I believe that there is only one thing that controls Wall Street and that is money. What I am trying to point out is that analyst opinions were changing prior to the fee adjustment and it is interesting to note that prior to the fee adjustment there were union efforts to insure that pension monies (certainly not "small change") were invested in the union workers' best interest. The true area of disagreement between you and me is that you believe the analysts use public information only to create fair and unbiased assessments.
No, I don't believe I ever said I think analysts' assessments are fair and unbiased. Quite to the contrary. Many analysts have conflicts of interest that interfere with their ability to make honest assessments, and some are just not terribly talented. I also agree that analysts' opinions were changing before the fee readjustments, but not to the same extent. The problem is that investment managers and analysts rely heavily on their own very subjective assessments of individual management teams in deciding whether a company's prospects are good. When they lose faith in those management teams--for reasons you or I may or may not agree with--the companies become much less attractive, sometimes seemingly overnight. Here, analysts like Jonathan Litt were counting on management to avoid having the kinds of problems they thought the structure was prone to and were disappointed.