People who know tech often don't know how to find their way out of a paper bag. Business is a fundamentally social thing. People who want to understand tech bus

People who know tech often don't know how to find their way out of a paper bag. Business is a fundamentally social thing. People who want to understand tech businesses must understand both tech and business; neither alone is sufficient. Many analysts do. Some don't. They all tend to cover several names, and each name has some analysts who are more influential than others. The influential ones aren't exclusively found at prestigious investment banks, either. One of the most influential analysts for AAPL, Dan Ives, works at Wedbush. Technology experts are often clueless to a fault and don't have some kind of "third eye" for business, any more than business experts have a "third eye" for technology. It's also a mistake to think that just because a person is familiar with one technology, he/she understands the demand for that technology -- let alone other, weakly related technologies. > 'Fundamentals' and all that is a bs excuse used to scapegoat driving stocks they or their friends don't like to the ground. I agree with this in the case of GME and AMC, but in other situations fundamental analysis can help a person to understand valuations. It seems like BS until you actually find yourself carrying risk and trying to figure out how much a stock should be worth. Fundamentals shouldn't play much of a role for valuing companies that are at risk of default or bankruptcy, because the stock prices the long-term EV of a binary outcome: either the equity value approaches zero or it doesn't. People who think they know what GME stock is worth, but haven't sold any shares short, are just pontificating and they should either put their money where their mouths are or sit on the sidelines and watch with fascination like the rest of us.