Why should I trust investment banks' ratings?
In theory, GS has a Chinese Wall between the department which issued the advice and any departments which may profit from such advice. This would take away some of your distrust, except for the fact that GS did violate these rules in the past (see the answer from user10665). You're wondering about the timing, prior to the release of figures by Tesla itself. This is quite normal. Predicting the past is not that useful ;) The price range indeed is wide, but that too is a meaningful opinion. It says that GS thinks Tesla's share price strongly depends on factors which are hard to predict. In comparison, Coca Cola's targets will be in a much smaller range because its costs and sales are very stable. "If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides   then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (""I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release"") is a criminal offence." Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity.  I don't read them or care to read them myself.  If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense?  Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end.  After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off.  Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered?  Is it people actually putting in sell order manually?  Is it something else?  There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.
The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst.  Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless. "This company was a reputable rating agency for many years. See Weiss Research website, ratings section for a very different perspective on Martin Weiss's work than the websites with which he is now associated. I checked both links provided, and agree with the questioner in every way: These appear to be highly questionable investment research websites. I use such strong terms based on the fact that the website actually uses the distasteful pop-up ploy,  ""Are you SURE you want to leave this site?"" Clearly, something changed between what Weiss Ratings was in the past (per company history since 1971) and what Martin Weiss is doing now. Larry Edelson seems to have been associated exclusively with questionable websites and high pressure investment advice since 2007. From 1996 through the present, he worked as either an employee or contractor of Weiss Research. Let's answer each of your questions.  On June 22, 2006, the Commission instituted settled administrative   proceedings against Weiss Research, Inc., Martin Weiss, and Lawrence   Edelson (collectively, “Respondents”) for violations of the Investment   Advisers Act of 1940 in connection with their operation of an   unregistered investment adviser and the production and distribution of   materially false and misleading marketing materials. Full details about Weiss Ratings operations, including its history from 1996 through 2001, when it operated in compliance with securities laws, then from 2001 through 2005, which was when the SEC filed charges for regulatory violations, are available from the June 2006 U.S. SEC court documents PDF. Finally, this quantitative assessment, ""Safe With Martin Weiss? (December 2010) by CXO Advisory (providers of ""objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions"") for its readers concluded the following: In summary, the performance of Martin Weiss’ premium services in   aggregate over the past year is unimpressive. The study methodology was good, but I recommend reading the article (I posted the URL) to fully understand what caveats and assumptions were done to reach that conclusion." For questions 1 and 2.  1) If you are packing the loans into a CDO, they are being sold on the open market. Once it achieves a AAA rating, as most did even though they were mostly subprime, alt a, or arm, it is sold and shipped off the originator's books (While the originator of the CDO collects X% in fees)  Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk.  Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc.   Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again:  a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend.  b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results.  c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to.  I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book [Crisis Economics](http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508)  Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis [The Big Short](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140607&amp;sr=1-1)  If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with [Boomerang](http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140665&amp;sr=1-1) Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold. Whilst it is true that they do not have a conference call every time a rating is produced, the parameters of a natural oligopoly do indicate that there are negative effects of deviating too much from the other members of an oligopoly.   There are instances of rating agencies (Moody's) giving lower ratings to punish the issuer for going elsewhere (Re Hannover), but usually a slightly lower rating may be acceptable and is usually corrected to be in line with the competitor shortly afterwards. The power, arguably, is with the issuer in this sense because they can take their business to the 3rd member (Fitch) if the rating is too low from one of the Big Two. The preservation of the 'Big Two', for so long, is arguably testament to the S&amp;P and Moody's understanding of these parameters  If the answer is not micromanaging, what do you think it is out of interest? "Institutions may be buying large quantities of the stock and would want the price to go up after they are done buying all that they have to buy.  If the price jumps before they finish buying then they may not make as great a deal as they would otherwise.  Consider buying tens of thousands of shares of a company and then how does one promote that?  Also, what kind of PR system should those investment companies have to disclose whether or not they have holdings in these companies.  This is just some of the stuff you may be missing here. The ""Wall street analysts"" are the investment banks that want the companies to do business through them and thus it is a win/win relationship as the bank gets some fees for all the transactions done for the company while the company gets another cheerleader to try to play up the stock." "Rating agencies are pretty garbage, the market is always a few steps ahead of them.  However, India is rated lower as it has not been an economic ""power"" for a long time ans is still developing. However the market rates on bonds tell a different story, and that is that India is safer than Spain to lend to.  It is also easier to go after assets in Spain a Eurozone country than India, however Indian debt in Rupees should be safer than Spanish debt in Euros as India can fire up the printer if necessary.  Indian yield on the 10 year is ~ 8.5% inflation is 7.5% giving a real yield of 1% Spanish 10 year is 6.87% and Eurozone inflation is 2.4% giving a real yield of 4.47%.  The market doesn't agree with S&amp;P." "Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs.  They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds.  You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds.  Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well.  You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds.  That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into ""established"" economies and a certain fraction into ""emerging"" ones.  I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little." Actually, you're missing the key feature of CDOs.  Most CDOs use (much to our economic misery, ultimately) a system call tranching.  To simplify this idea, I'll make a two tranch example.  Suppose I buy mortgages covering a face value of $120,000,000.  Because they are subprime, if I just put them in a pool and finance them with bonds, the rating will be lousy and most investors will shun them (at least investors who are safety oriented).  What I do is divide them into two tranches.  One bond issue is for $100,000,000 and another for $20,000,000.  The idea is that any defaulting mortgage comes out of the latter bond issue.  I'll probably keep these bonds (the lower tranch).  Thus buyers of the first issue are safe unless defaults exceed $20,000,000.  Then the rating agencies rate the first issue AAA and it gets snapped up by investors.  In a strict sense it is overcollateralized, basically the entire $120,000,000 backs up the first bond issue. In reality, many CDOs had multiple tranches, with the lowest tranch being retained by the underwriters and the other tranches sold as bonds of various ratings. rawbdor is spot on both in terms of the divident yield and the ratings.  BAC and C should have no dividend at all. They have liquidity due to the FED but they still have loads of debt that needs to be written off. For all intents and purposes they bankrupt but are kept alive as zombie banks by the FED and the market is pricing them as such.   As we've seen time and again, the ratings agencies are lagging indicators regarding value. Once the market loses faith in an enterprise, the ratings agencies have no choice but to downgrade.   The *only* reason the major agencies are in business is because they are a state sanctioned oligopoly. Essentially mutual/ money market funds cannot operate without these agencies by law. You can call it a stock rating of say between 0 to 5 or 0 to 10 or whatever scale you want to use.  It should not be called a recommendation but rather a rating based on the criterial you have analysed. Also a scale from say 0 to 5 is better than using terms like buy, hold and sell. Right.  A banker provides a product/service, whether it be liquidity or something else, for a premium.  The Rothschilds, for example (I'm only familiar with them because I like their wine), are typical examples of some of the first bankers of the modern era-- they provided the ability to exchange currencies at a market value, and it made them one of the wealthiest families of the modern world.  If someone doesn't like banks, then let them walk onto the NYSE and make their own investment decisions.  Which is a terrible idea because it's statistically almost impossible to beat the market.  If you wanted to be able to prove that you are a successful investor you would have to have higher earnings than a market portfolio every day for around 180 years, in order to have a T-statistic of about 2.0. This was my exact thought when I first heard. It just sounds like inflation to me &amp; I don't understand the logic. If everyone on average gets say...a ~3% boost on their score, why wouldn't banks just adjust their standards by 3%? If you are interested in this stuff, S&amp;P produce a sovereign rating methodolgy, in which they will tell you exactly what factors they look at.  Once you read this, you can obtain their latest rating report on India and Spain to understand how they applied said methodology in each case. (Not sure if this is free) "I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do.  Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a ""no buy"" for me.  If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand.  I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say.  I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one.  Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine.  Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock."