# BNN Analysts



## LOST (Aug 30, 2010)

I watch BNN daily, expecially their market call segments. I know they are there just to sell their funds etc., but my question is: Has anybody bought their recommendation without doing research first and profitted by it? Also who is their favorite analyst? I like Peter Brieger. I purchased Telus bonds after 9/11 and made out quite well. I also bought one of his (back the truck up stocks) compliance energy and lost near 70%. Burroughs is another I like to listen to.

Lost


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

I like watching BNN to get Canadian stock ideas but I'll do my own research after. Each of the guests have their own strategy and appetite for risk which may not necessarily fit what I'm looking for. I have no favourites but I do like when they show how well their last top picks have performed.


----------



## mario 1 (Nov 6, 2009)

They look like geniuses when the markets do well, and idiots when they don't.
They have no special insight for the most part, just opinions.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

I totally ignore them unless they reinforce my already strongly held opinions. Total waste of time in other words.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

On a related note, do any of you use the analysis provided by your online brokerage (if they have any)?
Most brokerages have a team of analysts of their own and routinely post analysis for each stock.
Mine also posts third-party analysis from Thompson-Reuters, ValuEngine, etc.

Do you guys find it useful?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

heh. I watch BNN when my brother is on as one of the analysts; that's it. Luckily I don't have to watch TV to get his picks.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

I read everything I can get my hands on re the Banks as I am overweight these. Also was in that business and readily understand the reports. Also know most of the analysts.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Analysts are in salaried jobs because they are not managing their own portfolios. They are working for the man. They are paid to analyze companies. They make nothing from investing in companies.

I consider them to be an input. But it is not a major input.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Analysts are in salaried jobs because they are not managing their own portfolios. They are working for the man. They are paid to analyze companies. They make nothing from investing in companies.


Depends on the analyst. Some analysts are equity-holders in their businesses (i.e., not salaried employees) and manage large personal portfolios (i.e., their own money) as well.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

Those "analysts", on BNN are mostly talking heads who are out to increase their own businesses.....funds, close end funds , wealth management etc.
Every one of them seems to know everything.

However, the one guy I prefer on there is Norman Levine.

I have actually met with him several times, and he is a gentleman and down to earth.

It doesn't hurt that I have always had the same basic philosophy to investing that he has. He is a value investor and likes dividend and income stocks.

I have purchased several things that he recommended.....and as a rule have done well with them. I have also held on to stocks I already owned when he was sellling.....and they continued to go up....
What that says is that no one is right every time,,,and that is exactly what he told me.

In any case I always try to watch when he is on, ( as well as Hank Cunningham, the bond expert), and listen to what he says.

Recently Mr Levine recommended Vodaphone, which was on my personal watch list......I did some more research , and I bought it several months ago, and am up over 30% since.
Nice call....and of course some good luck.

Of course it can go down just as easily!!
Thats what makes this game so tough.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I prefer the analysts that talk about company fundamentals. Their business sector, debt loads, product outlook, etc. 

I don't spend much time watching the technical chart guys. I figure they are always looking at charts of past performance, and that doesn't mean a whole lot these days. Too bad they don't have charts for the future.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

my understanding has always been that analysts at investment houses function mostly as super-salesmen. The big institutional clients will always speak directly to the analyst for the sector they're interested in. Orders are subsequently placed. It's possible to calculate the analyst's book and his or her value to the employer down to the penny.

it's my further understanding that, while analysts may be paid a base salary, they are largely compensated according to the business they generate, through mechanisms such as bonuses or an actual stake in the business.

we don't really see senior analysts on BNN. We mostly see junior analysts hoping to push their reputations up a notch, and we see investment counsel and other advisors who draw upon analysts' research.

i for one think the bnn offerings are excellent. I mean the quality of journalism. The producers & managers work hard to offer a mixed day full of breaking news and background opinion. There's a low-key canadian tone to the whole shebang that you don't find on US business networks.

i think attempting to rate individual commentators on the success or failure of their individual stock picks means grazing too superficially on the surface of the bnn network. I'd never buy or sell on the basis of a bnn comment. What interests me is whether a comment is well-thought-out, cogent, logical, insightful, realistic. Whether it's right or wrong is less important to me than whether it delivers a valuable interpretation of intriguing data. It's only a straw in the wind.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> my understanding has always been that analysts at investment houses function mostly as super-salesmen. The big institutional clients will always speak directly to the analyst for the sector they're interested in. Orders are subsequently placed. It's possible to calculate the analyst's book and his or her value to the employer down to the penny.
> 
> it's my further understanding that, while analysts may be paid a base salary, they are largely compensated according to the business they generate, through mechanisms such as bonuses or an actual stake in the business.


This. However, fairly intensive research is typically required *before* the sales channel is switched on. So, the analyst's function is not purely sales.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> This. However, fairly intensive research is typically required *before* the sales channel is switched on. So, the analyst's function is not purely sales.


You have to question their motives. They are not paid to appear on TV. Yet there is effort to be a talking head. So why do they perform this service?


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

They "perform this service" to build up their own businesses , as several people have said here.

You can garner some good info on BNN, but they are just as succesible to error as anyone else.

I bought Manulife, in part , because all the experts, on BNN and others, including Norman Levine, were touting it as a great run company.

Of course I'm way down on it now.......but the fault , if there is nay, is only my own,

Then again who could have known that the "great management" at Manulife was just basically betting on the stock market, with no hedging ( ie, insurance), in place, which is strange considering they are an INSURANCE company!!

And that CEO, D'Alessandro got the CEO of the year award in Canada a couple years ago just as the sh*t was hitting the fan! Of course he retired, probably collected millions, and the shareholders got killed.

what a joke.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

warp said:


> Then again who could have known that the "great management" at Manulife was just basically betting on the stock market, with no hedging ( ie, insurance), in place, which is strange considering they are an INSURANCE company!!


Milevsky called it in January 2007. 

_This leads me to my main point, which is that I'm now getting exceedingly worried that some insurance companies are not charging enough in pure M&E fees, or that they are not using those fees to properly hedge and protect themselves.

Yes, this sounds like an odd thing to say given the position of my earlier study. But, when I analyze the extra rider fees charged in the name of these living benefit guarantees, I can't help but wonder why Wall Street's investment bankers charge so much more for the same type of derivative security -- essentially long-term put options -- when they are purchased on a stand-alone basis.

In fact, when I obtained some pricey quotes for buying stand-alone put options to protect a hypothetical retiree's lifetime income, I first thought it was the derivatives dealers and option market makers that were overcharging! But, after some careful analysis, the same mathematical models that told us a decade ago that basic death benefit guarantees were overpriced are now telling us that many living benefits are underpriced.

As an example, a colleague of mine, Dr. Thomas Salisbury, and I recently published a study in the actuarial journal Insurance: Mathematics and Economics in 2006 demonstrating that the GMWB rider, which charges an extra 30 to 50 basis points, might actually cost between 75 and 160 basis points to hedge in the capital markets. _


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

One observation that I have made, over and over and over again, is that when the guests give their 'top picks', the disclosure notice often shows that they themselves, or the funds that they manage, are not invested in the companies that they are recommending. 

Why might this be? Why are they not invested in what they are recommending as 'top picks' to the viewers?

Makes no sense to me


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

I recently got into Options trading and I watch Mike Khouw on CNBC. On Fridays, they have an options trading segment that can get pretty creative.

I took their advice last Friday, and made about $4000 today with very low relative risk taken, about 600% gain.

That being said, I usually don't do anything they say but the creativeness that offer trade advice is very logical, lots of math and less opinion than technical/fundamental recommendations.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Belguy said:


> One observation that I have made, over and over and over again, is that when the guests give their 'top picks', the disclosure notice often shows that they themselves, or the funds that they manage, are not invested in the companies that they are recommending.
> 
> Why might this be? Why are they not invested in what they are recommending as 'top picks' to the viewers?
> 
> Makes no sense to me


Some dealers will require their analysts to hold all recommended picks in their portfolios - in fact, to have their portfolios mirror the company recommendations, with no "trading against advice."


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Some dealers will require their analysts to hold all recommended picks in their portfolios - in fact, to have their portfolios mirror the company recommendations, with no "trading against advice."


 Ys whether they hold it or don't hold it is somewhat a policy question rather than an indication of the quality of the recommendation. If they hold it maybe they are trying to make their position come true. If they don't hold it, maybe they have more credibility. Who knows?


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

*My 2 cents*

The average mutual fund manager/ analyst is, by definition, average. The average mutual fund manager slightly underperforms the index. Unless BNN has a special ability to choose only above (or below) average fund managers, the fund managers on BNN are average. Therefore, I would expect recommendations, on average, to approximate the respective index. 

One of the things I like to do is research the mutual funds of the managers on BNN. Lost mentioned David Burrows (Barometer Capital). To me Burrows is a dangerous manager because he's slick i.e. he sounds like he knows more than he does. I've heard him say, with complete conviction, remarkably foolish things. If you look at Barometer Capital's funds, you'll see that their performance is average. See http://globefunddb.theglobeandmail....inv_value=All&pi_currency=All&pi_mgr_company= The performance might be worse than you think because one of the funds uses shorts and derivatives (i.e. techniques the average mutual fund can't use), so the risk is higher but the overall performance still average.

I like David Driscoll (Toron Capital) because he discusses international stocks. I like Ross Healy because he's genuinely independent-minded. He said Nortel was worth $10 when it traded for over $100. I like Richard Croft because he discusses options. Even though I rarely trade small caps, I also like Benj Gallander because he is a true contrarian.

After watching the anaysts on BNN, I note a certain sameness about many of them. They dress the same, speak the same, go to the same meetings, talk to the same companies, think the same thoughts, and recommend the same companies i.e. they run in the same herd. Warren Buffet claimed that part of the reason for his success was that he "separated" himself from the Wall Street herd. That is, his location in Omaha helped, instead of hindered, his stock picking.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

The universe of Canadian stocks is relatively small and so that might be one reason why many of them talk about the same stocks.

Diversify globally.


----------

