Paid for Research - Another flawed model

Would an analyst or fund manager trust any research that has been paid for by corporations? I just don't get it. There are two such initiatives - National Research Exchange and Independent Research Network.

Please read the following lines carefully - "38% of all NASDAQ-listed companies and approximately 17% of NYSE companies have no analyst coverage. Over 50% of all publicly listed U.S. companies have two or fewer analysts covering them. These numbers reflect a growing intelligence deficit that affects public companies on all markets. Independent Research Network will offer a viable solution, not only by extending analyst coverage, which may improve liquidity and lower the cost of capital for listed companies, but also by making available to the investment community credible, actionable research on an unprecedented range of companies."

Whose interest is being served here - "improve liquidity and lower cost of capital" - clearly the corporations. Yes, the problem is correctly identified. But this is no solution. Don't we all know the basics - loyalty is to the person who pays the bill. Who pays the bill? The corporations who want analyst coverage. I don't see how fund managers will derive value from this. It is a known fact that the investment community is willing to pay and pay big for quality research. The challenge is to produce quality research efficiently. finEye is striving to be the solution. Stay tuned!