James S. Ang, Kiritkumar A. Patel, Bond Rating Methods: Comparison and Validation, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 30, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association, San Francisco, California, December 28-30, 1974 (May, 1975), pp. 631-640

This paper examines the risks and returns of long‐term low‐grade bonds for the period 1977–1989. We find: (1) low‐grade bonds realized higher returns than higher‐grade bonds and lower returns than common stocks, and low‐grade bonds exhibited less volatility than higher‐grade bonds due to their call features and high coupons; (2) there is no relation between the age of low‐grade bonds and their realized returns; cyclical factors explain much of the observed relation between default rates and bond age; and (3) low‐grade bonds behave like both bonds and stocks. Despite this complexity there is no evidence that low‐grade bonds are systematically over‐ or under‐priced.

This paper examines the risks and returns of long-term low-grade bonds for the period 1977-89. The authors find (1) low-grade bonds realized higher returns than higher-grade bonds and lower returns than common stocks, and low-grade bonds exhibited less volatility than higher-grade bonds due to their call features and high coupons; (2) there is no relation between the age of low-grade bonds and their relaxed returns; cyclical factors explain much of the observed reaction between default rates and bond age; and (3) low-grade bonds behave like both bonds and stocks. Despite this complexity there is no evidence that low-grade bonds are systematically over- or under-priced.

Using a sample of all-star analysts who switch investment banks, we examine (1) whether analyst behavior is influenced by banking relationships and (2) whether analyst behavior affects investment banking deal flow. Although the stock coverage decision depends on the relationship with the client firms, we find no evidence that analysts change their optimism or recommendation levels when joining a new firm. Investment banking deal flow is related to analyst reputation only for equity transactions. For debt and M&A transactions, analyst reputation does not matter. There is no evidence that issuing optimistic earnings forecasts or recommendations affects investment banking deal flow.