I have come to the point where I believe virtually nothing that I read from most big brokerage houses, or other so-called "analysts" who are very free with their opinions, but proffer them with a dearth of fact-based analysis. By way of illustration, look at the work done by the three analysts who cover IMMU (Nadeau at Cowen, Birchenough at WFC and Andrews at Jefferies), and it is demonstrably incisive and data driven; then further consider these analysts' background and credentials. They are all exceptional in not just their capabilities, but their methodology.
Conversely, and by way of opposing illustration, look at Cramer's famous call in early December of 2017 when he exhorted his acolytes to sell IMMU "because it has gone up so much and so quickly recently," or words to that effect. Worth noting was that at that time, it was known that the Company had obtained an oral presentation slot at the SABCS, and was also hosting a subsequent investor event. Anyone with a modicum of actual knowledge about those facts alone would inexorably conclude that the data would be compelling, but yet Cramer felt free to blithely render his "advice" based upon nothing fundamental.
I'm not saying that IMMU is without risk (many of us still have scar tissue from the past as proof of that point), but again, Nadeau, Birchenough, and Andrews allow for that and articulate it. However, I'm willing to wager that if you were to ask some of the other "analysts" at a house such as Schwab some questions about the science (CL2A linker and SG as not just a compound, but a platform), or the quality of recent hires (Pehl, Delaney, Kelly, and Rosenberg), and the kinds of recent hires (salesforce), they'd be clueless - totally ignorant about any of those issues, not to mention the data that has been generated within the last 6 months in varying indications. Also, ask any of them what they'd infer from the Royalty Pharma transaction, a conservative company willing to lend 250 million dollars against only a future revenue stream and not otherwise collateralized or secured, and I'll bet you that they'd have no idea that it happened, and would stammer some facile reply if they were informed of and verified it. Most of us who participate here are far more knowledgeable than any of them, and they'd be unable to keep up with us during any kind of in-depth discussion of recent events or data releases. I'd love to confront the Schwab analyst who rates IMMU a "D" and ask him or her to explain the basis for the rating.
My fundamental point is that most of these people never get called upon to be accountable for their "advice" or "ratings" because they are not putting themselves out there like the three analysts I mentioned above, who have significant reputational risk by being bullish on IMMU. As a further illustration, do you think Cramer would ever take a call that challenged his prior recommendation to sell IMMU, and admit "I was wrong?" There's a better chance of David M. Goldenberg admitting that he ever made a single mistake, or Cynthia Sullivan admitting that she ran this company ineptly. MAF
PS: I believe we will see additional serious and well-regarded analysts initiate coverage after the June 3rd investor event. By "serious and well-regarded," I refer not to those who will have nothing at stake such as some nameless and faceless person(s) at Schwab, but those who have reputations and are willing to risk them by recommending IMMU. |
