Depends on which stock analyser and which stocks, Dazed. I have at times looked at Roger Montgomery, and he seems to make sense- although I think most fundamental analysis stock picking can be beautiful in theory, but fails to take events into account. Some stock pickers though- ones who recommend- go for very speculative stocks, where there is no revenue at all- the emerging type of stocks. Money can be made there, of course, but it is the "psst- I have discovered a stock that is totally under the radar and no-one much knows about" kind of approach, that irks me. Anyone who has been in the market for 5 minutes knows that there is no such thing as a stock on the ASX that hasn't been combed over in every way by everyone, and it has a certain share price for reasons the market knows about. It might be an *obscure* stock- but even that is for a reason. One could almost say that some recommended stocks by some high-pressure sales people- are in fact ugly stocks that the market has by-passed, and that "beuatiful" stocks don't need high-pressure sales tactics because they sell themselves. An example of the latter would be a stock like SIR (I don't hold and know really nothing about it), but that one seems to really deliver in an on-going way, so it clearly has fundamentals, and has become a "good" stock, and has kept its gains.
I reckon now, with all the free info we can get on the stock market, that these spin doctors have lost a lot of their shine. Having said that, if I knew that a whole bunch of morons like myself would all climb into the same stock tomorrow, and cause an unwarranted break out, I'd probably do it, too.
