The integrity of stock research analysts reached its nadir back when the dotcom bubble imploded in the early 2000s. Their role was roundly criticized, and all the top investment banks were forced into a settlement with the SEC aimed at returning the research industry back to something resembling a collection of objective analysts putting out honest research instead a valued arm of the investment bankers.

The LinkedIn IPO and after market activity has kindled up memories of that bygone--we thought--era. The stock went public at $45 and then doubled on its first day of trading. It rose to nearly $110 before falling all the way down to $60. But then stock analysts who happen to work for the big banks that served as lead underwriter for the offering--JPMorgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley--all weighed in with bullish reports that helped spark a rebound in the stock price.

As noted by Fortune, "JP Morgan gave the stock an 'overweight' rating--Wall Street's version of a meddling aunt who thinks you should really eat more--and put an $85 price target on it. Morgan Stanley slapped a 'buy' rating on the stock and envisioned a price of $88 in its future. Bank of America saw that price target and raised it to $92." This for a stock trading at "27 times sales and 510 times it earnings over the past 12 months."

Other analysts are also bullish, though cynics might be troubled that highest valuations have come from analysts working for the underwriters, who are supposed to be independent and separated from the bankers by firewalls. This does have the feel of the old dotcom days. Or is the company truly another FaceBook? We'll see.

For more:
- here's the Fortune article

Related articles:
Morgan Stanley clients losing on LinkedIn bet   
IPO debate continues to rage   
IPO issues-a perfect storm of innovation, technology, compliance