The lunacy of financial analysts versus industry analysts.

by Kris_Tuttle on June 18, 2008

This has been brew­ing for a while but has reached truly absurd pro­por­tions. For those that don’t know tech­nol­ogy com­pa­nies divide their ana­lyst “rela­tion­ships” along the lines of indus­try (Gart­ner, For­rester) and finan­cial (Gold­man Sachs, Mor­gan Stan­ley.)  This means that ana­lysts talk to dif­fer­ent peo­ple, attend sep­a­rate meet­ings and receive dis­tinct types of infor­ma­tion and con­tact points in the company.

Besides hav­ing no real foun­da­tion in the first place, today this prac­tice has taken on a man­tle of irre­spon­si­ble idiocy that remains some­what char­ac­ter­is­tic of large com­pa­nies.  Here are the key reasons:

1. Why would any indus­try ana­lyst dis­re­gard the finan­cial and busi­ness aspects of a tech­nol­ogy ven­dor?  Why would a finan­cial ana­lyst attempt to do their job with­out a deep under­stand­ing of the tech­nol­ogy, prod­uct strat­egy and other “tech­ni­cal” details of the busi­ness oppor­tu­nity?  Can one do a restau­rant review using just the prices on the menu and not tast­ing the food? Can you write up the food and ignore the prices of the items?  Silly.

2. Indus­try ana­lysts are no longer dis­tinct from finan­cial ana­lysts in terms of talk­ing to pub­lic mar­ket investors.  Gart­ner has a huge busi­ness built around serv­ing up their ana­lysts to dis­cuss com­pa­nies with investors.  Firms like Ger­son Lehrman blur this dis­tinc­tion even fur­ther.  Every­one is part indus­try ana­lyst, part business/financial ana­lyst.  Every sin­gle “indus­try ana­lyst” firm we know has a sub­stan­tive busi­ness where ana­lysts ser­vice insti­tu­tional investors.

3. Com­pa­nies hold­ing indus­try ana­lyst meet­ings no longer pro­vide any extra infor­ma­tion that is finan­cial in nature. They cite the “black out period” the same way they use it in finan­cial ana­lyst meet­ings.    Another dis­tinc­tion with­out a difference.

Obvi­ously com­pa­nies have lots of stake when talk­ing to ana­lysts which is why they work so hard to craft their mes­sage and infor­ma­tion to mar­ket the image they want ana­lysts walk away with.  Of course the pri­mary job of the ana­lyst is to find the real­ity and relate it to the needs of their own clients, not to grasp and sim­ply repur­pose the information.

Ana­lyst meet­ings are cer­tainly valu­able and should con­tinue.  But they should be open to both types and a detailed agenda allows ana­lysts to decide how well the pro­gram fits with their needs.  Pure finan­cial types may elect to skip prod­uct brief­ings and indus­try ana­lysts may pass on the CFO pre­sen­ta­tion if there is one. 

We real­ize that the “black­out period” is a dumb inven­tion to com­ply with “FD” reg­u­la­tions but since there is no objec­tive def­i­n­i­tion of it nobody knows how to use it intel­li­gently.  CXO exec­u­tives refuse to talk to finan­cial ana­lysts for long peri­ods while cus­tomers and prospects con­tinue to get detailed infor­ma­tion and par­tic­i­pate in reg­u­lar brief­ings with the com­pany.  All it does is prompt ana­lysts to develop rela­tion­ships with the clients, chan­nel part­ners, com­peti­tors and prospects for a com­pany which end up being more use­ful any­way.  How­ever com­pany man­age­ments lose out because they miss the advice they can get back from ana­lysts who spend time with clients, prospects and investors.  The dia­log is greatly reduced.  Some com­pa­nies actu­ally pay over $100K for “advice” on how to script their quar­terly calls but do poorly at under­stand­ing expectations. 

We could cer­tainly go on but today most of the prob­lems don’t impact us any­more now that we are out­side the oppres­sive and unpro­duc­tive broker/dealer research sec­tor but the industry/financial ana­lyst dis­tinc­tion gets more silly every day.

– Kris Tuttle

Tags: , ,

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: