January 15, 2005
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Emergent Prudishness
UPDATE: I would remind many of the commenters below advocating the 'undignified' defense of BofA that sell-side research often includes off-topic or silly material. The purpose, after all is 1) to gain eyeballs and generate commissions and 2) to be right (in service of 1, of course). There is an awful lot of research, and analysts often try to include some sort of 'extra-curricular fun' to make investors look forward to their reports. If the street has set up a standard for this, I'm not aware of it. I'm sure many of you missed the June global equity report from a bulge-bracket firm on 'happiness'.
It is, of course, BofA's right to decide this is undignified, but if this guy's any good at bond selection they are making a mistake.
If this is all there is to the case, Bank of America is being silly:
Hot-shot Bank of America gaming analyst Andrew Susser made a losing bet when he put an unconventional cover on his latest research report.The former director of high yield research, whose report ruffled the feathers of an increasingly straight-laced Wall Street, Susser was sacked this week for altering a photo to put his head on a woman's body in a report titled "Checking In," people familiar with the situation said.
The bank also fired Joel Krasner, a principal and senior publisher at the bank, the people said.
On the cover of the December report, Susser is being carried across the treshhold of a hotel room by another man.
The linked article has the only image I could find. It is appended below, enlarged a bit.
So let's see, what are the potential explanations for taking offense?
- It ridicules gay marriage/relationships/tourism
- it ridicules straight marriage/relationships/tourism
- it ridicules attractively dressed paraplegics
- The guy carrying Susser is an underling and this is grounds for a harassment case
- cross-dressing (or cross-photoshopping, in this case) is offensive
- covered hotels have not shared the number of gay/straight/photoshopped newlyweds checking in to their hotels with the public, so this constitutes an inapppropriate disclosure under regulation FD.
- susser clearly disclosed the content of the report to his partner prior to publication and therefore violated firm policy
- the photo is a clear fake and the executives at B of A didn't want to get in trouble like CBS.
As I say, silly. I suspect there is more to it, or Susser had been warned about his reports before.
I WOULD HAVE FIRED HIM BECAUSE HE SHOWED POOR JUDGEMENT. ANY OTHER REASON IS JUST ICING ON THE CAKE.
Posted by: thedaddy on January 15, 2005 06:13 PMWhen I worked in banking you weren't supposed to have an imagination, let alone a sense of humor. This guy clearly crossed the line!
Posted by: Brian on January 15, 2005 06:18 PMSo let's see, what are the potential explanations for taking offense?
9. Research reports are meant to be work-related and about research.
10. Anyone who is stupid enough to forget Number 9 and put this sort of nonsense on the cover of a report probably has other judgment issues.
11. There’s a certain level of decorum expected from an employee at the managerial or director level and this behavior falls short.
There’s probably more to it than the article would indicate. Keep in mind that when an employer fires an employee, the latter usually has more freedom to give their side of the story in the public arena.
I agree with your last point, Thorley, but your others show you don't read much institutional sell-side research and don't explain why the head of publishing was axed.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on January 15, 2005 07:03 PMThere has to be more to this story than what we have been told. Talent is hard to find. This incident alone does not seem to be a sufficient reason to fire a successful manager. It is also difficult to believe that someone presumably so brilliant would have jeopardized their lucrative position just to play the fool.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 16, 2005 08:41 AMThe more may be that BOA are just looking to inject some fear into the high yeild department with a clear message that no ones safe.
No one really believes in the sensitivity stuff - its mainly just a management tool.
Posted by: Giles on January 16, 2005 10:41 AMSusser's stunt was immature and unprofessional. A major corporation engaged in a serious business has a right to expect better than that of its employees. Good riddance.
Posted by: George on January 16, 2005 11:21 AMI read a lot of research, and find that plenty of firms inject humor in their reports any way they can. Often times, the best reports are the ones that have the balls to be funny--because this sometimes correlates with having the balls to write opinions that deviate from the official BS.
I bet this guy was sacked for some other reason.
Posted by: Jim on January 16, 2005 09:28 PMI second Jim, when I'm reading material professionally, I like reports that add in a bit of humour.
I certainly haven't noticed that lack of humour leads to more accuracy. Though there's possibly a research topic for a master's student in there.
Posted by: Tracy on January 17, 2005 04:01 AMOh, right, just because it's about money, we have to go all long-faced like a bunch of creditors and unwed mothers at the funeral of a bankrupt rake.
I happen to think the picture's hilarious.
Posted by: speedwell on January 18, 2005 03:40 PMComments are Closed.