What sort of research is most helpful?

or Register to post new content in the forum

30 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 5, 2005 4:08 pm

What sort of research/collateral (eg powerpoints) do you find most helpful?



Reports about individual equities? Reports that wrap a "story" or "theme" around a basket of stocks or portfolio?

Aug 5, 2005 5:01 pm

I primarily use Merrill's proprietary research, then reference Morningstar and Value Line... Morningstar is solid research, and its a name that most investors know and trust.

Aug 6, 2005 3:58 pm

I work for a major wirehouse and I do not use the research.  Why would anyone use brokerage firms research when the probablilty is it will be wrong?  Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports and recommendation updates for example so they can onload their own inventory. There is so much garbage that goes on in this area it's a joke.  Better to flip a coin if.


Fundamental research is a big suckers game.   That's why I say learn how to use charts.  Learn how volumn affects a stocks performance.  Learn how to detect at what price the selers will kick in.  Learn technicals and you will forever be rid of the junk fed to you and your clients by Wall Street.   


Aug 6, 2005 11:23 pm
Greenhills:

I work for a major wirehouse and I do not use the research.  Why would anyone use brokerage firms (TRY AN APOSTROPHE HERE)research when the probablilty is (INSERT COMMA HERE) it will be wrong?  Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports and recommendation updates (INSERT COMMA HERE) for example (AND HERE) so they can onload (UNLOAD?) their own inventory. There is so much garbage that goes on in this area (INSERT COMMA HERE) it's a joke.  Better to flip a coin if. (IF WHAT?)


Fundamental research is a big suckers (SUCKER'S) game.   That's why I say learn how to use charts.  Learn how volumn affects a stocks (STOCK'S) performance.  Learn how to detect at what price the selers (SELLERS) will kick in.  Learn technicals and you will forever be rid of the junk fed to you and your clients by Wall Street.   




Learn grammar and spelling and the rest of us will be forever grateful.


From what I can tell, your investment strategy makes about as much sense as letting a monkey with a dartboard pick stocks for your clients.  One minute you're telling us that you're a long-term investor, and the next minute, you want us to learn to read the charts...which is it?


Also, I couldn't disagree more about fundamental investing.  Charts can be temporarily self-fulfilling prophecy, but without decent fundamentals, your stock will eventually come crashing back to earth.


God help your clients if they are following your schizophrenic advice and God help you if you're sending them letters without someone else proofing them.

Aug 7, 2005 1:04 am

Indyone:
Greenhills:

I work for a major wirehouse and I do not use the research.  Why would anyone use brokerage firms (TRY AN APOSTROPHE HERE)research when the probablilty is (INSERT COMMA HERE) it will be wrong?  Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports and recommendation updates (INSERT COMMA HERE) for example (AND HERE) so they can onload (UNLOAD?) their own inventory. There is so much garbage that goes on in this area (INSERT COMMA HERE) it's a joke.  Better to flip a coin if. (IF WHAT?)


Fundamental research is a big suckers (SUCKER'S) game.   That's why I say learn how to use charts.  Learn how volumn affects a stocks (STOCK'S) performance.  Learn how to detect at what price the selers (SELLERS) will kick in.  Learn technicals and you will forever be rid of the junk fed to you and your clients by Wall Street.   




Learn grammar and spelling and the rest of us will be forever grateful.


From what I can tell, your investment strategy makes about as much sense as letting a monkey with a dartboard pick stocks for your clients.  One minute you're telling us that you're a long-term investor, and the next minute, you want us to learn to read the charts...which is it?


Also, I couldn't disagree more about fundamental investing.  Charts can be temporarily self-fulfilling prophecy, but without decent fundamentals, your stock will eventually come crashing back to earth.


God help your clients if they are following your schizophrenic advice and God help you if you're sending them letters without someone else proofing them.



His typing may not be the best, but you should heed his words regarding proprietary research, and as well understanding technical analysis.  It's good stuff!  After all, a good long term track record is built upon a large number of successful shorter periods strung together, no?



Food for thought.  Perhaps, too, you should try to sound a little less arrogant. 

Aug 7, 2005 10:46 am
joedabrkr:

Indyone:
Greenhills:

I work for a major wirehouse and I do not use the research.  Why would anyone use brokerage firms (TRY AN APOSTROPHE HERE)research when the probablilty is (INSERT COMMA HERE) it will be wrong?  Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports and recommendation updates (INSERT COMMA HERE) for example (AND HERE) so they can onload (UNLOAD?) their own inventory. There is so much garbage that goes on in this area (INSERT COMMA HERE) it's a joke.  Better to flip a coin if. (IF WHAT?)


Fundamental research is a big suckers (SUCKER'S) game.   That's why I say learn how to use charts.  Learn how volumn affects a stocks (STOCK'S) performance.  Learn how to detect at what price the selers (SELLERS) will kick in.  Learn technicals and you will forever be rid of the junk fed to you and your clients by Wall Street.   




Learn grammar and spelling and the rest of us will be forever grateful.


From what I can tell, your investment strategy makes about as much sense as letting a monkey with a dartboard pick stocks for your clients.  One minute you're telling us that you're a long-term investor, and the next minute, you want us to learn to read the charts...which is it?


Also, I couldn't disagree more about fundamental investing.  Charts can be temporarily self-fulfilling prophecy, but without decent fundamentals, your stock will eventually come crashing back to earth.


God help your clients if they are following your schizophrenic advice and God help you if you're sending them letters without someone else proofing them.



His typing may not be the best, but you should heed his words regarding proprietary research, and as well understanding technical analysis.  It's good stuff!  After all, a good long term track record is built upon a large number of successful shorter periods strung together, no?



Food for thought.  Perhaps, too, you should try to sound a little less arrogant. 



Nice Joe...I believe you were referring to God and something about an eye, a toothpick, and a 2 by 4.


Anyway, the best research is the research that is able to articulate your investment philosophy clearly and concisely to you and your client such that your recommendation(s) are easily understood and accepted by your client(s).

Aug 7, 2005 10:37 pm
joedabrkr:

Indyone:
Greenhills:

I work for a major wirehouse and I do not use the research.  Why would anyone use brokerage firms (TRY AN APOSTROPHE HERE)research when the probablilty is (INSERT COMMA HERE) it will be wrong?  Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports and recommendation updates (INSERT COMMA HERE) for example (AND HERE) so they can onload (UNLOAD?) their own inventory. There is so much garbage that goes on in this area (INSERT COMMA HERE) it's a joke.  Better to flip a coin if. (IF WHAT?)


Fundamental research is a big suckers (SUCKER'S) game.   That's why I say learn how to use charts.  Learn how volumn affects a stocks (STOCK'S) performance.  Learn how to detect at what price the selers (SELLERS) will kick in.  Learn technicals and you will forever be rid of the junk fed to you and your clients by Wall Street.   




Learn grammar and spelling and the rest of us will be forever grateful.


From what I can tell, your investment strategy makes about as much sense as letting a monkey with a dartboard pick stocks for your clients.  One minute you're telling us that you're a long-term investor, and the next minute, you want us to learn to read the charts...which is it?


Also, I couldn't disagree more about fundamental investing.  Charts can be temporarily self-fulfilling prophecy, but without decent fundamentals, your stock will eventually come crashing back to earth.


God help your clients if they are following your schizophrenic advice and God help you if you're sending them letters without someone else proofing them.



His typing may not be the best, but you should heed his words regarding proprietary research, and as well understanding technical analysis.  It's good stuff!  After all, a good long term track record is built upon a large number of successful shorter periods strung together, no?



Food for thought.  Perhaps, too, you should try to sound a little less arrogant. 



Joe, perhaps I deserve some of this, but at the risk of sounding like Put, Jr., I'll confess that one of my pet peeves is a poster who professes to have all the answers, while showing very little command of the english language.  Honestly, if we communicate this poorly with our clients, what will they think?


Also, the arrogant tone was in response to statements like "Brokerages are always spiking stocks via their research reports..." and "Fundamental research is a big suckers game."  I don't believe either statement, but they are put forth as absolutes, and those kind of statements usually draw a sharper response from me (call it a character flaw). Sure, brokerages have laid their share of eggs, but they don't ALWAYS spike stocks in their inventory.  Such generalizations just don't hold up.  I use CSFB research and find it generally very good.  Sure, they've missed some, but I think they hit more than they miss.  I try to back their views up using S&P and/or Value Line, since these sources appear to be free of bias since they have no investment banking division, but I've found CSFB to be generally pretty good.


Likewise, I believe that fundamentals are generally better indicators over the long haul than technical indicators.  You don't have to agree with this view, but I will object to anyone calling it a sucker's game.  If someone proves to me that technical analysis is always right and fundamental analysis is always wrong, I'll back off, but in the interim, I reserve the right to be just as opinionated on my side as Greenhills is on his/hers.  At any rate, I think that a difference of opinion, and a lively, but at least mostly civil debate on those differences is a good thing for these forums.  Unfortunately, these Roger Thornhill types tend to bring out the worst in me.  I guess unless the grammar and punctuation is just terrible, I'll try to leave that side out of my responses, but if I slip, I hope y'all will have it in your heart to cut me a little slack.

Aug 8, 2005 1:30 am

Don't get me wrong Indy, I've made a few editorial comments when the spelling gets really bad.


I used to think the old timers were cynical when the talked about analysts putting a 'buy' on a stock simply because the firm wanted to unload some inventory....or some other cynical explanation.  The longer I'm in this business the more I wonder.


CSFB is a pretty good shop when it comes to research, by the way.


I do not adhere to the belief that technical analysis is always right, now that fundamental is just 'rolling the dice'.  Frankly I use both in concert. I use fundamental research to understand if I'm buying a good company and at a reasonable price, and technical analysis to determine if I think the price is going to go higher in a reasonable amount of time.  I also use tech work to give me a 'heads up' when the fundamental work is wrong or biased, and sometimes it even helps me avoid some nasty 'fundamental surprises.....'


So there it is. And yes reasonable men can agree to disagree, and this forum would benefit from some intelligent discourse......

Aug 8, 2005 7:45 am

As a new broker with Dean Witter, back in the early '90's, I wanted to push our recommended list of stocks. At that time, the list had an excellent track record, even beating the S&P every year (if I remember correctly).


However, I began to notice that by the time I received the updated recommended list, all the stocks had shot up in price. I soon found out that the recommended list of stocks was FIRST shown to  institutional clients, prior to being distributed to the retail brokers. Of course, the institutional clients bought these stocks FIRST, knowing that once the list was distributed to the retail brokers and announced to the media, the stock price would jump. Which it did.


Aug 8, 2005 1:23 pm

I also, like joedabroker, use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis.   The fundamental analysis makes sense to me as a former commercial loan officer.  In that capacity I would analyize the business (cashflow, EBITA, management etc.) before making a loan decision.  I look at investing in a companies stock as the same sort of decision.  The technical analysis helps to see the direction and potential directions that the stock is tracking.


I use Morningstar reports, S&P reports and Market Edge and Market Edge Second Opinion.     I'm too cheap to subsribe to any more research companies.   But if I were to do so, Valueline would be my choice.

Aug 8, 2005 2:27 pm

Indyone, I use technical research and I am a long term investor.  I like the term long term trader.  I think those two can go along with eachother quite well.  Technical research is not "tempory"...it is ongoing and not static just like fundamental research.  It has also made a huge difference for the better in my ability to manage my clients money. 


Something as simple as knowing where the 200 day moving average is to set your stop would have saved people a world of hurt when the market came down a while back. 


I think what Greenhill is saying makes a lot of sense and I find what he has to say to be correct.  I hope he has a good secretary to edit his letters though.   "selers?" 

Aug 9, 2005 9:04 pm

Dear Indyone,


Your are uninformed and ignorant if you think long term investing is mutually exclusive of using charts.  Get informed and educated before you attack me again little boy.


I didn't get 162 million under management by not being good at what I do. And by the way Malcolm I have three assistants and they do a good job of editing for me.         


I stand by everything I said.  If you all think your firms research department or the market makers or the people running these companies have you or your clients bests interests in mind, you're wrong.


Learn technicals and you will change your career for the better.       

Aug 10, 2005 12:25 am

Sorry I stepped on your delicate ego, Greenhills.  I also stand by what I said earlier...and I don't need three assistants to help me get command of the English language.  Despite what your posts indicate, you don't have all the answers either.  You didn't earn my respect and you won't get it with responses like the above.

Aug 10, 2005 7:51 am

We look at earnings, earings increases, ROA/PE, dividend, and dividend
increases, and a few other metrics.  We like companies that are
tading near or have recently broken through their 2 week high.
   We do not really do charting.  

Aug 10, 2005 11:20 am

"Likewise, I believe that fundamentals are generally better indicators over the long haul than technical indicators."


Agreed. While I will look at a chart (which only looks backwards, btw), I'm much more of a believer in fundamentals. Boiled down to its basics, pure chartists (and notice, they only use pencils, never pens) will buy because a stock’s been going up, or sell because it’s been going down. Hardly enlightening. Charts have their place, and imho, that’s about 15% of the decision process. Ask Warren Buffet or any Nobel Prize winner in economics what they think of the predictive ability of pure TA.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


While we’re at it, is there anyone more useless that someone who tries to back up a claim about stock picking, or any other subject for that matter, who relies on “learn how to use it”, as if no one else knows how, but sees limited value in it?


Aug 10, 2005 7:57 pm

Good Lord, I'm talking to a bunch of monkeys. 


Nevershort, such brilliant comments!  "Fundamentals are generally better indicators over the long haul than technical indicators." 


Really!  What a stunning thing to say!  No shi..t Shirlock.  Monkeys, I am definately talking to monkeys.  Youre all so darn stupid, you dont even know what you dont know.  The poor investing public.  Sheeps to slaughter, just like their broker.


I'm done.  Goodby.  And by the way Indyone, you don't need three assistants because you have a little baby business!   lol

Aug 10, 2005 9:00 pm
rightway:

We look at earnings, earings increases, ROA/PE, dividend, and dividend
increases, and a few other metrics.  We like companies that are
tading near or have recently broken through their 2 week high.
   We do not really do charting.  





oops- i meant 52 week high.

Aug 10, 2005 9:55 pm
Greenhills:

Good Lord, I'm talking to a bunch of monkeys. 


Nevershort, such brilliant comments!  "Fundamentals are generally better indicators over the long haul than technical indicators." 


Really!  What a stunning thing to say!  No shi..t Shirlock.  Monkeys, I am definately talking to monkeys.  Youre all so darn stupid, you dont even know what you dont know.  The poor investing public.  Sheeps to slaughter, just like their broker.


I'm done.  Goodby.  And by the way Indyone, you don't need three assistants because you have a little baby business!   lol



We can only hope it's goodbye (note spelling) for you.  I've been letting my eight year-old daughter correct your spelling for fun.


I noticed an interesting conflict in your comments...first we have "Fundamental research is a big suckers game." Then you come back with this gem, "Nevershort, such brilliant comments!  "Fundamentals are generally better indicators over the long haul than technical indicators." Really!  What a stunning thing to say!  No shi..t Shirlock." I actually agree with this one and it's good to see you come around, even if it is only for a schizophrenic moment.


BTW, I an my assistant do just fine with the business, thank you.  She sure doesn't have to waste her time proofing my client communications, at least.


...and you're the monkey...with a dartboard...

Aug 10, 2005 9:57 pm

Also, it's good to see that there are still some advisors out there that believe that the fundamentals of a given stock have some bearing on buy/sell/hold decisions...thanks, ladies and gentlemen!

Aug 11, 2005 7:25 pm

In the beginning, my clients would balk at the fact that I was buying/

recommending stocks at a new high.   After 100, 200, and 300 % returns

they are now my greatest advocates.



I (and they) have learned that is virtually no value in fundamental analysis.

How can the guy at Bear Stearns find out something that the guy at

Lehman or Goldman can't. Come on folks.



When I was at PaineWebber, Ed Kirschner was a "genius" b/c his list of 50

stocks outperformed the S&P. Over a weekend I disected his list and

found out that the only reason he outperformed was-- AOL.



If you backed out AOL, his list actually underperformed without even

considering commissions or "transaction costs".



If you subscribe to the principal that 80% of a stock's performance is

directly related to its industry or group--you have the equivalent of a

Harvard MBA.



Fundamental analysis is BULLsh*t b/c all the analyst have the same

access to "guidance reports and channel checks".



'nuff said