To: Bob Kim who wrote (110492 ) 10/14/2000 4:56:12 PM From: Eric Wells Respond to of 164684 I think a lot of individual investors have relied on reporters' interpretation of analysts' research and because a reporter writes a story about it, it is assumed that the info is credible and accurate. The problem snowballs when other writers base their stories on a second-hand or third-hand sources and so on. Bob - you are absolutely correct. And you could go even further and say the problem is exacerbated by certain message board threads devoted to picking the next set of high flying stocks. Success in this market over the past two years has really been based less on being "smart" in understanding business and technology, but more on knowing what everyone else is buying, or is going to buy. As for the investment banking and brokerage firm analysts, I realize there are many that probably do perform honest and well-thought-out analysis. However, the fact that most of these analysts are employed by investment banks and brokerage firms compromises their credibility (at least in my view). I think that at some point in the future there has to be a shift, where analysts are not employed by the firms that do the underwriting and trade the stocks - but I have no idea what will be required to make this happen. When I see Abby Joseph Cohen come out and say the economy is fine and that stocks are a good value at the moment, I can't help but wonder how much more money both Abby and Goldman will make if the market goes up. as opposed to staying flat or going down. And this is precisely why these analysts never say "sell" (their ratings may indicate "sell" as you have pointed out - but it would be so much better if they were up front and open and came out and said it). You also wonder why the "objective" financial news services never call the credibility of these analysts into question, but rather broadcast and even, as you state, amplify their views. Thanks, -Eric