Straw5...Clearer now? Actually, no, just the opposite.
You started off this thread saying:
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...
Since you believed that the "most interesting thing" about this morning's information was that it supports spook's point, I thought it important that you clarify what you mean when you say "spook's point". It just gives everyone a point of reference for the discussion. You told me you weren't going to do it, then you did it anyway:
First of all, I am not going to summarize spook’s position for anyone “here,” since anyone “here” is just a few mouse clicks away from RB and they can read it themselves.
The point of view I am referring to was stated early on by spook and I would be very surprised if you missed it. It was that you can’t have real independent analysis of your company if you in fact pay the researcher to provide it. Furthermore, that a company that makes a living providing independent analysis will not be in business for long if they rarely issue buy ratings.
That's pretty close, but you're hedging. In actuality, his opinion left NO room for anyone to accept any "compensated independent" analysis. Here let me refresh your memory. He stated it quite clearly in this early post:
(worktoplay) The entire idea of being "independent" and "compensated" is a direct conflict of interest. As soon as money changes hands, the "independent analysts" completely lose their independence.
You're intelligent enough to know this is a indisputable fact in any market. Stop being dishonest.
DNAP paid for a buy rating.
First of all, he accused me of putting forth a "dishonest" opinion, and as I've shown, if my opinion is "dishonest", it is one that is shared by Lou Thompson, President of the National Investor Relations Institute, who issued Guidelines in 2002 endorsing legitimate "paid-for" research".
Secondly, since the SEC and a wide number of organizations share Mr. Thompson's view, that places "spook" in direct opposition. So I fail to see how anything I posted this morning supports spook's view of "compensated, independent" research.
Finally, as regards your observation (or was it spook's observation - see how this get's confusing?) that:
Furthermore, that a company that makes a living providing independent analysis will not be in business for long if they rarely issue buy ratings.
This statement misses the entire point of the business strategy of companies like Dutton. They are an outlet for good, undercovered companies that need to expand awareness of their securities. The reason Dutton is thriving is because the "old boy" system of the big brokerage firms, whereby you couldn't get coverage unless you were a paying client of theirs, left thousands of good companies out there without options.
Dutton can afford to be honest, because he has good companies knocking his door down for his services. In that regard, the firm's integrity is it's greatest business asset, and as long as he's honest, independent, and accurate he'll ALWAYS have more clients than he can handle, because there will ALWAYS be good companies out there that no one's ever heard of.
Clearer now?
Later,
W2P
AI
