Björn Vrooman Dec 11, 2018:

Hi Charles "That's what I understood Phil to mean when he said"

That's what I thought at first. However, after I added a note in the d-box about "keeping a parallel sentence structure" (I was referring to the CNBC article) and explained what I think happened here, Phil disagreed (third post of this thread) on the grounds that it was harder to read and less logical. In light of his reply (and because of the fact he chose an example which turned the prepositions around), I concluded that he viewed the entire phrase as incorrect. As I wrote below, maybe we just misunderstood each other.

My original intent was to point out that you don't need to turn it around, as this may cause a slip-up somewhere down the line. I read a lot of articles on the stock market and most contain an awful lot of numbers. In many cases, messing with the word order is just a step away from mixing up numbers.

Best

Charles Davis Dec 11, 2018:

@Björn I don't think the order is important. I wouldn't agree that either order is wrong, if anyone were claiming that. I agree that if "to... from..." is used in one place it would be better to use it in the other as well (as in the CNBC article). But none of this really matters, in my view.

What really is important here, and what jyuan needed to know, is that the ST has it the wrong way round, because "to buy from neutral" is an upgrade, not a downgrade, and is in fact the opposite of what Bank of America Merrill Lynch has done in this case. That's what I understood Phil to mean when he said "this is the correct version", not that it had to be expressed one way round (from-to) rather than the other (to-from). Phil's comment referred to the article he cited, in which the headline says "to Neutral" (from Buy, by implication) and the first sentence says "from Buy to [Neutral]". Either of these is correct in this context, and "to buy from neutral" (or "from neutral to buy") is wrong; that's the point.

Björn Vrooman Dec 11, 2018:

First, in the CNBC article quoted, it would certainly not be a great idea to use "...from...to..." (downgrade) and "...to...from..." (slash) in the same sentence.

Second, while there are EN-EN questions about "what sounds better/more natural," this can't be one of them. The asker doesn't have to edit the piece; he may need to translate it, so he needs to understand what happened here. Phil's "This is the correct version..:" is not that helpful, in my opinion, because putting it the other way around is not wrong and that is what I think prompted this, say, last-minute error before publication. In other words, I don't think you want jyuan to start writing emails to all of these editors pointing out that it should be "from...to" regardless of whether the rest is OK (i.e., to neutral from buy instead of the phrase quoted at the top).

Best wishes

Björn Vrooman Dec 11, 2018:

Hello Charles I did qualify my statements by writing "if you will" and "some" journalists, so I think they are pretty much in line with your findings ("roughly equally common").

Maybe this kind of syntax is more common in the States, though here's an article about India:
"HSBC has downgraded Balkrishna Industries to Hold from Buy and slashed target price to Rs 1,370 from Rs 1,410 per share."
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/markets/hsbc-down...

Moreover, I don't even disagree that the phrase in question ("to buy from neutral") is wrong or that "from buy to neutral" could be easier to read--though you have to admit that this is a non-issue for anyone used to seeing "...to XXX(,) from YYY..." all over the place.

Here's the "but":
[...]

Charles Davis Dec 11, 2018:

The www.fool.com site you've quoted says:
"Ken Hoexter downgraded shares of FedEx to neutral from buy".

The www.streetinsider.com article Phil quoted says:
"BofA/Merrill Lynch analyst Ken Hoexter downgraded FedEx (NYSE: FDX) from Buy to..."
At which point it's cut off, and you have to pay to see the rest of the article. But I would be willing to wager a small sum that the next word is "Neutral".

Charles Davis Dec 11, 2018:

@Björn I don't know whether "from... to..." or "to... from..." in this context is considered better in financial circles. A comparison of online examples shows that they are roughly equally common, so it doesn't seem clear to me that "to... from..." is standard, though I admit I haven't assessed the quality or authority of the sites that use each. Personally, like Phil, I find "from... to..." more natural, but I doubt there's really anything in it.

Björn Vrooman Dec 11, 2018:

Now, jyuan asked about an article published by Yahoo. Here's one from another major American news outlet and you'll find the same error in this one (it can be found on CNBC, so it isn't the same article as the one quoted by the asker):
"He downgraded the stock to buy from neutral and slashed his price target by 27 percent to $220 from $304."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/bank-of-america-fedex-is-in-...

If I used your method to revise the sentence, it would get even more confusing because the price targets are the other way around too.

In short: It's just the way it is. As I said previously, it's more likely the author made a last-minute change or the like, but I doubt he intended to write "from buy to neutral," as you seem to suggest.

Here it is the "right" way around:
"This morning, however, Bank of America analyst Ken Hoexter downgraded shares of FedEx to neutral from buy."
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/10/why-fedex-stock-dr...

Best wishes

Björn Vrooman Dec 11, 2018:

Phil Maybe there's some misunderstanding. This isn't about what's easier to read in your opinion. It's not a question of editing either. It's one of convention, if you will. Add a comma if you want, but this is how these reports are written by some ENS journalists. You want to know the results first.

One example each for downgrade and upgrade:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/01/17/goldman-sachs-upgrades...
https://www.thestreet.com/story/10825149/1/applied-materials...

Here's another:
"Citigroup downgraded Tesla’s stock to a sell rating from neutral Friday, a day after the..."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/citi-downgrades-tesla-to-sel...

And another:
"Analysts at Goldman Sachs on Monday downgraded shares of Visteon Corp. VC, -5.10% to sell from neutral..."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-upgraded-to-buy-fr...

[...]

philgoddard Dec 10, 2018:

I disagree. It makes more logical sense, and is easier to read, if you put the "before" status first, and the "after" second.

Björn Vrooman Dec 10, 2018:

@jyuan_us Though, in the interest of keeping a parallel sentence structure, I think it should look like this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/12/13/cree-veec...

That is, to neutral from buy. In [Edit] another article [/Edit], it goes on to say "slashed his price target by...to $XXX from $XXX." Only adding this so the numbers don't get mixed up (and I think that's what the author wanted to write but got stuck on from...to, while the rest was to...from; and there is also "upgraded to...from...").

I suppose that's why you have this service nowadays:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7939067/ap-journalism-aut...

Best

jyuan_us (asker) Dec 10, 2018:

Thank you for your quick answer That was what I thought.