Honestly most stock analysts don't know shit.
For example, you work for an investment bank and your actual job is to analyze a company and say you're assigned to analyze company ABC.
Your bank will have a weighting system like overweight/equal weight/underweight or buy/hold/sell, which is the same thing (overweight means buy, equal weight means hold, underweight means sell).
Say your bank's current stance on ABC is that they are equal weight. Well unless you as an analyst see something truly bad or amazingly good, the analyst will just say "equal weight" again and pick up a paycheck. If your bank's stance is that ABC is overweight, unless you see something really bad you will just say they are "overweight" again and pick up a paycheck.
That is why analysts have missed so many things in the past like Citigroup during the financial crisis.
The analysis they do is the same analysis anyone else can do.
Remember now, I am talking about a "stock analyst" that works at an investment bank, not a "stock broker" who looks at stocks (hopefully they analyze them) and tries to sell shares to clients.
Here is a list of "stock analysts":
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-b...america-2013-8
There is a difference between a "stock analyst" and "stock broker".
Anyone here can do what an analyst does just by looking up earnings reports, balance sheets, new stories, etc. on your own time just like anyone can research a game like touts may or may not do.
Now of course, I absolutely do not mean that some banged up fukk like Sweep can go get a job as a stock analyst at a bulge bracket investment bank, but anyone can do what they do.
Stock analysts are wrong on companies about as much as they are right.