Is Sell‐Side Research More Valuable in Bad Times?

Because uncertainty is high in bad times, investors find it harder to assess firm prospects and hence should value analyst output more. However, higher uncertainty makes analysts’ tasks harder, so it is unclear whether analyst output is more valuable in bad times. We find that in bad times, analyst revisions have a larger stock‐price impact, earnings forecast errors per unit of uncertainty fall, and analyst reports are more frequent and longer. The increased impact of analysts is also more pronounced for harder‐to‐value firms. These results are consistent with analysts working harder and investors relying more on analysts in bad times.     

Hedge funds and their prime broker analysts

Are sell-side analysts reluctant to go against the investment views of their hedge funds when these hedge funds are their prime brokerage clients? We show that prime broker analysts tend to upgrade stocks recently bought by their clients. For stocks with upgraded recommendations, post-announcement cumulative abnormal returns are significantly lower for those purchased by the prime brokerage clients. Our results are stronger with high-dollar-turnover clients who generate more trading commissions. We also find that a hedge fund with a large bet on a stock has a stronger incentive to pressure the fund’s prime brokers to issue a favorable recommendation on the stock. Results are not driven by stocks of firms with low analyst coverage or small size.     

Do investment banks listen to their own analysts?

To what extent conflicts of interest affect the investment value of sell-side analyst research is an ongoing debate. We approach this issue from a new direction by investigating how asset-management divisions of investment banks use stock recommendations issued by their own analysts. Based on holdings changes around initiations, upgrades, and downgrades from 1993 to 2003, we find that these bank-affiliated investors follow recommendations from sell-side analysts in general, increasing (decreasing) their relative holdings following positive (negative) recommendations. More importantly, these investors respond more strongly to recommendations issued by their own analysts than to those issued by analysts affiliated with other banks, especially for recommendations on small and low-analyst-coverage firms. Thus, we find that investment banks “eat their own cooking,” showing that these presumably sophisticated institutional investors view sell-side recommendations as having investment value, particularly when the recommendations come from their own analysts.     

Earnings management around employee stock option reissues

We investigate market behavior in a setting where managerial incentives to manipulate earnings and market price should be apparent ex ante to market participants. We find evidence of abnormally low discretionary accruals in the period following announcements of cancellations of executive stock options up to the time the options are reissued. Nevertheless, analysts and investors are not misled. Discretionary accruals have little power in explaining stock price performance during this period. Moreover, discretionary accruals do not explain subsequent analyst forecast errors. Thus, our findings suggest that, in this transparent setting, analysts and investors do not respond to earnings management.     

证券分析师VS统计模型:证券分析师盈余预测的相对准确性及其决定因素

本文使用2005年35家券商对我国上市公司做出的每股盈余预测数据,考察了证券分析师盈余预测相对于统计模型的相对准确性及其决定因素。我们发现,我国证券分析师做出的盈余预测,同以年度历史数据为基础的统计模型得出的盈余预测相比,预测误差较小,证券分析师盈余预测具有一定的优势;但同某些以季度历史数据为基础的统计模型得出的盈余预测相比,预测误差较大,证券分析师盈余预测不具有优势。我们同时考察了决定证券分析师盈余预测相对准确性的决定因素。我们发现,公司每股盈余的波动性越大,公司上市越晚,跟踪公司的分析师越多,证券分析师的优势就越大。我们的研究对证券分析师以及投资者都有一定的启示作用。     

Analyst estimation revision clusters and corporate events, Part II

Summary In Part I of this study, we evaluated the relative usefulness of information in alternative corporate information events (CIEs) to analysts by examining the frequency with which they trigger clusters of analysts’ earnings estimate revisions. In Part II, we examine investor response to various CIEs and their revision clusters. We find that stock prices react most strongly and adjust most quickly to revision clusters that accompany CIEs that focus on financial statement information. CIEs that offer strategic information take longer for analysts and investors to assimilate, and investors appear to rely heavily on later analyst revisions following such events.     

Inside the “Black Box” of Sell‐Side Financial Analysts

Our objective is to penetrate the “black box” of sell‐side financial analysts by providing new insights into the inputs analysts use and the incentives they face. We survey 365 analysts and conduct 18 follow‐up interviews covering a wide range of topics, including the inputs to analysts’ earnings forecasts and stock recommendations, the value of their industry knowledge, the determinants of their compensation, the career benefits of Institutional Investor All‐Star status, and the factors they consider indicative of high‐quality earnings. One important finding is that private communication with management is a more useful input to analysts’ earnings forecasts and stock recommendations than their own primary research, recent earnings performance, and recent 10‐K and 10‐Q reports. Another notable finding is that issuing earnings forecasts and stock recommendations that are well below the consensus often leads to an increase in analysts’ credibility with their investing clients. We conduct cross‐sectional analyses that highlight the impact of analyst and brokerage characteristics on analysts’ inputs and incentives. Our findings are relevant to investors, managers, analysts, and academic researchers.     

Institutional investor horizon and stock price synchronicity: Do product market competition and analyst coverage matter?

This paper provides new insights into the relation between institutional investment horizon and stock price synchronicity and investigates whether this relationship depends on the intensity of product market competition and analyst coverage. Based on a sample of French listed companies, we find that long-term (short-term) institutional investors are associated with lower (higher) stock price synchronicity. The results also show that the negative effect of long-term institutional investors is more accentuated for firms in less competitive markets and with high analyst coverage. An additional analysis shows that the synchronicity reduction effect does not vary during the financial crisis. Overall, these findings suggest that unlike their short-term counterparts, long term investors reduce asymmetric information and help disseminate firm-specific information into stock prices.     

Stock index adjustments and analysts’ forecast optimism: A quasi-natural experiment on the CSI 300 Index

As stock index adjustments comprise a basic system of capital market, their potential influence on analysts’ earnings forecasts is worthy of research. Based on a research sample of 23 adjustments to the CSI 300 Index from June 2007 to June 2018 and the backup stocks announced during the same period, this study examines the impact of additions to stock index on analysts’ forecast optimism using a staggered difference-in-differences model. The research results show that after stocks are added to the stock index, analysts’ earnings forecast optimism about these stocks increases significantly. Cross-sectional analysis indicates that this increase is more significant when the market is bullish, institutional ownership is low, the ratio of listed brokerage firms is low, star analyst coverage is low, firms show seasoned equity offering activity, the ratio of analysts from the top five brokerage firms ranked by commission income is high, and the analysts’ brokerage firms are shareholders. However, analyst-level tests find that analysts’ ability helps to reduce the impact of additions to stock index on earnings forecast optimism. Furthermore, additions to stock index significantly increase analyst coverage and forecast divergence. Economic consequences tests find additions to stock index significantly increases stock price synchronization, which is partly mediated by analysts’ earnings forecast optimism. This study enriches the literature on the impact of basic capital market systems and analyst behavior. The findings suggest that investors should rationally evaluate analysts’ earnings forecasts for stocks added to the stock index and obtain further information from various channels to improve asset allocation efficiency.     

Institutional investor information network,analyst forecasting and stock price crash risk

In this paper, we construct the information network of fund investors based on the theory of social relationship networks and examine its impact of fund information sharing with analysts on stock price crash risk. Our results show that private information sharing among institutional investors reduces crash risk. Further results show that fund information sharing can alleviate analyst optimism bias and improve analyst forecast accuracy, which further reduces stock price crash risk. Moreover, these identified effects are more pronounced in a bull market than a bear market. Our study contributes to the research on private information transmission in fund information networks, and provides a new perspective for recognizing the relationships among institutional investor behavior, analyst forecasting, and stock price crash risk.     

Predicting earnings in a poor information environment

Financial intermediaries, such as analysts, play an important role in providing information to investors. However, a large segment of the market (about 39% of CRSP firms between 1992 and 2009) is not served by financial analysts, leaving investors in a poor information environment. In this paper, we examine whether other publicly available information signals, such as insider trades, institutional holdings, and firms’ stock repurchases, can be used to predict information about earnings for these firms. We find that CFOs’ trading decisions are associated with new information contained in the annual earnings reports for firms with no or scant analyst coverage. In contrast, for firms with multiple analyst coverage, insider trading decisions are not predictive of new information in earnings reports. Our results suggest that some public information signals, such as insider trades, can be used to alleviate the poor information environment faced by investors. However, the market may not have fully priced the information contained in these signals.     

Do local analysts know more? A cross-country study of the performance of local analysts and foreign analysts

This paper examines whether analysts resident in a country make more precise earnings forecasts for firms in that country than non-resident analysts. Using a sample of 32 countries, we find an economically and statistically significant local analyst advantage even after controlling for firm and analyst characteristics. The local advantage is high in countries where earnings are smoothed more, less information is disclosed by firms, and firm idiosyncratic information explains a smaller fraction of stock returns. It is negatively related to whether a firm has foreign assets and to market participation by foreign investors and by institutions, and positively related to holdings by insiders. The extent to which U.S. investors underweight a country's stocks is positively related to that country's local analyst advantage.     

Wall Street analysts as investor relations officers

This paper examines the practice of hiring financial analysts as investor relations officers (IRO). We posit that analysts-turned-IROs (AIROs) have a competitive advantage in communicating with investors, thereby lowering the effort expended by the investment community to process corporate disclosures. Using a unique manually-collected dataset on the employment history of IROs compiled from LinkedIn, Capital IQ, RelationshipScience.com, and appointment press releases, we show that disclosure readability in 8-K and 10-K filings improves and that companies are more likely to host analyst/investor days after hiring former analysts as IROs. Most importantly, we find increases in analyst following, institutional investors, and stock liquidity after hiring a former analyst as IRO. We conclude that both a disclosure and a network channel are at play in the relation between AIROs and increased interest from the investment community. Overall, our findings suggest that firms benefit from hiring Wall Street analysts as IROs.     

The Client Is King: Do Mutual Fund Relationships Bias Analyst Recommendations?

This paper investigates whether the business relations between mutual funds and brokerage firms influence sell‐side analyst recommendations. Using a unique data set that discloses brokerage firms’ commission income derived from each mutual fund client as well as the share holdings of these mutual funds, we find that an analyst's recommendation on a stock relative to consensus is significantly higher if the stock is held by the mutual fund clients of the analyst's brokerage firm. The optimism in analyst recommendations increases with the weight of the stock in a mutual fund client's portfolio and the commission revenue generated from the mutual fund client. However, this favorable recommendation bias toward a client's existing portfolio stocks is mitigated if the stock in question is highly visible to other mutual fund investors. Abnormal stock returns are significantly greater both for the announcement period and, in the long run, for favorable stock recommendations from analysts not subject to client pressure than for equally favorable recommendations from business‐related analysts. In addition, we find that, subsequent to announcements of bad news from the covered firms, analysts are significantly less likely to downgrade a stock held by client mutual funds. Mutual funds increase their holdings in a stock that receives a favorable recommendation but this impact is significantly reduced if the recommendation comes from analysts subject to client pressure.     

Ownership,analyst coverage,and stock synchronicity in China

This study examines how ownership structure affects the information environment of publicly traded firms in China. We hypothesize that concentrated ownership and the associated separation of ultimate control and ownership rights create agency conflicts between controlling shareholders and minority investors leading controlling owners to withhold firm-specific information from the market. We test this hypothesis by analyzing the effect of ultimate ownership structure and analyst coverage on stock return synchronicity. We find that a greater separation of control and ownership rights increases the response coefficient of stock return synchronicity to analyst coverage. This result is robust to endogeneity, a series of robustness checks, and an alternative hypothesis based on noise trading. The incentive of controlling owners to limit firm transparency thus leads analysts to disseminate more market-wide information.     

Analyst underreaction and the post-forecast revision drift

The post-forecast revision drift (PFRD), the phenomenon of delayed stock price reactions to analyst forecast revisions, is a well-documented market anomaly. Prior research attributes PFRD to underreaction by investors to analyst forecast revisions. This study investigates the role of the analyst forecast revision process itself in the PFRD anomaly. Using a large sample of US firms, we confirm prior findings of a positive serial correlation (momentum) in individual analysts’ revisions to their earnings forecasts and, based on both indirect and direct tests, document a positive association between this momentum and PFRD. Further analyses reveal that both the forecast revision momentum and PFRD vary in similar ways with respect to the nature of the news driving the revisions and the information environment. Collectively, our findings show that underreaction by individual analysts in the forecast revision process is an important contributor to the PFRD phenomenon.     

The effects of firms’ information environment on analysts’ herding behavior

We find financial analysts herd to a greater degree in firms with more opaque information environments as measured by the incidence of short-term institutional investors present. The S-statistic, a measure of forecast bias, and forecast timing and quality metrics are used to measure analyst herding behavior. The results are consistent with the notion that opaque information environments are more conducive to analysts engaging in reputational herding behavior where more capable analysts act first and less capable analysts follow. Additionally, analysts are more likely to issue forecast revisions subsequent to management earnings guidance in less opaque environments. Robustness tests indicate our operational measure of opacity is not subsumed by other measures of the information environment, namely information asymmetry.     

Investor attention and information diffusion from analyst coverage

This study examines the impact of investor attention and analyst coverage on the diffusion of information. Using trading turnover as a proxy for investor attention, the results show that attention is crucial to the information diffusion from financial analysts. The effect of analyst coverage on improving stock synchronicity is greater when investors are more attentive. Firms with less analyst coverage rely more heavily on investor attention to assimilate information. The lead–lag effect in high and low analyst-following firms is driven by the relative more attention given to firms that have high analyst coverage.     

Professional stock analysts' recommendations: Implications for individual investors

Conclusions regarding analyst performance often depend on the evaluation technique employed. Using a wide variety of techniques, we find that although there is some evidence that analysts do have the ability to identify undervalued and overvalued securities, individual investors generally experience inferior portfolio performance by following analyst recommendations published in the “Market Highlights” section of USA Today (even before transaction costs are included). As a result, individual investors should view studies that purport to show superior performance with skepticism. This statement is particularly true when the assertions are based on stock index comparisons.