The Cross Section of Analyst Recommendations
We analyze the price reaction to analysts' revisions by testing the Griffin and Tversky (1992) hypothesis that agents place emphasis on the strength of the signal (the dramatic nature of the event) and may de-emphasize the weight (the ability of the analyst making the recommendation). Two attributes, namely, years of experience and the reputation of the analysts' brokerage houses form proxies for analyst ability (or weight) that we validate by documenting that revisions by high ability analysts outperform those by low ability ones. We find evidence of return persistence following small (low strength) revisions by high ability analysts and the opposite return pattern following large (high strength) revisions of low ability analysts, consistent with the arguments of Griffin and Tversky (1992). Our study provides an empirical link between evidence on individual decision making and stock market returns, and also helps promote an understanding of the analyst industry as well as its interaction with the investing population.
Volume (Year): 41 (2006)
Issue (Month): 01 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK|
Web page: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_JFQ
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
- Mitchell, Mark L & Stafford, Erik, 2000.
"Managerial Decisions and Long-Term Stock Price Performance,"
The Journal of Business,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(3), pages 287-329, July.
- Mark L. Mitchell & Erik Stafford, 1997. "Managerial Decisions and Long-Term Stock Price Performance," CRSP working papers 453, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
- Daniel, Kent & Titman, Sheridan, 1997. " Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 1-33, March.
- Kent Daniel & Sheridan Titman, 1996. "Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 5604, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
- Irvine, Paul J., 2003. "The incremental impact of analyst initiation of coverage," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 431-451, September.
- Michaely, Roni & Womack, Kent L, 1999. "Conflict of Interest and the Credibility of Underwriter Analyst Recommendations," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(4), pages 653-686.
- Brennan, Michael J. & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1995. "Investment analysis and price formation in securities markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 361-381, July.
- Amihud, Yakov & Mendelson, Haim, 1986. "Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 223-249, December.
- Rodney D. Boehme & Sorin M. Sorescu, 2002. "The Long-run Performance Following Dividend Initiations and Resumptions: Underreaction or Product of Chance?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 871-900, April.
- Harrison Hong & Jeffrey D. Kubik, 2003. "Analyzing the Analysts: Career Concerns and Biased Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(1), pages 313-351, February.
- Dimson, Elroy & Marsh, Paul R, 1984. " An Analysis of Brokers' and Analysts' Unpublished Forecasts of UK Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(5), pages 1257-1292, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)