The investment analyst profession has recently fallen upon hard times.

Traditionally, the top rated analysts on Wall Street have been employed by the major investment firms to provide "opinions" on the companies being underwritten by the firms.

There is an obvious conflict of interest inherent to these opinions, as the underwriting department's explicit goal is to sell shares in a company's new stock issue - clearly, the underwriting sales pitch is aided and abetted by an analyst report that paints a glowing picture of the brokerage's corporate client.

In a bull market, analysts positive opinions are not questioned, as stocks generally reach their targets sooner or later, making analysts look prescient for their "informed predictions."

In a declining market, however, the majority of stocks (particularly the weaker companies in the bunch) will not reach their predicted targets and investors begin to question why the predictions failed.

Recent scandals in the industry have added fuel to investors anger. Merrill Lynch & Co. regularly recommended its clients to buy struggling technology companies that its own analysts described in unprintably derogatory terms.

And Goldman Sachs attached a "strong buy" rating to Enron only months before the company filed for bankruptcy protection.

In the long-term, investors who have been burned with bad research will eventually choose to take their investing dollars to a different underwriter with the hope that its new issues are presented more realistically and ultimately meet valuation targets on the markets.

Unfortunately, this does not solve the original conflict of interest, as the original underwriter's research team continues to produce overly-positive reports for its stock issues, with the investment-banking sales team left to find new clients for the issue.