In Part II of this book, the problem analysis, the overall research question was approached from three complementary perspectives: the context perspective (Chapter 4), the product perspective (Chapter 5), and the process perspective (Chapter 6). The results of these approaches provide an empirically grounded and inclusive answer to the overall research question (Chapter 1) as to what the reasons are for the actual state of financial analysts’ text products and how financial analysts can reach a different target state if necessary.

The results from the context perspective (Chapter 4) show the characteristics of the financial analysts’ environment as a complex interplay of agents with manifold interests, expectations, and interdependencies. In this environment of domain-specific opportunities and constraints, financial analysts are embedded in a layered system. Five layers of contexts with increasing range have been differentiated: the analyst’s own workplace with its tasks (Sect. 4.4.1), the analyst team (Sect. 4.4.2), the banking industry (Sect. 4.4.3), the financial community (Sect. 4.4.4), and the financial world (Sect. 4.4.5). Within in this system, financial analysts are experts in analysing and interpreting economic data and business data of which they derive investment recommendations. By doing so, they must deliver, in the professions own terms, a good performance, by forecasting the future events on the capital markets. At the same time, they are subject to many regulations, they need to have a recognised standing among their peers, and they are supposed to guide investors safely through the financial jungle. The words buy, hold, and sell uttered by a financial analyst have the power to cause big shifts in the financial markets which can lead to huge losses or profits for the stakeholders and, ultimately, entire societies. For this very reason, it is indispensable that the financial community, and especially investors with low financial literacy, understand the reasoning behind the financial analysts’ recommendations.

The results from the product perspective (Chapter 5) explain which key characteristics of financial analysts’ investment recommendations influence their communicative potential in the given context. Thereby, the complex environment shapes financial text products; at the same time, financial text products shape their environment by framing the financial world’s message, appearance, image, as well as potential conclusions and consequences. In order to gain a comprehensive insight, the results are discussed from three complementary angles: product context (Sect. 5.4.1), product function (Sect. 5.4.2), and product structure (Sect. 5.4.3). The results from the product context angle show that due to strict regulations financial analysts are not allowed to discuss their thoughts, doubts, and forecasts regarding a company with anyone other than their teammates or the management of the company itself. Given the constant time pressure, there is not much room for amendments regarding calculations, assessments, or language matters. The results from the product function angle indicate that financial analysts do provide investors with comprehensive, well-elaborated, and relevant information. However, investment recommendations lack clarity on two levels: first, the text products are interspersed with abbreviations and technical terms; and second, due to their double-bind situation, their reasoning is dysfunctionally ambiguous as it leaves too much room for surmise and error in places where conciseness and clarity is pivotal. The results from the product structure angle show that the genre and topic of the text product determine the texts’ composition as an arrangement of basic elements. While the financial analyst is considerably free on the micro-level of formulation and on the meso level of text dramaturgy, the macrostructures within the genres are standardised by the publishing bank and throughout the financial world.

The results from the process perspective (Chapter 6) describe the financial analysts’ main issues in the writing process (Sect. 6.4.1) and how they relate to retail investors’ reading experience (Sect. 6.4.2). The results on the statements from financial analysts in writing courses indicate that analysts’ most frequent problems in their writing process consist in mutually conflicting and dependent conditions: too little time, double-bind situation, and blurred target groups. This leads to issues in numerous activity fields in text production (Sect. 2.11), such as skipping of planning techniques due to time pressure; not being able to set up a stringent storyline due to the double-bind situation; and missing out on establishing relevance for the audience due to the lack of the target readers’ needs. The results on the feedback from investors point out the gap between their needs and the financial analysts’ text products. The investors need guidance that corresponds with their financial literacy (Sect. 2.5). If traditional financial institutions do not offer it with their text products, they miss out on an important USP, challenging the loyalty of their customers.

The results from the complementary perspectives—ethnographic perspective (4), product perspective (5), and process perspective (6)—are more than the sum of their parts. Taken together, these findings provide an inclusive answer to the overall research question (7) as they show the pivotal and overarching reasons for the actual state of financial analysts’ text products: In real-world dynamic contexts such as the financial world, processes and products constantly interact with each other and with their context. It is by flexible and reflected practices that this interplay, to a certain extent, can and has to be controlled by key agents such as the financial analysts. This means that the problems identified in the products and processes in contexts require appropriate repertoires of practices to overcome paradoxies such as the double-bind situation (Sect. 6.4.1.2). Thus, appropriate means that these repertoires of practices enable agents to both benefit the internal and external stakeholders by their decision, actions, and, finally, their communicational offers. Such practices reach beyond the layer of the problem itself, beyond the paradoxy, and beyond the double-bind trap.

Based on this empirically grounded and inclusive answer, practical measures of how to increase the communicative potential of financial analysts’ recommendations are developed and discussed (Chapters 8–10).