chocoloco said:
1) The response is parinoid. 2) He is not biased he is motivated by making money, period, and making other people the most money possible. |
Yes, but make who money? When analysts, by their remarks, can impact the investment market, don't you think they would be trying to negatively or positively impact the stocks of certain companies, by throwing FUD around to try to impact what the company should do?
For example, as far as Pachter goes, Activision is a client of Wedbrush Morgan Securities. Activision wants a more 3rd party friendly console from Nintendo, so Pachter then harps on and on about how "Nintendo should make a Wii HD." The hope here is to drive investors away from Nintendo because Nintendo isn't doing that, precisely to then make Nintendo do that. It gets more transparent with that one Australian guy who recently said "Nintendo's stock value would be 100% higher if they moved into iOS." This is a blatant effort to say: Sell Nintendo or Don't Buy until they go iOS, which in turn is an indirect threat to Nintendo: go iOS.
When we're talking about small potatoes, yes, consultancy firms are usually objective, but at the higher end of things, analysts are trying to active alter the market in the favor of their clients.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.