to reflect new economic conditions, and prone to making increasingly inaccurate forecasts when economic growth declined."

Moreover, McKinsey also finds that on average, analysts’ forecasts for earnings have been almost 100% too high in the past 25 years. (See graph)

McKinsey concludes that "Long-term earnings growth for the market as a whole is unlikely to differ significantly from growth in GDP, " and that the current infation and GDP expectations would be consistent with nominal earnings growth of 5 to 7%.  However, "if economic growth slows significantly or if inflation and interest rates rise, returns from stocks could trend lower."

While fundamentals undeniably play a significant part in market movements, McKinsy's view seems to reflect a belief in the efficient market hypothesis. The article also sort of skimmed over how emotion and irrationality could overtake the markets more often than not. 

The efficient market hypothesis holds that financial markets are "informationally efficient"; and thus existing share prices will always reflect all relevant information. However, in reality, markets are susceptible to "emotional bias" such as overconfidence and overreaction, as well as "informational bias" (i.e., misinformation, and not all relevant info is available to all markets.)

In other words, emotional and informational bias would constantly flow through in such a way that the markets most likely will never achieve the "informationally efficient" state.

Analysts, economists and rating agencies are human, just like the rest of the markets, which means individual emotional and informational bias most likely will be consistently reflected in their analysis, along with occasional plain human errors. 

Although some say the markets don't take analysts as seriously as they used to, the case of ATPG and JPM should indicate otherwise.  The bottom line is that investors should do own due diligence to formulate the best possible informed decision, instead of relying and reacting solely on analysts' reports.

(Note: pdf of the full McKinsy article is available here at Washburn University site.)

Dian L. Chu, July 20, 2010

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 07/20/2010 - 13:29 | 479058 bluelou
bluelou's picture

I was a sell-side analyst for several years.  I agree that most of this stuff is rather obvious.  In my opinion, the problem is mostly capture theory related.  That is, the analyst has to please the corporate client, and the natural long holder of the stock as well as the investor community in general.  Piss off the 1st two groups and you'll have neither info flow nor commission revs.  

Many sell-siders have become good analysts at hedge funds.  They didn't get smart all of the sudden.  They had to leave the sell-side to drop the baggage of the first 2 constituent groups I've mentioned.  

A fair analogy might be a MSM news reader/reporter.  The day they say anything original or insightful is the day their career ends.

 

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 12:31 | 478917 ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Who needs a study?  Most analysis work for firms which don't make money unless stocks are bought.  Duh.

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 10:48 | 478699 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

"n average, analysts’ forecasts for earnings have been almost 100% too high in the past 25 years"

Wow!

Isn't that an enough said moment?

Chicanery, deceit, outright criminality.

The world of Mammon is going under, under it's own weight!

Good riddance,

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 11:22 | 478779 maddy10
maddy10's picture

 all of us are trapped in this 'world' of yours including yourself

I don't know what good will be done by this annihilation

Dooms'day scenarios are fun to read, but not to be in one!!!!!!

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 14:32 | 479188 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

I agree maddy. Our world. But hard as it may seem, destruction always follows creation. Like clockwork, yin-yang.

A good time to peer inward is all.

"Runaway" is a dominant theme/meme, yes?

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 11:40 | 478818 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I wasn't given the choice to opt out of it but I at least get to make the conscious decision to open my eyes or stick my head in the sand.

Tue, 07/20/2010 - 10:41 | 478672 RonnieHonduras
RonnieHonduras's picture

Finally... the obvious is confirmed!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!