RE:RE:FYIAnalysts have an inherent conflict of interest. They get paid by the number of reports, retail and institutional trading, and corporate finance fees generated (the other depts vote the profit/bonuses to each analyst). Dev decides what percentage of CF fees each firm gets by the number of analyst reports and trading volume from each firm. Analysts are highly qualified but they are also pressured internally to generate interest in a stock to generate revenue for CF execs and The firms execs/shareholders. You have to look at each analyst history, firm and level of CF participation. They are also human beings. For the most part venture analysts are good people but they have mouths to feed. There is no money for a firm or analyst poo pooing a deal or company. No firm CF fees in their future if they get on Devs bad side. Better for analysts and firms to say nothing. Even lowering a target price or downgrading to a hold can be a risk to future dollars. Many firms never issue a sell and would rather let a covered stock die and discontinue years later under the radar. CF goes ballistic when their analyst develops some independent thought opposite their hard earned relationship and fees. Read analyst reports but be aware it is just more information not to be solely relied on for the reasons outlined above. Analyst going opposite CF or the firms Execs are not around very long...nor do they get voted profit. They will and do support this deal advising their clients who bought at or above $1.50 they are still good with DML in the LONGTERM. They are locked in or look like total fools (embarrassment aside). The retail brokers and institutional traders get the most flack or are put in the penalty box by clients. Too many conflicted misses and they go elsewhere. That is the reality of venture analysts.