What are the typical hours for an equity analyst working for a brokerage firm? (an analyst that covers 10-20 stocks and issues reports)
60 hours a week non-earnings; 70-100 during earnings, which will include hours both days on the weekends. That’s the way I play it, anyway.
That’s a lot of hours for a pretty lousy track record. There aren’t a lot of jobs more useless than an equity analyst, let’s be honest.
Why are equity analysts useless? I presume you are suggesting that analysts do not have a good track record of making calls. That is true, but isn’t really the primary role of an analyst - especially on the sell-side. Sell-side analysts main role is to drive revenues from commissions. That means finding a successful middle ground between keeping companies and clients happy. Its as much a marketing/sales job as it is an analytical one. Fund managers will certainly take on board sell-side views, but in the main they want good quality data so they can form their own recommendation on the stock. As for hours, 55-60 non-earnings sounds about right. You don’t want to do overkill here. The sales desk tends to work market opening hours plus travel, dinners etc. Research probably spends a bit more time at their desk but if you work efficiently there’s no reason you can’t have a good work life balance.
I’m not talking about useless in producing revenue. I’m talking about useless in producing value to the clients, i.e. their abysmal track record.
Equity research analysts produce plenty of value for clients. You seem to think that the primary purpose of the analyst is to tell you when to buy and sell stocks. I am a buy-side analyst, and as a user of their research, I couldn’t care less about that. I get paid to decide when to buy and sell stocks, so you can bet that I do that on my own and I don’t need some sell-side guy to tell me what to own. What I do need them for is their information. I cover multiple industries. I don’t have time to build a model on each of the 500+ companies that are in my universe. I need guys on the sell-side who only have 10 management teams to track down to help me by gathering information for me. I need them to provide me with their models so I can re-work them in an hour or two rather than build them from scratch. I need them to make their estimates and buy/sell calls so I can find opportunities where I have an out-of-consensus view or can trade against the sheep that follow these analysts blindly. To call sell-side analysts “useless” is absolutely ridiculous.
And I assume after that long, winded paragraph, you can consistently beat the S&P 500 or the Vanguard Total Market Index with that wonderful sell-side data. Oh that’s right, all of you claim you can, although the studies show that only a small fraction actually do in spite of their inflated salaries and high management fees…
kkent, what’s your occupation? “technical analyst”?
LOL, here comes the ad hominem, usually the best form of debate. Yes, I’m a technical analyst (TIC).
kkent, the ad hominem attacks started with your post at 7:29PM yesterday. Chill out.
Ah yes, the most offensive thing to say on analystforum is that an equity analyst adds little to no value. Heresy. Heresy = ad hominem, according to numi.
No, that’s not actually what “ad hominem” means. Anyhow, it’s evident there are certain things that you don’t understand about the industry – a lack of knowledge has nothing to do with heresy, and there is a big difference between a heretical statement and a nonsensical one – so I don’t know how productive it is to get into an argument with you about this, anyway…
Ok, so, what value then does an equity analyst add when they can’t beat an old lady using Vanguard? I, too, can produce revenue by selling term life insurance to teenagers, but I’m not exactly adding value for the clients. It’s hilarious how offensive people like numi find this. You’d think I had just insulted the size of his d*ck.
it’s not the message that’s offensive, it’s the way you speak. if you had stated the reasons why you don’t believe in fundamental analysis, that’s good. it’s debate. when a joe doe comes and calls the work of 99% of this forum’s members “useless”… well, that can only be attributed to a technical “analyst” (or a person who got rejected from equity research jobs, your pick)
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I assume after that long, winded paragraph, > you can consistently beat the S&P 500 or the > Vanguard Total Market Index with that wonderful > sell-side data. Oh that’s right, all of you claim > you can, although the studies show that only a > small fraction actually do in spite of their > inflated salaries and high management fees… Well, my track record isn’t long enough to be a reliable sample size but I don’t have any trouble beating the S&P 500 in both up and down markets. My firm has a very long track record of outperformance. I don’t have to justify it to you, and you aren’t going to listen anyway, so I won’t bother.
That doesn’t even make sense. How would I be arguing for technical analysis when, if anything, I’m arguing for EMH (which I’m not, but you could at least logically conclude that) by pointing to indexing? That’s essentially the exact opposite of technical analysis. Who’s the Joe Doe here?
tobias Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And I assume after that long, winded paragraph, > > you can consistently beat the S&P 500 or the > > Vanguard Total Market Index with that wonderful > > sell-side data. Oh that’s right, all of you > claim > > you can, although the studies show that only a > > small fraction actually do in spite of their > > inflated salaries and high management fees… > > Well, my track record isn’t long enough to be a > reliable sample size but I don’t have any trouble > beating the S&P 500 in both up and down markets. > My firm has a very long track record of > outperformance. I don’t have to justify it to you, > and you aren’t going to listen anyway, so I won’t > bother. Yes, why bother? Everyone claims they can beat the market. I mean, since you have no problem beating the market (and presumably, your boss has no trouble either), I guess you guys are getting paid $5-15MM per year like the world’s top analysts are.
technical “analysts” believe that fundamental analysis is superfluous and useless since they can beat the market with less information, less time, and less effort. weak-form EMH. if you’re asking why i didn’t call you a quant analyst (who believe in the strong-form EMH) instead, it’s because they actually use their brains to work. i don’t think you do, but again, your number of posts has been limited so i can’t say for sure. maybe you should honor us with your comments a little more (TIC). ps- i would be a jane doe anyway
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, why bother? Everyone claims they can beat the > market. I mean, since you have no problem beating > the market (and presumably, your boss has no > trouble either), I guess you guys are getting paid > $5-15MM per year like the world’s top analysts > are. Yep. You’re in the ballpark.
… at a minmium 7:30 am to 6:30 pm aka 55 hours per week and more during earnings and more depending on the firm … travel, marketing, road shows can really expand the time required