Re: Reed Elsevier initiated with "underperform"

From: Fytton Rowland <J.F.Rowland_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:40:35 +0100

I don't agree that this is "irrelevant" (though I do agree about the short-
term nature of analysts' typical recommendations). I think it is quite
significant. The financial press and the financial world generally had
been pretty unanimous before in favouring Elsevier, ignoring all evidence
about how Elsevier's customers perceive it.

This is the first time that a finacial analyst has noted that there is
anything amiss with the scholarly publishing industry. Note that both
Thomson and Kluwer have got out of the primary academic publishing
business, keeping hold of secondary databases (in Thomson's case) and
health publications (in Kluwer's).

Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University

Quoting Barry Mahon <barry.mahon_at_IOL.IE>:

> 14/10/2003 17:31:35, Richard Poynder <richardpoynder_at_VERIZON.NET> wrote:
> >This may be of interest to anyone who has not seen it:
> >
> >
> >Reed Elsevier initiated with "underperform"
> >
> >"BNP Paribas expresses its concern regarding the company's current
> >subscription based access, as compared to the newer and more successful
> >article-fee based open access system."
> >
> >
> >
> If you look a the site it also recommends Kluwer and Thomson as 'buys' -
> it is based
> as far as I can see on the (typical if I may say so) analysts opinion,
> short term potential
> gain.
> I agree with Stevan's assessment, it is irrelevant.
> Bye, Barry Mahon
Received on Thu Oct 16 2003 - 00:40:35 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:05 GMT