Which types of analyst firms are more optimistic? |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Business, Providence College, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence, RI 02918, United States;2. Department of Finance, Real Estate and Business Law, University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, United States;3. Finance Department, The University of Tampa, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606, United States;1. McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 2110 Speedway, Stop B6400, Austin, TX 78712-1281, USA;2. School of Accounting, Florida International University, USA;1. School of Management, Hainan University, China;2. School of Accounting, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China;3. Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Australia;4. School of Management, Jinan University, China;1. Business School, Beijing Normal University, China;2. School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, China;3. School of Finance, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Research optimism among securities analysts has been attributed to incentives provided by underwriting activities. We examine how analysts’ forecast and recommendation optimism varies with the business activities used to fund research. We find that analysts at firms that funded research through underwriting and trading activities actually made less optimistic forecasts and recommendations than those at brokerage houses, who performed no underwriting. Optimism was particularly low for bulge underwriter firm analysts, implying that firm reputation reduces research optimism. There is also evidence that analysts at retail brokerage firms are more optimistic than those serving only institutional investors. We conclude that analyst optimism is at least partially driven by trading incentives. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
