The following article recently appeared. Our comments are included:
“Who is to blame when a stock drops? Or an entire sector implodes?”
By Amy Feldman and Joan Caplin, MONEY Magazine:
It wouldn’t be fair to blame a single individual for such complicated events. But there are situations when one person’s contribution is impossible to overlook.
TurtleTrader® comment: If you have your life tied up in the opinion of one man you are in trouble.
And Jack Grubman is such a person.
TurtleTrader® comment: If you bought or sold something it’s your responsibility. Blame yourself and take responsibility.
You may recall that in the late 1990s, telecommunications stocks enjoyed a terrific run: New companies went public, old companies were recharged, growth was explosive. Demand for telecom capacity soared. No one — no one — warned that this demand was a mirage.
TurtleTrader® comment: Who is supposed to warn you? Maybe we create a new branch of government to protect you from yourself?
When the boom turned to bust, the investment dollars lost were extreme: Telecom companies large and small shed more than half a trillion dollars in market value in less than two years. Even if you hadn’t bought telecom stocks directly, you were likely affected. Fidelity’s domestic equity funds, for instance, had $25 billion riding on telecom at the end of 1999, according to Morningstar.
TurtleTrader® comment: So Fidelity is not to blame for their dumb investments? They get a free ride from criticism?
Even investors in S&P 500 index funds
TurtleTrader® comment: So investing in the S&P is some form of safety net? Does the author mean it is a risk free move?
Indirectly owned Global Crossing, Qwest, WorldCom and 10 other telecom high fliers.
What’s more, telecom’s overexpansion and abrupt contraction had a ripple effect across the economy.
TurtleTrader® comment: Brilliant.
Sure, there were plenty of other catalysts for the business-led recession that followed — from interest rates to world events. Nonetheless, we can’t ignore the impact of the telecom blowup on the slowdown. Now for Jack Grubman. As Salomon Smith Barney’s telecom analyst, he was at the heart of the telecom debacle. At about $20 million a year, Grubman is Wall Street’s highest-paid analyst ever — and, until his recent fall from grace, he was the ultimate power broker in the telecom industry. In the years leading up to the telecom boom, he forged a reputation for straight-shooting, penetrating analysis. He developed relationships with all the key players in the sector and had access to the best information. He had influence over companies and money managers and came to be seen as the validator of all that was going on in telecom. If Jack said it was good, it had to be good. Of course, it’s impossible to lay the creation of the telecom bubble, its disastrous bursting and the billions of dollars in investment losses at the feet of any one man. As Grubman responds in a series of e-mails to MONEY, I don’t recall any other telecom analyst standing up in the last year or two declaring the demise of the sector. But Grubman wasn’t just any analyst. And given his distinctive role in the industry’s rise and fall, it seems reasonable to ask: Is he the worst analyst ever?
Salomon Smith Barney was in hog heaven as telecom deal making exploded, hitting a peak of $223 billion in 1999. Companies were able to raise seemingly limitless funds, often with scant concern for whether their businesses were actually viable. Telecom equity underwritings peaked in 2000 at $74 billion, while debt issuance topped out in 2001 at $116 billion. Grubman’s firm raked in $1.8 billion in telecom fees in just four years. In his e-mails, Grubman contends that he and his firm acted responsibly, rejecting many IPO deals they considered dubious. Our best calls were the things we turned down, he says. We never did Covad, Northpoint and a bunch of other names….We could have done the 360networks IPO, but I, and only I, turned it down. Still, Grubman continued to champion the sector even after it began to plummet. In March 2001 he issued a 28-page report titled Grubman’s State of the Union: Does He Ever Stop Talking? that proclaimed, Over the next 12 to 18 months, investors will look back at current prices of the leading players and wish that they had bought stock at these prices. Of the 10 companies he picked, five now trade below $1 a share. Three of those — Global Crossing, McLeodUSA and Winstar Communications — have filed for bankruptcy. The State of the Union last year sans stocks was actually quite insightful, Grubman argues. Look, we said over a year ago that there would be no mergers, there would be bankruptcies and that capital spending would plummet. Yet you can’t ignore the track record. An analysis done by MarketPerform.com for MONEY shows just how disastrously his picks fared: If you had acted on each of Grubman’s buy recommendations since February 1999 and sold when he downgraded the stock, you would have suffered a 74.5 percent loss.
TurtleTrader® comment: No one was forced to listen to this guy!
No telecom company exemplifies the industry’s dashed dreams — and Grubman’s role in them — better than Global Crossing. Founded in 1997, it had grandiose plans to lay the fiber-optic pipes over which data would be sent worldwide. In 1998 Salomon Smith Barney helped take the firm public, jointly raising $397 million. Grubman’s ties to the firm were tight. He advised it on a successful bid for Frontier Communications and an unsuccessful one for US West. From September 1998 through June 2001, Grubman issued at least 16 buy recommendations on the stock.
TurtleTrader® comment: Grubman is no better or worse than any other analyst.
At first the stock soared, hitting a high of $61.38 in 1999. It traded at a sky-high 33 times sales, but Grubman wasn’t worried. In early 2000, when the stock began to slip, he continued to tout it. In April 2001 he recommended it again, this time in a report titled Don’t Panic: Emerging Telecom Model Is Still Valid. A month later, he reiterated his buy rating, calling Global Crossing one of the new breed and well funded. Not quite. Last October, when the stock had collapsed to around $1 and the firm was on its fifth CEO in four years, Grubman finally cut his rating from buy to neutral. On Jan. 28, Global Crossing filed for bankruptcy, the fourth-largest Chapter 11 filing ever. In all, more than $55 billion in paper wealth had evaporated. The day after the bankruptcy filing, Grubman issued a terse note saying he had discontinued coverage of the stock. It was the Wall Street equivalent of a hit-and-run.
TurtleTrader® comment: Anyone that held Global Crossing all the way down has no one to blame except themselves.
Grubman says that his record must be viewed in context: If you took the emerging telecom names in total from their peaks in March 2000 to today, there was a total of $230 billion or so of market cap loss. Do you know during that time Cisco lost almost $450 billion of market cap by itself? My point is, obviously we wish the stocks had done better. But fact is, twice as much money was lost by far more investors in one stock than in the totality of our emerging telecom universe. And our universe was appropriately labeled as being speculative. Did he learn anything from the experience? You learn that even good management teams and macro industry trends being favorable does not always translate into equity returns being positive.
TurtleTrader® comment: There you have it: fundamental analysis is useless.
And what of the investors who poured money into the sector? Hopefully, investors learned that stocks have risk, especially start-ups in capital-intensive industries.
TurtleTrader® comment: All stocks have risks. And from the beginning you must know how to handle that risk.
Paying the price
Every time my broker mentions Grubman, I shudder, Mike Thomas wrote on the Silicon Investor Web site last November. Thomas, a retired engineer and longtime client of Salomon Smith Barney, explains, Every time I’d call them, for the past two or three years, they’d say, ‘Grubman likes WorldCom’ or ‘Grubman really likes Global Crossing.’ As a result, he now owns a total of 600 shares of these duds.
TurtleTrader® comment: Mike Thomas is to blame for his own purchases. No one held a gun to his head. He thought he could get rich without thinking. Now he can get poor without thinking.
On the Internet, investors are seething. A post on Yahoo! reads, Come on Jack, time to raise another trillion dollars for the telcos so that too can go to hell…the first trillion is just about gone. Tracy Pride Stoneman, an attorney who represents disgruntled investors, snipes that Grubman is the epitome of greed and conflict. He made millions while investors who relied on his opinions lost millions as a consequence of that reliance.
TurtleTrader® comment: All of these investors would have kept their silence if the bubble had not burst? We don’t defend Grubman, but where is the responsibility for one’s own actions?
In February, two ex-Salomon Smith Barney brokers, who used to handle stock options for many WorldCom employees, filed an arbitration case against him and the firm. They insist it’s not their fault that their disgruntled WorldCom clients lost a fortune when the stock plunged, but Grubman’s, because of his bullish reports.
TurtleTrader® comment: WorldCom employees are trying to blame someone else for their decision making?
A Salomon Smith Barney spokeswoman dismisses the claim as absurd.
Of course, investors must also accept their share of the blame. When we watch a television commercial for razor blades, we know they are putting the most positive spin on it they can, says Kent Womack, a professor of finance at Dartmouth, who studies analysts’ conflicts of interest. When it comes to investment research, we need to be equally skeptical.
TurtleTrader® comment: Read Ken’s study here.
Still, we expect top-rate advice and stock picks from someone earning $20 million a year.
TurtleTrader® comment: We do? Maybe lost authors at Money magazine do?
Surely, Grubman — once famed as the industry’s great seer — should have warned that this epochal bubble was doomed to burst.
TurtleTrader® comment: How in the world was Grubman supposed to predict the bubble?
In October, Grubman lost his crown as Institutional Investor’s No. 1 wireline services analyst.
TurtleTrader® comment: If Institutional Investor has a ranking system that once had Grubman #1, what does that say about their analysis?
The tone of his research reports — once so cocky — has grown more hesitant. And he no longer receives top billing on his firm’s 7:30 a.m. conference calls. His voice volume is down, says a Salomon Smith Barney broker who has listened to these calls for years. You can hear it. His confidence has been shaken. So has ours.
TurtleTrader® comment: We have the feeling these authors were kissing Grubman’s ass two years ago and now that the wind has shifted, so have they. We don’t defend Grubman, but people must take some responsibility for their own stupidity, greed and fear.
Trend Following Products
Review trend following systems and training:
More info here.