Rewriting History

We document widespread ex post changes to the historical contents of the I/B/E/S analyst stock recommendations database. Across a sequence of seven downloads of the entire I/B/E/S recommendations database, obtained between 2000 and 2007, we find that between 6,594 (1.6%) and 97,579 (21.7%) of matched observations are different from one download to the next. The changes, which include alterations of recommendation levels, additions and deletions of records, and removal of analyst names, are non-random in nature: They cluster by analyst reputation, brokerage firm size and status, and recommendation boldness. The changes have a large and significant impact on the classification of trading signals and back-tests of three stylized facts: The profitability of trading signals, the profitability of changes in consensus recommendations, and persistence in individual analyst stock-picking ability

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investment Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate why banks pressured research analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s. This competitive strategy did little to directly increase a bank’s chances of winning lead-management mandates and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research and even the mere provision of research coverage for the issuer (regardless of its direction) attract co-management appointments. Co-management appointments are valuable because they help banks establish relationships with issuers. These relationships, in turn, substantially increase their chances of winning more lucrative lead-management mandates in the future. This is true even in the presence of historically exclusive banking relationships. If recent regulatory reforms compromise this entry mechanism, they may have the unintended consequence of diminishing competition among securities underwriters

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investments Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate the empirical puzzle why banks pressured their analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s when doing so apparently had little positive effect on their chances of receiving lead-management appointments and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research can attract co-management appointments and that co-management appointments eventually lead to more lucrative lead-management opportunities. Our results suggest a potential unintended anticompetitive effect of the Global Settlement if forcing greater separation of research and investment banking diminishes co-management opportunities for (and thereby potential competition from) marginal competitors in securities underwriting, especially in the debt markets

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investment Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate the empirical puzzle why banks pressured their analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s when doing so apparently had little positive effect on their chances of receiving lead-management appointments and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research can attract co-management appointments and that co-management appointments eventually lead to more lucrative lead-management opportunities. Our results suggest a potential unintended anticompetitive effect of the Global Settlement if forcing greater separation of research and investment banking diminishes co-management opportunities for (and thereby potential competition from) marginal competitors in securities underwriting, especially in the debt markets

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investments Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate the empirical puzzle why banks pressured their analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s when doing so apparently had little positive effect on their chances of receiving lead-management appointments and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research can attract co-management appointments and that co-management appointments eventually lead to more lucrative lead-management opportunities. Our results suggest a potential unintended anticompetitive effect of the Global Settlement if forcing greater separation of research and investment banking diminishes co-management opportunities for (and thereby potential competition from) marginal competitors in securities underwriting, especially in the debt markets

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investment Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate why banks pressured research analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s. This competitive strategy did little to directly increase a bank’s chances of winning lead-management mandates and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research and even the mere provision of research coverage for the issuer (regardless of its direction) attract co-management appointments. Co-management appointments are valuable because they help banks establish relationships with issuers. These relationships, in turn, substantially increase their chances of winning more lucrative lead-management mandates in the future. This is true even in the presence of historically exclusive banking relationships. If recent regulatory reforms compromise this entry mechanism, they may have the unintended consequence of diminishing competition among securities underwriters

Scaling the Hierarchy: How and Why Investment Banks Compete for Syndicate Co-Management Appointments

We investigate the empirical puzzle why banks pressured their analysts to provide aggressive assessments of issuing firms during the 1990s when doing so apparently had little positive effect on their chances of receiving lead-management appointments and ultimately led to regulatory penalties and costly structural reform. We show that aggressively optimistic research can attract co-management appointments and that co-management appointments eventually lead to more lucrative lead-management opportunities. Our results suggest a potential unintended anticompetitive effect of the Global Settlement if forcing greater separation of research and investment banking diminishes co-management opportunities for (and thereby potential competition from) marginal competitors in securities underwriting, especially in the debt markets

Conflicts of Interest in Sell-side Research and The Moderating Role of Institutional Investors

Because sell-side analysts are dependent on institutional investors for performance ratings and trading commissions, we argue that analysts are less likely to succumb to investment banking or brokerage pressure in stocks highly visible to institutional investors. Examining a comprehensive sample of analyst recommendations over the 1994-2000 period, we find that analysts’ recommendations relative to consensus are positively associated with investment banking relationships and brokerage pressure, but negatively associated with the presence of institutional investor owners. The presence of institutional investors is also associated with more accurate earnings forecasts and more timely re-ratings following severe share price falls

Pan-Cancer Analysis of lncRNA Regulation Supports Their Targeting of Cancer Genes in Each Tumor Context

Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are commonly dys-regulated in tumors, but only a handful are known toplay pathophysiological roles in cancer. We inferredlncRNAs that dysregulate cancer pathways, onco-genes, and tumor suppressors (cancer genes) bymodeling their effects on the activity of transcriptionfactors, RNA-binding proteins, and microRNAs in5,185 TCGA tumors and 1,019 ENCODE assays.Our predictions included hundreds of candidateonco- and tumor-suppressor lncRNAs (cancerlncRNAs) whose somatic alterations account for thedysregulation of dozens of cancer genes and path-ways in each of 14 tumor contexts. To demonstrateproof of concept, we showed that perturbations tar-geting OIP5-AS1 (an inferred tumor suppressor) andTUG1 and WT1-AS (inferred onco-lncRNAs) dysre-gulated cancer genes and altered proliferation ofbreast and gynecologic cancer cells. Our analysis in-dicates that, although most lncRNAs are dysregu-lated in a tumor-specific manner, some, includingOIP5-AS1, TUG1, NEAT1, MEG3, and TSIX, synergis-tically dysregulate cancer pathways in multiple tumorcontexts