Sabtu, 19 Maret 2016

Betaville

Betaville

Equity "research" on, er, little old Betaville

Posted: 18 Mar 2016 12:18 PM PDT

I see JP Morgan has decided to dedicate a piece of equity "research" to little old Betaville and the stories I have published following my tale from earlier in the week on Mead Johnson.

Whilst I'm flattered that I have caught the attention of one of the world's most powerful investment banks, I have to say the analysts' "research" about me and my stories is somewhat piss poor.

Let's start with the "data" these JP Morgan scribblers have used. Ken Goldman and Celine Pannuti have taken 23 randomly selected M&A related stories they found on my blog. However, the analysts conclude I was only right 39 percent of the time:

"The author of this week's story, Ben Harrington, has had some success with prior market prognostications. Given the stock's reaction and the number of questions we fielded from investors as to Mr. Harrington's credibility, we have analyzed his previous posts. We recognize that his site is not necessarily as well known or established as Reuters or The Wall Street Journal, but by our count, Mr. Harrington has been correct in 39% of what we believe were 23 distinct, written forecasts since he launched the platform in February 2014."

What a load of nonsense - I believe and will vehemently argue (below) my deal scoop hit rate is significantly higher than a measly 39pc!

For a start, Goldman and Pannuti failed to include any of past articles/scoops from my time in the last decade at The Daily Telegraph/The Sunday Telegraph and working as a freelancer for Dow Jones, The Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday. Below are series of my scoops that have all been either quickly followed by formal RNS confirmations and/or been proven correct by a confirmation a few weeks later.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2791283/Media-giants-United-Business-Media-and-Informa-open-talks-on-3bn-merger.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/marketreport/3167942/Companies-tipped-to-dig-deep-to-buy-up-Soco.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9947125/Nelson-Peltz-plots-112bn-Cadbury-merger.html

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2013-05-13/borealis-kuwait-severn-trent-bid

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2396159/Engineering-giant-Amec-eyes-800m-takeover-swoop-big-rival-Kentz.html

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1599801.ece

Goldman and Panutti also decided against including several Betaville M&A-related articles that were subsequently proven correct, such as the article I posted the day before Anheuser-Busch Inbev launched its £75 billion takeover bid for SAB Miller, the piece revealing a mega consortium of infrastructure funds came together to mount a £2 billion bid for London City Airport or the scoop about Kier Group buying Mouchel (this was subsequently confirmed on the RNS).

And as any good M&A reporter knows, sometimes when you break a story about a deal you blow it up - as was the case with my scoop about the Agnelli family trying to buy a 20pc stake in Swiss Re (eventually the Agnellis bought Partners Re as an alternative).

Moreover, in some of the examples where Goldman and Pannuti claim I have been proved correct I have to admit the conclusion is still pending. Take, for example, my piece from late last year about Reckitt Benckiser hiring bankers Robey Warshaw to work on a major acquisition. Goldman and Pannuti claim I was proven correct because a month later Reckitt Benkiser bought a Brazilian contraception company called Hypermarcas for about $170 million. Somehow, though, I doubt Reckitt Benckiser (which ironically might end up being involved in this situation) would have hired Robey Warshaw to work on such a small transaction.

Worryingly, when I called up one of the authors of this "research" to complain the analyst didn't know who I was or even realise their name was attached to this "research". I asked why these analysts didn't call me to at least give me the right to respond or contribute to their "research" (this is what any good journalist is required to do) but the response I got was lightweight - something along the lines of not having my number.

How much are these analysts paid?
Diposting oleh di

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)