IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/lnichp/978-3-030-86797-3_33.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Crowd Analysts vs. Institutional Analysts – A Comparative Study on Content and Opinion

In: Innovation Through Information Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Steffen Bankamp

    (University of Goettingen)

  • Nicole Neuss

    (University of Goettingen)

  • Jan Muntermann

    (University of Goettingen)

Abstract

The ongoing digital transformation shapes the world of information discovery and dissemination for investment decisions. Social investment platforms offer the possibility for non-professionals to publish financial analyst reports on company development and earnings forecast and give investment recommendations similar to those provided by traditional sell-side analysts. This phenomenon of “crowd analyst reports” has been found to provide an adequate alternative for non-professional investors. In this study, we examine the informational value of these crowd analyst reports regarding their timeliness in publishing and their originality as for content and opinion. Our findings suggest that crowd analysts strongly rely on previously published institutional reports. Therefore, crowd analysts do not pose a threat to institutional analysts at this time, however, they provide a more accessible information basis and improve decision-making for individual investors.

Suggested Citation

  • Steffen Bankamp & Nicole Neuss & Jan Muntermann, 2021. "Crowd Analysts vs. Institutional Analysts – A Comparative Study on Content and Opinion," Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, in: Frederik Ahlemann & Reinhard Schütte & Stefan Stieglitz (ed.), Innovation Through Information Systems, pages 492-508, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lnichp:978-3-030-86797-3_33
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-86797-3_33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    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:spr:lnichp:978-3-030-86797-3_33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.