Have M&A delistings negatively impacted U.S. capital markets? Evidence from the effect on industry peer firms

We provide evidence of negative information spillovers associated with delistings from mergers and acquisitions (M&A delistings), a key factor in the long-term decline in the number of publicly listed firms in the U.S. Specifically, we show that M&A delistings are associated with a decrease in the quality of analysts’ information environment (increased absolute forecast errors and dispersion) for targets’ industry peer firms; these results are stronger when targets are larger, and for public targets than for private targets. Additional tests, including a falsification test using non-completed M&As, suggest that our results are robust to endogeneity concerns arising from industry-level shocks

Analyst Pessimism and Forecast Timing

In this study, we show that on average relatively pessimistic analysts tend to reveal their earnings forecasts later than other analysts. Further, we find this forecast timing effect explains a substantial proportion of the well-known decrease in consensus analyst forecast optimism over the forecast period prior to earnings announcements, which helps explain why analysts’ longer term earnings forecasts are more optimistically biased than their shorter term forecasts. We extend McNichols and O’Brien’s (1997) and Hayes’ (1998) theory concerning analyst self-selection to argue that analysts with a relatively pessimistic view - compared to other analysts - are more reluctant to issue their earnings forecasts, with the result that they tend to defer revealing their earnings forecasts until later in the forecasting period than other analysts

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Alternative evidence on financial analysts' use of financial statement information

Purpose – Financial analysts are frequently viewed as information intermediaries who process and interpret firms' financial reports for other market participants. Much recent research, however, has cast doubts on analysts' ability to fully utilize the information in firms' financial reports. Using an alternative approach, this study aims to provide evidence on how sophisticated analysts are at using information in firms' financial reports. Design/methodology/approach – The paper estimates different measures of firms' operational efficiency, all of which are derived from financial statement data, and compares the strength of the association between these measures and analysts' absolute forecast errors. It then compares a sophisticated frontier-based measure of firms' operational efficiency that evaluates firms' performance relative to their competitors with three more traditional efficiency measures; specifically the return on asset (ROA) ratio, industry-adjusted ROA, and the return on equity ratio. Findings – The results indicate that the more sophisticated frontier-based measure is more strongly negatively associated with analysts' absolute forecast errors than the other three measures. The results thus suggest that analysts are capable of undertaking a sophisticated analysis of the information in firms' financial reports, at least as it pertains to operational efficiency. Originality/value – To the extent that analysts serve as a key group of users of financial information, these results are likely to be of interest to accounting policy makers.Accounting information, Financial analysis, Financial reporting

Firms’ Relative Operational Efficiency and Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts

Relatively more efficient firms tend to maintain more stable levels of output and operating performance compared to their industry peers (Mills and Schumann 1985). Such firms also tend to have more sustainable performance (Berger et al. 1993). Given their more stable and sustainable levels of operating performance, we test the related prediction that financial analysts find the earnings of relatively more efficient firms to be more predictable. Using a stochastic frontier approach to measure firms’ relative operational efficiency, we find that analysts face less earnings uncertainty for relatively more efficient firms, compared to other firms in the same industry. We find that this broader more encompassing measure of firms’ relative operational efficiency yields stronger results than comparable accounting ratios (ROA and ROE). These results indicate that analysts behave as if they factor into their forecasts an understanding of the underlying economics of a business of an industry. Furthermore, the users of these forecasts can also benefit from this information in terms of assessing the level of reliability of forecasts.Relative Operational Efficiency, Return on Assets, Return on Equity, Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts, Earnings Uncertainty.