Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Brocade Communications Systems,Inc. (Nasdaq-BRCD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brasco One who wrote (1468)	12/10/2003 5:12:18 PM
From: Capt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583

In a very short-lived discussion today between David Faber and Becky Quick of CNBC, an interesting story arose regarding analyst upgrades and downgrades. It turns out that Goldman Sachs analyst Laura Conigliaro raised her rating on EMC Corporation’s stock to "outperform" from "in-line". Everything seems routine so far, however, at Goldman Sachs there is a new ‘for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction’ when it comes to upgrades and downgrades. This ‘policy’, which I have never even heard rumors of, is unknown to the main street individual investor. It apparently mandates that a certain percentage of downgrades must be maintained for a certain percentage of upgrades within each sector of coverage. So while EMC gets the accolades and the upgrade, another stock must now suffer the downgrade. In this case Brocade received the downgrade from “outperform” to “in-line”. There were no outstanding fundamental reasoning’s involved, no reports of sales lacking or a poor annual outlook, just that another company in that particular sector had to be downgraded to maintain an equal (or mandated) upgrade percentage ratio. (Faber went on to say he had ‘heard’ of such a thing (a required percentage balance), but had never seen it in writing before.) So let me get this straight. A few years back there were too many buy recommendations on stocks from analysts. Then there were the misleading and ‘influenced’ recommendations on stocks. And now we have the ‘current balancing act policy’ recommendations based on really nothing at all? Again, my confidence in the analyst’s data, markets and media is overflowing. I mean, how else can I feel except all warm and fuzzy inside? Why bring the media into this? Because of their complete lack of attention to this story. Also because the individual investor is being provided a ‘downgrade’ to a stock without sufficient supporting evidence or reasoning. Yahoo finance just lists BRCD as a ‘downgrade’, and there are absolutely no news stories (anywhere) to explain why. As a shareholder all you know is that something ‘may’ be wrong. Rest assured, there is nothing reported on Brocade at this point indicating a problem let alone an actual reason for a downgrade. The only problem comes from Goldman and other like firms that continue to mislead you in now an entirely new manner. So now that most(?) firms like Goldman have this balancing policy, how do we know what is based on corporate fundamentals and what is simply based on balance policy? You don’t know, and you won’t know unless the analyst specifically states it in his/her report, and you happen to have access to those reports. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have access to those reports. Sorry. But this balancing policy is in place to help you, the individual investor, avoid the pitfalls of too many buy signals from over zealous analysts. Geez, a few more policies like this and maybe we can all lose the rest of our retirement monies.