Alright, imagine you're in a big toy store, and there are several really cool toys that you might want to buy. These toys represent different companies, or stocks, on the stock market.

Some smart people, called analysts, go around the toy store checking out all the toys, playing with them, and giving their opinion on which toys (companies) are really great and which ones aren't as good.

In this news story, some of these analysts changed their minds about certain toys. Here's what they said:

1. **Biogen Inc.** (BIIB): An analyst named Ami Fadia thought BIIB was awesome and suggested buying it before. But now, she thinks it's just okay, so she says to hold onto your BIIB toy if you have it.

2. **Matson, Inc.** (MATX): Another analyst, Jacob Lacks, used to think MATX was better than other toys in its category, but now he thinks it's similar to the others.

3. **Pinnacle West Capital Corporation** (PNW): An analyst named Nicholas Campanella thought PNW was one of the best toys before. But now, he thinks it's just okay too and changed his price suggestion a little bit.

4. **Fortive Corporation** (FTV) and **Curtiss-Wright Corporation** (CW): Two different analysts downgraded these stocks from "buy" to "hold." That means they used to think these toys were really cool, but now they think they're just pretty good.

So, in simple terms, these analysts are sharing their updated opinions on certain stocks – some think the stocks are still good, while others think they've become less appealing. It's like when you grow out of a toy and decide it's not as exciting anymore! Read from source...

Here are some potential critique points for the given article on analyst rating changes:

1. **Lack of Context**: The article merely states that analysts changed their ratings but doesn't provide context as to why these changes occurred. Understanding the reasons behind these changes could help readers make more informed decisions.

2. **No Comparison with Historical Ratings**: The article does not compare the new ratings with the historical ones, making it hard for readers to understand the magnitude of change and whether the analyst had a consistent view on the stock.

3. **Inconsistent Use of Analyst Terminology**: Different firms use different terminologies for their ratings (e.g., Buy vs Outperform). The article could benefit from standardizing these terms or explaining how they compare.

4. **Biased Language**: Some analysts' report excerpts might come across as overly positive or negative about the stocks, which could influence readers' perceptions without them realizing it.

5. **Emotional Behavior**: The article doesn't include any sentiment analysis or discuss how market sentiment might be influencing these rating changes.

6. **Lack of Alternate Viewpoints**: The article only presents one analyst's view on each stock. Including views from other analysts who have different ratings could provide a more balanced perspective.

7. **No Performance Track Record**: The article doesn't mention the track record or success rate of the analysts making these changes, which is important information for evaluating their judgments.

8. **Lack of Impact Assessment**: The article doesn't discuss how these rating changes might impact the stock prices or provide any historical data on how such changes have affected stocks in the past.

9. **Clickbait Title and Introduction**: The title "Top Wall Street analysts changed their outlook on these top names" could be considered clickbait, as it doesn't specify what the changes were (upgrade/downgrade) or which specific companies were involved. Similarly, the introduction could be more concise and to the point.

10. **Repetitive Format**: The article follows a repetitive format for each analyst change mentioned, which might make it less engaging to read.

The article mainly discusses downgrades and doesn't mention upgrades. Here are the sentiments for each part:

1. **Biogen Inc. (BIIB)** - Downgrade from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Sentiment: Negative/Bearish

2. **Matson, Inc. (MATX)** - Downgrade from 'Outperform' to 'Peer Perform'
- Sentiment: Negative/Bearish

3. **Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PNW)** - Downgrade from 'Overweight' to 'Equal-Weight'
- Sentiment: Negative/Bearish

4. **Fortive Corporation (FTV)** - Downgrade from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Sentiment: Negative/Bearish

5. **Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW)** - Downgrade from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Sentiment: Negative/Bearish

Therefore, the overall sentiment of the article is bearish and negative due to the downgrades mentioned.

Here are comprehensive investment recommendations, price targets, upside/downside potentials, and risks associated with the mentioned stocks based on recent analyst downgrades:

1. **Biogen Inc. (BIIB)**
- Recommendation: Downgraded from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Price Target: $270
- Upside/Downside: ~64% upside potential as of Friday's close ($159.99)
- Risks:
- Alzheimer's disease treatment Aduhelm faces limited uptake and reimbursement challenges.
- dependence on a few key products, such as Spinraza, for revenue growth.
- Competition in the multiple sclerosis (MS) market from generic versions of its drugs.
- Analyst: Ami Fadia, Needham

2. **Matson, Inc. (MATX)**
- Recommendation: Downgraded from 'Outperform' to 'Peer Perform'
- Price Target: Not updated
- Upside/Downside: ~3% downside potential as of Friday's close ($160.65)
- Risks:
- Dependence on the Intra-Asia shipments and Hawaiian trade for revenue.
- Volatility in fuel prices affecting cost structure.
- Potential slowdown in international trade and consumption growth.
- Analyst: Jacob Lacks, Wolfe Research

3. **Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PNW)**
- Recommendation: Downgraded from 'Overweight' to 'Equal-Weight'
- Price Target: Lowered from $93 to $91
- Upside/Downside: ~0.2% downside potential as of Friday's close ($91.88)
- Risks:
- Dependence on electric utility operations in Arizona.
- Regulatory risks related to rates and permitting processes.
- Potential volatility in input costs, such as wholesale electricity prices.
- Analyst: Nicholas Campanella, Barclays

4. **Fortive Corporation (FTV)**
- Recommendation: Downgraded from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Price Target: Not updated
- Upside/Downside: ~19% upside potential as of Friday's close ($74.82)
- Risks:
- Exposure to economic cycles, with demand for its products linked to industrial activity and capital expenditures.
- Dependence on a few key customers in certain industries, such as aerospace and defense.
- Potential currency fluctuations impacting international operations.
- Analyst: John Eade, Argus Research

5. **Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW)**
- Recommendation: Downgraded from 'Buy' to 'Hold'
- Price Target: $370
- Upside/Downside: ~3% upside potential as of Friday's close ($358.35)
- Risks:
- Dependence on defense and commercial aerospace markets for revenue growth.
- Exposure to geopolitical instability and government spending patterns.
- Potential supply chain disruptions impacting production and operations.
- Analyst: Nathan Jones, Stifel