Despite winning the distinction of Worst IPO in the History of IPOs (real title: Worst IPO of the Year), with the BX stock dropping 23% from its initial $31 offer, a cornucopia of Wall Street firms gave the P.E. goliath “buy,” “outperform” or “overweight” ratings today. Citigroup’s Prashant Bhatia wrote that “Blackstone is positioned to generate double-digit earnings growth driven by its superior over-the-cycle investment performance,” and analysts from Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, and Bank of America all laid the toothy-smile emoticon on thick, with Lehman Brothers even going so far as to use the lips ‘n mole prostitute face. Some—Reuters’ Jonathan Keehner for one—would like to know how, in spite of the dwindling stock, some stuff going on with the credit markets and the 15 vs. 35 issue, no one thinks Stephen’s Crab Shack by the Sea is a “sell.”
If we were cynical, we’d say it had to do with every “sell” rater being an underwriter on the IPO, and that the “Chinese Wall” provides about as much protection as the rhythm method (more than the “But it’s my birthday” method, less than “If we do it like this, we don’t need condoms, and God will still love us” method). If we were really cynical we’d say: because Blackstone capitalized on the inside information that analysts have no ethics, all of the analysts rating BX are under 5’6”, and maybe B’stone really is buy-worthy. But you’d know better than us. Do tell.
Wall St. rates Blackstone’s stock a (you guessed it) “buy” [Reuters Blog]
Despite analysts' rave Fortress, Blackstone plunge [Reuters]






Posted by my vote , Aug 01, 2007 4:16PM
all of the analysts rating BX are under 5’6”
Posted by inIT4the$ , Aug 01, 2007 4:21PM
Is "analysts having no ethics" truly "inside" information?
Posted by , Aug 01, 2007 4:25PM
inIT4the$-- are you joking?
Posted by inIT4the$ , Aug 01, 2007 4:31PM
4:25. If this were 1999, no. Today, maybe a little. I work with some very nice analysts, completely ethical folks.
Posted by , Aug 01, 2007 4:33PM
so then why are you skeptical that it's inside information? you think it's all out there that analysts are unethical?
Posted by jt , Aug 01, 2007 4:34PM
apparently none of these banks/analysts are even remotely concerned with giving even the slightest perception that there might possibly be a conflict of interest between research and banking here.
wall street showcases its unweilding integrity once again, nice
Posted by inIT4the$ , Aug 01, 2007 4:40PM
okay 4:33 relax a bit, my day is almost over and like your lover you don't want to go to bed angry at one another.
Yes that was my implication, THEY'RE ALL CROOKS! However, seeing it has distressed some, I apologize and I realize some aren't.
Posted by AJ , Aug 01, 2007 4:41PM
I think they're mostly ethical. The word you were looking for is incompetent
Posted by inIT4the$ , Aug 01, 2007 4:42PM
AJ, I stand corrected my good man/ lady.
Posted by anon , Aug 03, 2007 9:14AM
Maybe you guys should, like, READ the research reports before assuming you know everything based on the rating alone? All the analysts said there are major risks with the stock.