I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting. I think it's fair to say the same thing of overly positive reports about a specific company coming from an institution that holds normal stock in that same company.
It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about. However, I'll grant that the world doesn't often let us work with ideals for a lot of very valid reasons (retirement accounts, for instance).
>I think the contention is that places that are shorting stock AND writing articles about how badly run the shorted company is have a conflict of interest which damages the credibility of their reporting [...]. It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about
Not really, because then you run into the opposite problem: "experts" making random predictions without putting their money where their mouth is. In a sea of "experts", who do you trust?
The catch here is that this then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? Report from Well known institution gains credence regardless of quality. This drives down prices not because they were correct, but because of their influence..
It would probably be ideal if reports came from people who don't have a direct financial stake in the success or failure of the company they're writing about. However, I'll grant that the world doesn't often let us work with ideals for a lot of very valid reasons (retirement accounts, for instance).