2007年7月30日 企业老总与分析师"私交过密"
在竞争残酷的美国商界,首席执行官们很少被人视为可以诉苦的对象,或者是职业发展方面可信赖的顾问。 In America's dog-eat-dog business world, chief executives are rarely seen as friendly shoulders to cry on or trusted advisers on career development. But that is exactly how Wall Street analysts - whose job is to cast a critical eye on companies on behalf of investors - appeared to have regarded the executives of companies they covered. According to an academic study to be released today, hundreds of equity analysts asked executives for favours ranging from meetings with their banks' clients to advice on personal matters. Most executives obliged but their generosity came at a price: analysts on the receiving end of executives' favours were less likely to downgrade a company as a result of poor earnings or a risky acquisition. Similarly, knowing that another analyst had been denied favours as a result of negative coverage made analysts much less likely to take similar action. The unprecedented research - by James Westphal of the University of Michigan and Michael Clement of the University of Texas - suggests that the conflicts of interests that have plagued the interaction between Wall Street and corporate America in recent years are alive and well. "This is a side-effect of the relationship between executives and analysts that can perhaps compromise the objectivity of their recommendations," says Mr Westphal. But if analysts are indeed swayed by chief executives' largesse, how could investors, especially retail investors, trust their calls? The independence of Wall Street analysts has been repeatedly questioned. Until now, however, the regulatory spotlight had focused on unwinding the relationship between dealmakers and stockpickers within investment banks, which has become much less cosy since post-Enron reforms. As for the links between analysts and executives, most observers believed the main problem had been resolved in 2000, when US regulators outlawed the disclosure of price-sensitive information to selected analysts. But the new study - carried out between 2001 and 2003 on more than 1,800 analysts whose responses were cross-checked with those of hundreds of executives - takes a different approach. Its starting point is two psychological axioms: that individuals feel grateful to those doing them a favour; and that human beings are more likely to bestow a favour on someone when they think there is something in it for them. The findings, however, surprised even the authors of the report, who say they were able to get analysts to admit to receiving favours by burying the questions within a long questionnaire on less controversial, issues. The researchers found that the more a company missed its earnings forecast, the more chief executives were likely to offer favours to analysts, particularly the highly rated ones. Perhaps more surprisingly, the tactic appeared to work. In the case of a risky acquisition that moved the company away from its core markets, the likelihood of a downgrade by a "favoured" analyst was cut by 65 per cent. Wall Street observers said that accepting favours from companies under coverage is a breach of the code of conduct of the CFA Institute, the trade body. But Dan Reingold, a former top telecoms analyst and author of Confessions of a Wall Street Analyst, said that, although the findings were surprising, they served as a reminder that there remained conflicts of interest in research. He said the key conflicts involved access to company management and information flow, but added that they were less important for institutional investors than for retail investors. "Institutional investors will often know if a particular analyst is very close to certain managements and therefore might either consciously or unconsciously tilt their recommendations. They can discount the recommendations. The retail client who reads the research has no idea about any of these relationships." Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Deutsche Bank, has long argued that the pressure analysts come under from the companies they cover is as significant as the pressure from their investment banking colleagues. In testimony to the Senate banking committee following the Enron scandal in 2002, Mr Mayo said that companies and their managements were the best source of information and "bullish and conflicted analysts" may have the best access to this information. |