Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe examine the extent to which security analysts are homogeneous in their effect on firm valuation as measured by Tobin's Q. Earlier research documents a significant and positive relation between analyst coverage and firm valuation. We identify three classes of equity analysts and examine their differential effect on firm valuation associated with their coverage and their information production. We find that equity analysts are not homogeneous in their effect on firm valuation. The presence of analysts at national securities firms have the strongest effect on firm valuation followed by analysts at regional securities firms and finally analysts at nonbrokerage, or research, firms. We attribute this result to the differential monitoring and information dissemination function rendered by the analysts. Information produced by analysts, however, does not share the same credibility. Specifically, we find brokerage firms' buy recommendations are discounted by the market and have a weak effect on firm valuation. The results can be supported by arguments that brokerage firm analysts' recommendations are contaminated by their firms' investment banking relations with corporations.

AbstractIn this article we examine whether star‐analysts have better forecasting abilities than non‐star‐analysts. Our results reveal that star‐analysts' earnings forecasts outperform their peers' forecasts. Because the level of corporate governance plays an important role for the general level of forecast accuracy, we furthermore investigate whether star‐analysts benefit from higher levels of governance. Our findings suggest that forecast accuracy of star‐analysts increases with the level of both country‐ and company‐specific corporate governance. Investors in capital markets do not seem to be aware of this fact because they do not react differently to forecasts issued by star‐analysts compared to those of non‐star‐analysts.

We investigate how the relationship between status and performance decouples over time by addressing two questions: (1) how performance affects the likelihood that an actor achieves high status and (2) how achieving high status affects the actor's subsequent performance. In doing so, we focus on the role repeated certification contests play, where evaluators assess actors' performance along particular dimensions and confer high status on the contest winners. Using the context of sell-side (brokerage) equity analysts and the "All-Star" list from Institutional Investor magazine, we first investigate whether analysts who make the All-Star list are more likely to produce accurate and/or independent forecasts. Then, we investigate analyst performance after recent and multiple wins. Our results demonstrate the decoupling of status and performance over time and the roles played by both the high-status actor and the social evaluators conferring their status. Whereas analyst performance increases the likelihood of being designated an All-Star, recent and multiple All-Star designations differentially affect both how subsequent performance is assessed, and how the All-Star analysts subsequently perform. In the short term, achieving high status can increase performance and solidify an analyst's status position; however, in the long term, it can lead to lower performance and eventually result in status loss, which further erodes performance.