IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

When Are Analyst Recommendation Changes Influential?

  • Loh, Roger K.

    (Singapore Management University)

  • Stulz, Rene M.

    (Ohio State University and ECGI)

Not all stock recommendation changes are equal. In a sample constructed to minimize the impact of confounding news, relatively few analyst recommendation changes are influential in the sense that they impact investors’ beliefs about a firm in a way that could be noticed in that firm’s stock returns. More than one-third of the stock-price reactions to analyst recommendation changes have the wrong sign and only approximately 10% have significant stock-price reactions at the 5% level using an extended market model. We find that the probability of an influential recommendation is higher for leader analysts, star analysts, away-from-consensus revisions, revisions issued contemporaneously with earnings forecasts, analysts with greater relative experience, and those with more accurate earnings estimates. Growth firms, small firms, high institutional ownership firms, and high prior turnover firms are also more likely to have influential stock recommendations. Strikingly, analyst recommendations are more likely to be influential after Reg FD and the settlement. Finally, influential recommendations are associated with increases in stock volatility and large absolute changes in consensus earnings forecasts.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/dice/papers/2009/2009-7.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics in its series Working Paper Series with number 2009-7.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2009-7
Contact details of provider: Phone: (614) 292-8449
Web page: http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/dice/list.htm
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Ulrike Malmendier & Devin Shanthikumar, 2004. "Are Investors Naive About Incentives?," NBER Working Papers 10812, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Harrison Hong & Jeremy C. Stein, 2003. "Simple Forecasts and Paradigm Shifts," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 2007, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  3. Boni, Leslie & Womack, Kent L., 2006. "Analysts, Industries, and Price Momentum," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(01), pages 85-109, March.
  4. Barber, Brad M. & Lehavy, Reuven & McNichols, Maureen & Trueman, Brett, 2006. "Buys, holds, and sells: The distribution of investment banks' stock ratings and the implications for the profitability of analysts' recommendations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 87-117, April.
  5. Alexander Ljungqvist & Christopher Malloy & Felicia Marston, 2009. "Rewriting History," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(4), pages 1935-1960, 08.
  6. Karl B. Diether & Christopher J. Malloy & Anna Scherbina, 2002. "Differences of Opinion and the Cross Section of Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(5), pages 2113-2141, October.
  7. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, 2006. "The Value Premium and the CAPM," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(5), pages 2163-2185, October.
  8. Gintschel, Andreas & Markov, Stanimir, 2004. "The effectiveness of Regulation FD," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 293-314, September.
  9. Loh, Roger K. & Mian, G. Mujtaba, 2006. "Do accurate earnings forecasts facilitate superior investment recommendations?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 455-483, May.
  10. Daniel J. Bradley & Bradford D. Jordan & Jay R. Ritter, 2008. "Analyst Behavior Following IPOs: The 'Bubble Period' Evidence," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 101-133, January.
  11. Stefano Dellavigna & Joshua M. Pollet, 2009. "Investor Inattention and Friday Earnings Announcements," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(2), pages 709-749, 04.
  12. AltInkIlIç, Oya & Hansen, Robert S., 2009. "On the information role of stock recommendation revisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 17-36, October.
  13. Cooper, Rick A. & Day, Theodore E. & Lewis, Craig M., 2001. "Following the leader: *1: a study of individual analysts' earnings forecasts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 383-416, September.
  14. Frankel, Richard & Kothari, S.P. & Weber, Joseph, 2006. "Determinants of the informativeness of analyst research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 29-54, April.
  15. Knez, Peter J & Ready, Mark J, 1997. " On the Robustness of Size and Book-to-Market in Cross-Sectional Regressions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1355-82, September.
  16. Asquith, Paul & Mikhail, Michael B. & Au, Andrea S., 2005. "Information content of equity analyst reports," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 245-282, February.
  17. Ivkovic, Zoran & Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, 2004. "The timing and value of forecast and recommendation revisions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 433-463, September.
  18. Ohad Kadan & Leonardo Madureira & Rong Wang & Tzachi Zach, 2009. "Conflicts of Interest and Stock Recommendations: The Effects of the Global Settlement and Related Regulations," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(10), pages 4189-4217, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2009-7. 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: ()

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.