Okay. I originally just thought that Pachter was a really bad analyst, but now I'm convinced that he's saying things for the publicity more than anything.

Besides the main factors that drove Nintendo to make a hybrid like the portable market going from one of growth to shrinking and the state of the WiiU mixed with positives like a hybrid approach consolidating their software output, another stat that was bandied about often enough that anyone with their ear to the ground concerning Nintendo should have known, and even if only partially true seen it in a positive light especially in regards to the Switch's docked mode, and that was Western gamers playtime on Nintendo portables is around 80% home 20% away, so once again his shallow insight shows how his large ego allows him to make assertions at a glance without any underpinning evidence and then paint critic's as dumb trolls.

Now I think is more probable to go the other way.
With the new model with DLSS being expensive, it is likely that they will make a more affordable TV only version of the new switch.
Getting rid of the screen, battery, dock, joycon could allow the price in the 300$ range. As the big advantage of the new version would be only visible in the TV mode, now makes more sense than never to have a TV only version of Nintendo Switch.

Yeah I definitely think there's a market for a TV only Switch that cuts out the cost of the battery, screen, etc for a lower price point.

I think it's very telling when people on this forum have a better gauge of the Switch and it's trajectory than a man who makes a six figure salary. It's weird he doesn't get the hybrid concept when the Switch. The Lite didn't release until 2019, almost 2 years later, and the system did very well. Clearly people got the Switch concept, but somehow Pachter doesn't. You'd think after the Wii he'd eat some humble pie and study this company rather than shoot off at the mouth. It seems like his job at the firm to say stuff to get headlines. 

To add context to your point: on 1/1/2012, the SNP closed at $1,313. On 1/1/2013, it closed at $1,498, which is about a 14 percent return. So you were better off putting your money into an SNP Index fund than giving it to Pachter. Even worse, those suckers had to pay Pachter his management fee for his 1.2% return.

I have some doubts, how can anyone track his job without the permission of him, his employer and their paying customers?
Probably someone tracked the (crappy) analyses he publicly gives away for free, my point is that if he still has a job what he suggests privately and being paid for it must be quite different. 

He put his investment portfolio public for everyone to see. By doing so, he gave the permission himself. Dunno if they are still public, but back in the day at the very least, they were.

Edit:

http://investorwand.com/investor/8324/michael-pachter

https://www.tipranks.com/analysts/michael-pachter

He bettered himself a bit, back in the day like I said it was only +1.2%...

This is still pretty bad when you consider the SNP 500 has gone up 91.5% over the last 5 years. Annualized that 18.3%, which is more than double Pachter. You could put all your money in an index fund and do twice as well. Index funds also have way lower fees than what he's charging. 

In 2009, Pachter predicted that the PS3/360/Wii would be the last console generation ever:

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/90443-Pachter-This-Is-The-Final-Generation

The only other job where you could be as off the mark as often as this guy and not get fired would be as a weatherman.

This guy STILL has a platform to speak?

Michael Pachturd, aside, I think it should be the other way around. Throughout this whole pandemic, it has been the Hybrid model that is constantly selling out and nowhere to be found in stores while the Lite model has stock aplenty. So, shouldn't it be the other way around?
First, Nintendo should get their supply-demand under control.
Then, they should release the Switch+ (Pro model).
Then, they should cut the price of the Hybrid model down to $200, they've been at $300 for so long that they could probably do it and still sell it at a profit at least, sell it at a small loss, and the get those losses back on the Pro model, software sales, and NSO subscriptions.
And then they can cut the Lite model to $125-150 and then just slowly phase it out.
It's quite evident that the vast majority of the market prefers the Hybrid model anyways, and if they were willing to buy it at $300, then they'll most definitely be willing to buy it at $200 - the standard handheld price, which means they could easily sell it to every member of the household instead of just one per household. Which maintains sales at a high level, extending the Switch's legs. Then they could sell sell the 'Pro' model at $300-$350 as the new, main Hybrid option that will be bought mostly by the hardware enthusiasts, Nintendo fans, and current Switch owners who are looking to upgrade.