On the Structure of Analyst Research Portfolios and Forecast Accuracy

Journal of Accounting Research (Impact Factor: 2.38). 01/2009; 47(4):867-909. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00338.x
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT This study provides insights into the forces and constraints that shape analyst research coverage along country and sector dimensions and the impact of the structure of an analyst's portfolio on forecast accuracy. We find that analyst specialization by country and sector is sensitive to the extent to which firms "within" a country or sector and firms "across" country-sectors are exposed to common economic forces, the potential for revenue generation, and broker culture. Our tests indicate that existing research on the relation between analyst portfolio structure and forecast accuracy may suffer from an endogeneity bias. We use our analysis of analyst specialization to develop controls for this bias. Once we employ these controls, we find that country diversification is associated with superior forecast accuracy. However, the relation between sector diversification and forecast accuracy is context-specific. Specifically, sector diversification enhances forecast accuracy in an international context, while it detracts from forecast accuracy in a domestic U.S. context. Copyright (c), University of Chicago on behalf of the Accounting Research Center, 2009.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examine whether sell-side analyst research generates comovement in stock returns. Each year, we form pairs of stocks and show that analysts who cover both stocks in a pair expect their future earnings to be more highly correlated than do analysts who cover only one stock in the pair. These correlation expectations have pricing consequences. The price reactions of a pair of stocks to a forecast or recommendation are closer when the issuing analyst covers both stocks than when the analyst covers only one. Moreover, the daily stock return correlation between stocks in a pair increases with the fraction of analysts covering both stocks and the fraction of forecasts issued by analysts covering both stocks. Collectively, the evidence is consistent with stronger information spillovers and return comovement between stocks that share coverage from the same analysts.
    Journal of Accounting Research 03/2012; · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigates whether and how managers’ opportunistic earnings management activities are affected by the degree of their firms’ accounting comparability with other firms. Using a large sample of U.S. firms, I find that managers’ real earnings management (REM) increases whereas their accrual-based earnings management (AEM) decreases with the degree of their firms’ accounting comparability with other firms, and that this substitution of REM for AEM is more pronounced in the post-SOX period. I also find that managers’ opportunistic behavior to “escape” to REM facing higher accounting comparability is mitigated when their firms’ information environment and/or audit quality is better, and that the propensity of managers meeting or beating analysts’ earnings forecasts is not materially affected by accounting comparability due to the offsetting effect of AEM decrease and REM increase on earnings level. These findings are robust to various sensitivity tests.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study explains the challenges associated with the Heckman (1979) procedure to control for selection bias, assesses the quality of its application in accounting research, and offers guidance for better implementation of selection models. A survey of 75 recent accounting articles in leading journals reveals that many researchers implement the technique in a mechanical way with relatively little appreciation of important econometric issues and problems surrounding its use. Using empirical examples motivated by prior research, we illustrate that selection models are fragile and can yield quite literally any possible outcome in response to fairly minor changes in model specification. We conclude with guidance on how researchers can better implement selection models that will provide more convincing evidence on potential selection bias, including the need to justify model specifications and careful sensitivity analyses with respect to robustness and multicollinearity.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014