Straw5...That's an interesting perspective. But I'm confused about a couple of things. Perhaps you could clear them up for me so that if we continue this thread, we are both on the same page.
You said:
The most interesting thing about that series of paragraphs is that it supports the legitimacy of spook’s point of view regarding paying for ratings (as something more than "DNAP bashing" as it was portrayed). If you read the text, it is clear that these independent research companies have evolved to fill a niche:
"Given that (Wall Street) can no longer pay for research through investment banking, we're probably going to see a significant reduction in the number of companies that have any analyst coverage. So then companies are left wondering, 'How am I going to get institutional investors to let me in the door without any coverage?'"
Perhaps you could explain to me how the fact that these companies have evolved to fill a niche supports spook's point of view...and please, I would ask that you limit the discussion to Dutton, in particular, since they are the firm providing coverage to DNAPrint.
Secondly, as a purely "independent" analyst yourself, would you kindly review spook's posts regarding the Dutton coverage and summarize his position for us, since he is not here to speak for himself. I just want to make certain his point of view is fairly portrayed, and it will afford others in this forum the opportunity to form a judgement as to your objectivity and independence as an observer.
Lastly, could you please review my posts on the subject and point me to those that characterized his position as "DNAP bashing". All I remember doing was providing evidence and arguments to support Dutton as a source of solid, independent research, as evidenced by their credentials and track record. I even gave him an example of a "less than reputable" company, so that he could contrast the two, which he summarily dismissed.
Thanks, I look forward to your response.
One more thing. You said:
It appears to be an ongoing process:
While independent research by standards-based providers are growing in legitimacy, according to the Dow Jones (DJ) in a recent article, the article quoted Lou Thompson, president of the National Investor Relations Institute, which had issued new Guidelines on 2002 endorsing legitimate "paid-for" research, as warning of " various mutations of paid-for research."
Given that we are not talking about "various mutations of paid for research", the most relevant point made in the paragraph is the fact that Lou Thompson, president of the National Investor Relations Institute, had issued new Guidelines in 2002 endorsing legitimate "paid-for" research".
I would remind you that we are not talking about paid for research, in general, we are discussing JM Dutton Associates, in particular. And it has been, and to my knowledge continues to be, spook's position that the report was "Rubbish" and JM Dutton Associates is a paid for shill. I have YET to see a shred of evidence to support that view, and I have YET to see a retraction by spook of that position.
Help me understand what it is I'm not understanding here.
Later,
W2P
AI
