A few things. It's a big assumption to guess they have no skin in the game. They could and likely do have a net position one way or another in the oil market. T

A few things. It's a big assumption to guess they have no skin in the game. They could and likely do have a net position one way or another in the oil market. There are a few ways that could work. They could both believe this is true, and also have a position in that direction. So publicizing this view might help their position realize gains sooner than expected. This is somewhat of an opposite to how short sellers work, where they will take a position then publish an expose. But suppose they have no skin in the game. Is that necessarily better? It implies they don't know enough about the market to actually take a position, which calls into question the value of their research. Of course both of these are huge simplifications. They ignore that GS is a huge organization, not a single person. As schizophrenic we people can be, corporations are that much more so. The left hand literally might not know what the right is doing. Who published this paper may not have authority to trade, or the ears of those who do. Or many other possible explanations. Anyway, the general point is that disinterest and neutrality do not universally make opinions more reliable.