This is a response to Neil Raden’s post on B-eye network – I was unable to submit a reply on the BEN-site.
I’m happy to see that you have taken the initiative to follow-up on this controversy. What bothers me the most is the unwillingness (by Evelson in this case) to engage in a real and critical discussion regarding the topic in question. Every such discussion is a new opportunity to further our knowledge and improve our collective understanding. One can argue whether a tone of voice like Few used in his reply encourages such a discussion but while doing so we omit the fact that Few is trying to make a real argument (he’s not solely ranting, far from it). I even suspect that Few’s wording is not only triggered by Evelson’s post but has been fed by more inaccurate statements regarding his topic of interest, published in other media and by other people.
I have too little knowledge about the business models of analyst’s firms to comment on your explanation in detail. But your general observation that analyst firms seem to lack true in-depth insight has also crossed my mind. Moreover, the lack of critical discussion and more factual insight is IMHO a more fundamental problem that endangers our profession in general. As you twittered yourself: know what you’re talking about and challenge the facts. Keep spreading the word.