I have always been skeptical about analyst reports. Don't get me wrong, analyst reports are useful, and there are many with a lot of details and insights, but that is where the use end, one shouldn't read further into the buy or sell call or their target prices.
We need to understand that not all analyst reports are self-initiated, some are paid to do the reports.
I was rather surprised with the money section of today ST. There is only 2 articles on properties, whereas it is usually dominated by property news. It is not hard to see why. Singaporeans at large are attuned to property investing rather than companies investing. Many will think of property investment as a foolproof investment whereas if u mention stocks, they will either think of u as a guru or a gambler. ( this is my gut feel when communicating with many colleagues am friends, only 2-4 can exchange pointers on equity investing, but the "whole world" can talk about property investing. I wonder the taper off property news got anything to do with property cooling.
I read an article on a senior executive of bloomberg asking the journalists in china to focus on financial news and not others, as investigating journalism might not be useful in terms of generating sales on its terminal. They have previously run a article on how rich xi jinping is. Shortly after, there is a directive to state enterprise to stop subscribing to bloomberg terminals.
So, when I read, I always have the question: is this what they want us to know, or is this what happen?
But am I advocate total freedom of speech? No. Taiwan news is too dividing and sensational, US cannot stop snowden unless he stop his own leaks.
We just have to be more discerning, and encourage others to be critical thinker too. Be critical in our thinking, but not on people, we always tend to overshoot in our critiques of establishment, sometime to the extend of being unfair.