IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Favorable versus Unfavorable Recommendations: The Impact on Analyst Access to Management-Provided Information




This study examines recent regulatory and practitioner concerns that managers provide more (less) information to analysts with more (less) favorable stock recommendations. We examine the relative forecast accuracy of analysts before and after a recommendation issuance under the assumption that increases (decreases) in management-provided information will increase (decrease) analysts' relative forecast accuracy. We find that analysts issuing more favorable recommendations experience a greater increase in their relative forecast accuracy compared with analysts with less favorable recommendations. Additional tests on the change in frequency with which analysts issue forecasts independent of or in conjunction with other analysts after their recommendation change yield corroborating results. In addition, we find that the greater increase in relative accuracy for analysts with more favorable recommendations exists prior to the passage of Regulation FD but not after. The combined results are consistent with analysts receiving relatively more management-provided information following the issuance of more favorable recommendations. Copyright University of Chicago on behalf of the Institute of Professional Accounting, 2006.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuping Chen & Dawn A. Matsumoto, 2006. "Favorable versus Unfavorable Recommendations: The Impact on Analyst Access to Management-Provided Information," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 657-689, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:44:y:2006:i:4:p:657-689

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:jiaata:v:29:y:2017:i:c:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:eee:ecmode:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:203-214 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Xueming Luo & Heli Wang & Sascha Raithel & Qinqin Zheng, 2015. "Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 123-136, January.
    4. Lauren Cohen & Andrea Frazzini & Christopher J. Malloy, 2012. "Hiring Cheerleaders: Board Appointments of "Independent" Directors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1039-1058, June.
    5. Anderson, Ronald C. & Reeb, David M. & Zhang, Yuzhao & Zhao, Wanli, 2013. "The efficacy of regulatory intervention: Evidence from the distribution of informed option trading," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4337-4352.
    6. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Gerald Lobo & Robert Mathieu, 2012. "CEO stock options and analysts’ forecast accuracy and bias," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 299-322, April.
    7. repec:eee:corfin:v:45:y:2017:i:c:p:104-121 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Bok Baik & Kyonghee Kim & Richard Morton & Yongoh Roh, 2016. "Analysts’ pre-tax income forecasts and the tax expense anomaly," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 559-595, June.
    9. Green, T. Clifton & Jame, Russell & Markov, Stanimir & Subasi, Musa, 2014. "Access to management and the informativeness of analyst research," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 239-255.
    10. Beyer, Anne & Cohen, Daniel A. & Lys, Thomas Z. & Walther, Beverly R., 2010. "The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 296-343, December.
    11. Feng, Xunan & Hu, Na & Johansson, Anders C., 2016. "Ownership, analyst coverage, and stock synchronicity in China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 79-96.
    12. repec:eee:finmar:v:36:y:2017:i:c:p:1-16 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Gallemore, John & Labro, Eva, 2015. "The importance of the internal information environment for tax avoidance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 149-167.
    14. Bosquet, K. & de Goeij, P. C. & Smedts, K., 2009. "Coexistence and Dynamics of Overconfidence and Strategic Incentives," Discussion Paper 2009-81, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. repec:eee:aosoci:v:58:y:2017:i:c:p:15-31 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Chen, Shuping & Matsumoto, Dawn & Rajgopal, Shiva, 2011. "Is silence golden? An empirical analysis of firms that stop giving quarterly earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 134-150.
    17. Huang, Haozhi & Li, Mingsheng & Shi, Jing, 2016. "Which matters: “Paying to play” or stable business relationship? Evidence on analyst recommendation and mutual fund commission fee payment," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 403-423.
    18. Lauren Cohen & Dong Lou & Christopher Malloy, 2013. "Playing Favorites: How Firms Prevent the Revelation of Bad News," NBER Working Papers 19429, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Corredor, Pilar & Ferrer, Elena & Santamaria, Rafael, 2014. "Is cognitive bias really present in analyst forecasts? The role of investor sentiment," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 824-837.
    20. Bosquet, Katrien & de Goeij, Peter & Smedts, Kristien, 2014. "Gender heterogeneity in the sell-side analyst recommendation issuing process," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 104-111.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:44:y:2006:i:4:p:657-689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.