A couple of points.
First, it's not entirely surprising that a fixed asset is valued at a lower value than what was paid for it. I'm pretty sure that depreciation of fixed assets is a common practice, and something that both analysts and journalists should be aware of. I'd also assume that not depreciating assets would incur the wrath of various regulatory bodies. If the asset is sold at below the depreciated value, then there is something to comment on.
As for the assertions made by various analysts, well, are they really worth the effort to report? Aren't analysts the kind of people who are completely unable to do any real work, incapable of creating anything useful? They sit, pontificating on the future of the world, and, should they be proved to be hopelessly wrong about every guess they've ever made, it's the fault of the company involved, for failing to live up to their expectations. I'd place more value in the predications of Gypsy Rose Lee and her tea-leaves than any self-appointed "analyst". I'd have very little faith in a report by an analyst who thinks that Kcom are "Kingston & Hull-headquartered" according to the techmarketreview website.