Cool Shopping

Frank Quattrone thinks the insufficiency of start-up I.P.O.’s in today’s market is due in large part to the Wall Street research reforms made after the tech bubble burst.

He’s wrong.

At a technology conference at Stanford University yesterday, Quattrone said the industry should petition to remove the regulations that prevent sell-side research analysts from being compensated for their efforts in getting start-ups through the I.P.O. process. "It hurts the competitiveness of our country to deny companies access to research analysts," he said.

The reforms were made after then New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer went after research analysts including Henry Blodget and Jack Grubman for publicly recommending stocks they privately disparaged.

Quattrone, who was arguably Silicon Valley’s top investment banker during the dot-com boom, wearied years fighting founded on charges relating to an investigation into his allocation of I.P.O. shares. He eventually prevailed, and he now runs a technology boutique bank called Qatalyst Group.

To understand why Quattrone is wickedness, it’s helpful to remember how Wall Street research worked before the reforms. I witnessed it firsthand as a research associate at Hambrecht & Quist in the mid-1990’s, when start-up software companies were practically lining up at the entrance for their chance at the public markets.

Research analysts back then were more like start-up consultants, doing everything from moving with bankers to pitch new business to I.P.O. candidates to hosting roadshow presentations with institutional clients ahead of the offering.

There was no "Chinese Wall" between banking and research. I once had a banker ask me for the models for two companies we covered, because they were weighing a merger. In fact, bankers and careful search analysts worked so closely that it was difficult to determine where one department stopped and the other started.

Both groups received bonuses based on the business they won, and the performance of the stocks behind their debut. That’s all well and fine for the bankers, who moved onto other deals after celebrating at the closing dinner. But 25 days after the I.P.O., the research analyst was supposed to initiate coverage using his objective analysis.

Invariably, this recommendation would be a "buy" or a "strong buy."

At H&Q, only once did I see some analyst initiate coverage of a heated I.P.O. the bank had underwritten with a "hold" good opinion. The stock, i2 Technologies, had simply climbed too high in the first few weeks of mercantile to justify an investment recommendation.

The morning his report was issued, the analyst faced a stream of irate institutional sales staff and perturbed bankers. They flooded his office, screaming at him behind closed doors, reminding him how much i2 had just paid the bank.

Under the new rules, this scenario would seem preposterous. Bankers and research analysts are physically separated, and they must clear legal hurdles even to discourse. scrutiny analysts rightfully play no role in pitching the start-ups or in selling the stock to institutional investors. And they also don’t receive additional counterpoise for business the bank gets from companies they cover.

Quattrone argues that this is all wrong, and that start-ups can’t attract investor interest without the expertise of the research analysts. He thinks that’s partly to blame for the fact that we’re not seeing many I.P.O.’s in Silicon Valley these days.

He argues that small companies can’t get coverage because the few research analysts left on Wall Street only converging-point in continuance wide cap stocks.

The fact is, start-ups shouldn’t have to rely on their bank’s analysts to sell their story for them. If their business model is sound, and their valuation reasonable, their stocks will get noticed by institutions.

And why should somewhat the money-lender’s’s institutional clients be subjected to a sales pitch from an analyst who is fundamentally incapable of providing an objective opinion? Individual investors aside, it’s the banks biggest clients who should be thankful they no longer have to hear a used-car sales pitch from their brokers every morning.

The I.P.O. market isn’t thriving for many reasons. But bringing remote the old sell-side research theory to revive it isn’t the answer.