Conflict of Interest & Peter HodsonThe conflict of interest point is peculiar. Its not lost on any of us that an analyst who owns or whose firm owns or whose fund owns a particular stock might be pumping it beyond its merits or, even, despite its demerits. On the other hand when I hear an analyst wax eloquent about a particular stock, and then disclose that he or she doesn't own any, I'm also suspcious.
Surely it is in the interest of analysts (their firms and even BNN) for analysts to right in their recommendations (at least most of the time). Otherwise (whether their goal is disengenuous, to engender buying, or to genuinely express their opinions about a publically traded company) they will lose credibility, the ability to influence the behaviour of potential buyers and sellers and reduce their chances of being invited back as guests of BNN (with the attendant free publicity for themselves, their funds and their firms).
Three nights ago BNN, on Squeeze Play, had an analyst that suggested that a stock which I own, then trading somewhere in the $23 - 24 range was worth .30 c. He indicated that he would be shorting the stock mercilessely. Over the next two days the stock, without any news, rose 3 + dollars. Unlike Peter Hodson, the analyst in question obviously had no credibility. Peter does have credibility. This is because in the long term, both before and since he joined Sprott, he has been very successful. He is regarded as astute and a straight shooter. Of course, being a wee bit human, he makes mistakes but I can tell you as someone who has taken his recommendations seriously for some time, I wish my overall success rate in the market was as good as it has been with Peter's recommendations.
That isn't to say that I think that anyone should invest simply because Peter or any other analyst is a proponent of a stock. One needs to independently corroborate and evaluate the facts and reasons given by the analyst who likes a particular stock.
Good luck to all.