Every day, financial media fills airtime and column inches with analyst recommendations. Buy this. Upgrade that. Price target raised. The implicit promise is that these recommendations come from informed, objective experts whose only interest is helping you make money. The research says otherwise. And the problem is not isolated to a few bad actors. It is structural, baked into the business model of investment banking itself.

The Dartmouth Study on Analyst Conflicts of Interest

A study from Dartmouth College titled Conflict of Interest and the Credibility of Underwriter Analyst Recommendations by Kent L. Womack discredits the idea of analysts and their ability to give their audience credible “picks”:

Brokerage analysts frequently comment on and sometimes recommend companies that their firms have recently taken public. We show that stocks that underwriter analysts recommend perform more poorly than “buy” recommendations by unaffiliated brokers prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to the recommendation date. We conclude that the recommendations by underwriter analysts show significant evidence of bias. We show also that the market does not recognize the full extent of this bias. The results suggest a potential conflict of interest inherent in the different functions that investment bankers perform.

What the Research Actually Shows

The Womack study is precise on three points that should give any investor pause. First, underwriter analysts recommend stocks that perform more poorly than recommendations from unaffiliated brokers, not marginally worse, but measurably and consistently worse. Second, this underperformance exists before, during, and after the recommendation date, meaning the bias is not a temporary distortion but a persistent pattern. Third, and perhaps most damaging, the market does not fully recognize the extent of this bias. Investors continue to act on these recommendations as though they carry the same weight as independent research, when the data shows they do not.

The conflict is not a secret. Investment banks underwrite IPOs and secondary offerings for client companies, generating enormous fees in the process. Their analysts then cover those same companies and issue recommendations. The bank has a financial interest in the stock performing well, in investor confidence remaining high, and in the client relationship continuing. The analyst sits inside that structure. Objectivity, under those conditions, is not impossible, but it is under constant pressure from forces that have nothing to do with the investment merit of the stock.

Why This Matters for How You Trade

The implications extend beyond IPO recommendations. If structural bias exists in the most easily documented category of analyst conflict, the underwriter analyst relationship, it is reasonable to ask how much of the broader analyst ecosystem is similarly compromised by relationships, fee structures, and access that depend on maintaining positive coverage. The Womack study gives the clearest answer available because the conflict is the most traceable. Other forms of analyst bias are harder to document precisely because the incentives are less explicit.

Trend followers resolved this problem long before the behavioral finance literature caught up. By trading price rather than analyst opinion, a trend following system has no exposure to biased recommendations. It does not care what an analyst thinks a stock is worth. It reads what the market is actually doing with the price and responds accordingly. A breakout to a new high is a breakout to a new high regardless of whether any analyst has upgraded or downgraded the stock. The signal is in the price, not in the recommendation, and price cannot be conflicted. For the complete framework of how trend following uses price as its sole input, see the TurtleTrader rules and the broader trend following approach.

The Credibility Problem Is Systemic

Womack’s conclusion that the market does not recognize the full extent of analyst bias is perhaps the most important finding for the individual investor. It means that the price of a stock may already reflect optimistic analyst coverage that is driven by conflict rather than conviction. It means that acting on those recommendations puts you downstream of a bias that is already embedded in the consensus. By the time a retail investor reads the upgrade, the institutional clients of that same bank have already been briefed, the price has already moved, and the recommendation is performing exactly the function it was designed to perform: supporting the stock for the benefit of the underwriting relationship, not for the benefit of the investor reading it.

The research does not argue that all analysts are dishonest. It argues that the structure creates bias regardless of individual intent. That is a more serious finding, because it means the problem cannot be solved by finding the right analyst. It is solved by not relying on analyst recommendations as a basis for trading decisions at all. More on how the TurtleTrader approach was built on price data alone, with no role for fundamental analysis, earnings estimates, or analyst opinion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Dartmouth study on analyst bias find?

The study by Kent L. Womack found that stocks recommended by underwriter analysts, those working at the firm that took the company public, perform more poorly than buy recommendations from unaffiliated brokers before, during, and after the recommendation date. The study concludes that underwriter analyst recommendations show significant evidence of bias, and that the market does not fully recognize the extent of that bias.

Why are underwriter analyst recommendations biased?

Because the analyst’s firm has a financial relationship with the company being recommended. Investment banks earn fees from underwriting IPOs and secondary offerings. Their analysts then cover those same companies. The bank’s interest in maintaining the client relationship and supporting the stock creates pressure on the analyst that has nothing to do with the investment merit of the stock itself.

Does the market correct for analyst bias over time?

According to the Womack study, no. The market does not recognize the full extent of underwriter analyst bias. Investors continue to act on these recommendations as though they were objective, which means the bias is not priced in and continues to affect trading decisions and outcomes.

How does trend following avoid analyst bias?

By using price as its sole input. A trend following system does not read analyst reports, earnings estimates, or price targets. It reads what the market is actually doing with the price right now. Price cannot be conflicted. It reflects the aggregate behavior of every participant in the market, including institutions with far more information than any retail investor. Trading price removes the entire layer of analyst opinion from the decision.

Is analyst bias limited to underwriter recommendations?

The Womack study focuses on the underwriter relationship because it is the most documentable conflict. But the broader question, how many other analyst relationships involve incentives that compromise objectivity, is one the study implicitly raises. Access to management, investment banking fees, and institutional client relationships all create pressures that can distort coverage in ways that are harder to trace but no less real.

Trend Following Systems
Want to learn more and start trading trend following systems? Start here.