Unprecedented Apple Downgraded On Moral Grounds
Apple and Amazon were downgraded on "moral and ethical grounds." Is it right for an analyst to make buy, hold, sell calls based on their conflict with corporate morals?
None.
How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience.
Comments
Leave a comment to automatically be entered into
our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Ernie Varitimos
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
It's not quite so simple. If the analyst stated their method of analysis upfront and was consistent across the board, that would be one thing. But this rating is out of the blue. Investors join advisory services based on clear expectations of philosophy
and methodology of the analysts or fund(s) they represent. As far as I know, this is a first for this guy. Also, consider that he is only one of a handful, I think 2 or 3 analysts out of 60 major analysts that have a negative rating on Apple. It sounds to
me like this person has an itch for Apple. Plus the fact that his target hasn't changed and is higher than the current price, adds to the confusion. So, inprinciple I agree with you, that an analyst can do whatever they want. But when they act irrationally,
then they are doing a diservice not only to their clients, but also to the public at large when their ratings are released to the public.
(1)
|
•
Share
Ilene Carrie
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
I think it's pretty simple. He must have stated his method because that's what we're talking about. There's no obligation to be consistent, no obligation not to do a "first," and no obligation not to be one of a few analysts with a negative rating on AAPL
- all irrelevant. Don't see why this is confusing. Doesn't seem irrational, nor a disservice. No one is forcing anyone to read or pay for his opinion. I really don't see any problem here.
(0)
|
•
Share
Ilene Carrie
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
"If I were an investor in his service I would have a HUGE problem..." Me: That's true for any influential analyst. Are you suggesting laws dictating what analyst's decisions may and may not be based on? Maybe the analyst could base his opinion on morals
and then lie about it to the pass "analyst opinion appropriateness inspection." Seems completely unworkable. Good luck with it.
(0)
|
•
Share
Ernie Varitimos
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
This is not just a simple social commentary, this is people's hard earned investments being thrown about in an almost criminal act of negligence. IMO.
(0)
|
•
Share
Ernie Varitimos
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
If I were an investor in his service I would have a HUGE problem...and as an investor outside his service I have a huge problem as well, in that his position affords him leveraged access to the media, causing the stock to make unusual moves affecting literally
billions of dollars invested. I don't see how you don't see that is a problem.
(1)
|
•
Share
Ernie Varitimos
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
If I were an investor in his service I would have a HUGE problem...and as an investor outside his service I have a huge problem as well, in that his position affords him leveraged access to the media, causing the stock to make unusual moves affecting literally
billions of dollars invested. I don't see how you don't see that is a problem.
(0)
|
•
Share
Wall St. Wolf
•
10 years ago
•
Member's comment
I really have to do disagree with Ilene. An analyst should be basing his/her ratings on facts, not personal bias. He can have a personal issue with such practice, but all he should care about is if Apple and Amazon will continue to make their shareholders
money. I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
(0)
|
•
Share
Ilene Carrie
•
10 years ago
•
Contributor's comment
I doubt it will turn into a trend, but why not downgrade on moral grounds? The analyst has every right to base his ratings on whatever he or she wants. He can base it on astrology - I think I've seen that (and of course you have every right to read it
or not.) It's not a question of morality at all, it's a question of the analyst's freedom to do what he/she wants with his/her ratings. If you don't like it, don't read that analyst,... or do a video expressing your conflict.
(0)
|
•
Share
