Following close on the heels of my article ‘AIM – The Exodus Begins’ (May 20th) in which I criticised the London Stock Exchange for chasing new entrants to AIM rather than taking care of those companies already there, it has come up with a new initiative which it promises can offer the latter ‘huge value’.

This will see small companies, whether on the main market or AIM, offered the chance to pay £10,000 for a year’s worth of independent research prepared by one of three firms, Argus Research from New York, Chicago’s Pipal Research and our very own International Investment Research Plc.

Naturally I am pleased to see the LSE at least acknowledge that the share prices of small companies often bear no relation to the performance of the business itself, and that this is a real concern not only for investors but also for the many small companies that want to be able to issue new shares at a fair price.

But will this new measure really offer ‘huge value’? After all independent research is not new.

Filling the gap

In the old days a company’s stockbroker was responsible for writing research notes, partly to inform the market and partly to drum up some business for itself. Finding that the illiquidity of small companies defeated this latter purpose, many stockbrokers have simply abrogated this responsibility to the disgust, I might add, of many of their clients.

Into this gap have stepped a number of independent research houses such as Edison and Hardman that will write research notes to order, for a fee of something in the region of the £10,000 that the LSE is charging for its new service.

Nobody, of course, really believes that this research is truly independent. The researcher will be briefed by the company, and the research note will be vetted before it is published. If an ‘independent’ research firm has ever thanked a client for the commission by publishing a sell recommendation, I haven’t seen it.

The new venture sounds slightly different. The research note will be written by one of the three appointed firms ‘on a pre-determined allocation basis’ which I assume means that the company itself does not get to choose which of these three it will be. And ‘the research will consist of comprehensive factual information and analysis’ and ‘will not be investment advice and will not make recommendations.’

This immediately raises one question. Will companies be prepared to pay £10,000 for a research note over which they apparently have no control, and which does not conclude with a recommendation for the shares? A second question concerns the contents of these notes.

Apart from ‘comprehensive factual information’ we are promised that ‘the research providers have agreed to share common methodologies and produce reports that follow a uniform presentation format, in order to facilitate cross-company and cross sector comparisons by investors.’

Some bright spots

I like the sound of a common methodology, although I wait to see how this will enable us to compare the merits of, for example, an oil explorer and a software provider. But how much new information will these notes bring to investors?

The basis of the LSE’s initiative is that there is a lack of information about small companies; that more information will mean that more opinions are formed; that more opinions will lead to more trading in the shares; and that the result will be a more accurate pricing of small company shares.

However, there has been a massive increase in the amount of information that is available to investors in the last few years – but it seems to have done very little for the pricing of small company shares.

Whereas two or three years ago it could be quite hard to get hold of information about small companies, today just about each one has a very comprehensive web-site, featuring a description of its activities, past copies of annual and interim reports, biographies of the directors, and sometimes broker research notes. Indeed, my very own articles from Red Hot Penny Shares have been known to appear on company websites.

So companies have made a big effort to inform the market and if it has had no effect it can only be for one of three reasons. Either very few people are actually reading it – as I am sure is the case. Or the huge increase in the number of small companies trading on the LSE has simply overwhelmed the market’s capacity to absorb all that it should know about them – which I also think is the case.

Or people have been reading this information, but simply don’t believe that it tells the full story.

It is of course inevitable that companies do not publish negative information about themselves, either via a corporate website or via a note written by an ‘independent research house.’

What intelligent investors really want to see is an informed assessment about a company’s product written perhaps by an industry specialist, and a suitably cautious and sober assessment of its position vis-a-vis competitors.

If these newly appointed research houses can provide these perspectives they could make a useful contribution. But the old problem remains – will small companies be prepared to pay £10,000 for a note that draws attention to their weaknesses? And if not, is it worth having these ‘independent’ notes written in the first place?
Regards,

Tom Bulford
for The Penny Sleuth

Source: The London Stock Exchange Listens to the Sleuth