Read the reports again, it is patently obvious the bias. It is analyst speak, where they speak in a manner attempting to sound objective but conclude, on the basis of nothing but conclusions and self-serving speculation, the positive for the shares they are promoting.
These analysts are often recently minted MBAs, or even just out of college folks on their first real big jobs and they are not often very good at it. They keep it simple.
It got so bad in the Internet bubble that a firm would send out a 25 year old ( + or -) recent grad (preferrably hot blond, and they would often comply), and they would give a teleprompter like presentation, and then questions would come in, and the "analyst" would ignore the question, and pull out a note card and read verbatim the pitch on the stock - AGAIN! People would take this seriously and buy the stock.
Look at the analyst report Dew referenced earlier today where they actually gave NEGATIVE value to enoxaparin becuase it was the only way to derive the predetermined price target. At its worse case there is positive value for enoxaparin.
Analyst reports, for "free" are given out for a reason, usually to please their underlying client, and it is easy to spot the bias, as well as to take out the valuable stuff, just takes some practice.
There is value in these reports, but it is not from the price targets or conclusions, but rather looking at the underlying data, and other market and competitive factors. They almost always outline it well, include many factors such as potential market size that can be deciphered for valuable information (even if the underlying conclusions need to be ignored) and you can get some good stuff out of these.
But the litigation report is like the play by play by the home teams announcer for local TV - without the cynicism.
Tinker
