Investment Banking and Analyst Objectivity: Evidence from Forecasts and Recommendations of Analysts Affiliated with M&A Advisors
Previous research finds some evidence that analysts affiliated with equity underwriters issue more optimistic earnings growth forecasts and optimistic recommendations of client stock than unaffiliated analysts. Unfortunately, these studies are unable to discriminate between three competing hypotheses for the apparent optimism. Under the bribery hypothesis, underwriting clients, with the promise of underwriting fees, coax analysts to compromise their objectivity. The execution-related conflict of hypothesis postulates that the investment banks employing analysts who are more bullish on a particular stock are better able to execute the deal, and so the banks pressure their analysts to be bullish in order to enhance their execution ability. Finally, the selection bias hypothesis postulates that analysts are objective, but because of the enhanced execution ability, banks with more optimistic analysts are more likely to get selected as underwriters. We test these hypotheses in a previously unexplored setting, namely M&A activities. Depending on whether an analyst is affiliated with the target or the acquirer and whether the analyst report is about the target or the acquirer, the hypotheses predict analyst optimism in some cases and pessimism in other. Therefore, examining the issue of analyst bias in the M&A context allows us to shed some light on alternative explanations for the impact of analyst affiliation on the properties of analyst forecasts and recommendations.
|Date of creation:||10 Dec 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT), SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, 50 MEMORIAL DRIVE CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02142 USA|
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.:
- 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 653-86.
- Trueman, Brett, 1994. "Analyst Forecasts and Herding Behavior," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 97-124.
- Scharfstein, David S & Stein, Jeremy C, 1990.
"Herd Behavior and Investment,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 465-79, June.
- Lin, Hsiou-wei & McNichols, Maureen F., 1998. "Underwriting relationships, analysts' earnings forecasts and investment recommendations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 101-127, February.
- Welch, Ivo, 2000. "Herding among security analysts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 369-396, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:7391. 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: (Christian Zimmermann)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.