Skip to main content

LinkedIn Corp. displays its logo outside headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.

Paul Sakuma/AP

LinkedIn Corp. bounced about 12 per cent on Tuesday after a number of analysts released upbeat assessments on the stock, which debuted in May following a successful initial public offering. The only problem? Three of the analysts weighing in on the stock hail from Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley - the company's top underwriters.

Investors don't seem to see much of a conflict here, or maybe they don't want to see one. However, it is very unusual to see research panning a company that has been underwritten by an analyst's employer. According to Bloomberg News, JPMorgan expects LinkedIn will rise to $85 (U.S.) over the next 18 months, while Bank of America has a price target of $92 and Morgan Stanley has a target of $88.

With LinkedIn's jump to $86 on Tuesday, though, those targets have more or less been met. Are upgrades in the works? Perhaps investors are more interested in the thoughts of another analyst, Brian Pitz at UBS, who initiated coverage on the stock with a "buy" recommendation and a target price of $90.

Story continues below advertisement

"LinkedIn could transform the hiring industry through viral growth of its already massive, socially connected platform," Mr. Pitz said in his note, according to Bloomberg. "The size and attractive demographics of the users are a primary, fundamental competitive advantage for the company and it represents a significant barrier to entry for the competition."

LinkedIn has had a volatile ride since it began trading in May. The stock opened at $45, surged to a high of $122 and then subsided to a recent intraday low of $60.14.

Report an error
About the Author
Investing Reporter

David Berman has been writing about business and investing since 1995. He has written for a number of magazines, including Canadian Business and MoneySense. He worked at the Financial Post as an investing writer and daily columnist before moving to the Globe and Mail in 2008. More

Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.