Information Misweighting and Stock Recommendations

I provide evidence that analysts whose earnings forecast revisions showed signs of greater exaggeration in the past make recommendation changes that lead to lower abnormal returns than their peers. Interpreting stock recommendations as a forecast of future abnormal returns, I show that this evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that analysts who typically exaggerate or overstate the weight of their private information when issuing forecasts also do so when making recommendations. I also show that past earnings forecast provide incremental information about analysts' recommending behavior beyond that contained in past recommendations.Information misweighting; stock recommendations; earnings forecasts; financial analysts

Do analysts know but not say? The case of goingconcern opinions

This study explores whether security analysts recognize firms’ going-concern problems and report appropriately to investors. We find that analysts signal their anticipation of the publication of a going-concern modified (GCM) audit report in two ways: 1) they downgrade more aggressively stock recommendations of GCM firms than stock recommendations of control firms as the event date approaches; 2) they are more likely to cease coverage of a GCM firm than a control firm over the one-year period prior to the GCM date. We further show that analysts react to the publication of an actual GCM audit report by stopping coverage of such firms immediately subsequent to the event disclosure. Our results suggest that analysts know that the future viability of GCM firms is jeopardized but do not say it clearly to retail investors, who constitute the main clientele of these firms. Consistent with the SEC concerns about analyst recommendations, we conclude that investors cannot rely solely on analyst recommendations since they are reluctant to report negatively (i.e, “underperform” or “sell”) even in this extreme bad news domain. We further conclude that analyst relative pessimism and coverage cessation is likely to be associated with negative expectations about firms’ future prospects.Analyst behaviour, stock recommendations, bad news announcements, goingconcern reports.

The Informational Content Of Changes In Stock Recommendation: Chaebol Vs. Non-Chaebol Affiliated Analysts

Accurate analysts’ reports alleviate information asymmetry between companies and investors by providing accounting information that is useful in investment decision-making for market participants. Investors evaluate the credibility of stock recommendations based on the accuracy of the earnings forecasts of analysts, applying them in the decision-making process. Studies of stock recommendations have focused on their informational content, systematically analyzing the characteristics of recommendations and, to a lesser degree, decision-making factors. For most analysts, when stock recommendations and forecast changes are simultaneously disclosed, a large bias results if analysts fail to consider the magnitude of the market reaction relative to the earnings forecast and stock recommendations. In most previous studies, the informational content of both individual stock recommendations and changes in stock recommendations was investigated. In this study, we examine differences in the informational content depending on the stock recommendations of the report released immediately previous to the current report for the same recommendation. An upgraded (or downgraded) revision within the same recommendation category is associated with a greater (lower) stock price return. Even the same recommendation in the market may cause different reactions depending on both the recommendation itself and on the direction of change of the recommendation. Affiliated analysts have more access to inside information of the companies they analyze. The stock returns after revisions of Chaebol-affiliated analysts are significantly higher than those of non-Chaebol-affiliated analysts

Underwriting relationships and analyst independence in Europe.

This paper examines the accuracy of security analysts' earnings forecasts and stock recommendations for firms in 13 European countries. We document at least three key findings. First, we find strong evidence that lead and co-lead underwriter analysts' earnings estimates and stock recommendations are significantly more optimistic than those provided by unaffiliated analysts. Second, we find that lead and co-lead underwriter analysts' earnings forecast and stock recommendations are significantly more optimistic for underwriter stocks than for those they provide for other stocks. Third, we also find evidence that these biases found within earnings forecasts and stock recommendations are not driven by one particular country. In short, these findings suggest that affiliated analysts are more optimistic perhaps to maintain investment banking relations

Published stock recommendations as investor sentiment in the near-term stock market

This paper investigates the role of published stock recommendations in print and online media as investor sentiment in the near-term German stock market. In line with extant literature on other sentiment measures, vector autoregressions reveal that past stock returns drive today's sentiment, but not the other way around, and that sentiment is a powerful predictor of itself. In particular, sentiment based on printed analyst recommendations follows reversals, that is, when analysts face a stock market downturn, they see a buying opportunity and become optimistic.analyst forecasts, investor sentiment, media content, VAR analysis

Customer Satisfaction, Analyst Stock Recommendations, and Firm Value

Although managers are interested in the financial value of customers and researchers point out the importance of stock analysts who advise investors, no studies seem to have explored the implications of customer satisfaction for analyst stock recommendations. On the basis of a large-scale longitudinal dataset, the authors find that positive changes in customer satisfaction not only improve analyst recommendations but also lower dispersion in those recommendations for the firm. These effects are stronger when product market competition is high and financial market uncertainty is large. Also, analyst recommendations at least partially mediate the effects of changes in satisfaction on firm abnormal return, systematic risk, and idiosyncratic risk. Analyst recommendations represent a mechanism through which customer satisfaction affects firm value. Thus, if analysts pay attention to Main Street customer satisfaction, then Wall Street investors should have good reason to listen and follow. Overall, our research reveals satisfaction’s impact on analyst-based outcomes and firm value metrics and calls attention to the construct of customer satisfaction as a key intangible asset for the investor community