An analysis of stock and sell recommendations by security analysts at fourteen major U.S. brokerage firms shows significant, systematic discrepancies between prices and eventual values, in contrast to the conclusions of many previous studies. The average initial price change at the time of the recommendations is large, even though few recommendations coincide with other public information releases or provide previously unavailable facts. These price changes which are then ostensibly due primarily to information processing and dissemination are consistent with the expanded Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) definition of market efficiency where informed investors earn a return on their information gathering and processing efforts. Furthermore, these initial price reactions are incomplete. Post-recommendation risk-adjusted price drift implies that analysts' recommendations provide tradable value for investors. For recommendations, the mean, post-event drift is modest (+2.4%) and short-lived (one month), but for sell recommendations, the drift is larger (-9.1%), accruing over a longer six-month interval. Analysts appear to have market timing as well as stock picking abilities. Also, accurate industry predictions appear to be an important component for pessimistic recommendations (sell and removed from buy ) but not for optimistic ones (buy and removed from sell).

An analysis of new buy and sell recommendations of stocks by security analysts at major U.S. brokerage firms shows significant, systematic discrepancies between prerecommendation prices and eventual values. The initial return at the time of the recommendations is large, even though few recommendations coincide with new public news or provide previously unavailable facts. However, these initial price reactions are incomplete. For buy recommendations, the mean postevent drift is modest (+2.4 percent) and short-lived, but for sell recommendations, the drift is larger (-9.1 percent) and extends for six months. Analysts appear to have market timing and stock picking abilities.

ABSTRACT An analysis of new buy and sell recommendations of stocks by security analysts at major U.S. brokerage firms shows significant, systematic discrepancies between prerecommendation prices and eventual values. The initial return at the time of the recommendations is large, even though few recommendations coincide with new public news or provide previously unavailable facts. However, these initial price reactions are incomplete. For buy recommendations, the mean postevent drift is modest (+2.4%) and short‐lived, but for sell recommendations, the drift is larger (−9.1%) and extends for six months. Analysts appear to have market timing and stock picking abilities.

The issuer's decision to include warrants as compensation to underwriters is studied for a sample of 1,991 negotiated firm commitment issues of seasoned equity. Using a two-stage logit model to correct for self-selection bias, the authors find direct evidence that warrant compensation functions as a bond, substituting for reputational capital and enabling the underwriter to certify the issue price. To a lesser degree, the decision also is affected by regulations on underwriter compensation and on the use of underwriter warrants. Issuers' decisions are consistent with an objective of minimizing total underwriting cost, including cash compensation, warrants, and underpricing.

ABSTRACT This article examines the conflict of interest between shareholders and bondholders in a setting in which firms can renegotiate the terms of existing debt with public debtholders. In particular, we consider one of the most common types of debt restructuring: the exit‐exchange offer. Our analysis explores the relation between exit‐exchange offers and investment choice by the manager, and it concludes that managers, acting strategically on behalf of shareholders, may select inefficient investment projects in order to enhance their bargaining position vis‐a‐vis creditors. Holding the upside potential of an investment project fixed, managers/shareholders prefer projects with lower payoffs in states of bankruptcy because it induces individual bondholders to accept poorer terms in a debt‐for‐debt exit‐exchange offer, thus generating a greater residual for shareholders in states of solvency. Additionally, we show how the investment inefficiencies in our analysis depend on (i) the inability of bondholders to coordinate their actions; (ii) the ability of managers to commit to suboptimal investment projects; and (iii) the coupling of an individual bondholder's decision to tender and her decision to consent to allow the firm to strip fiduciary covenants. We suggest conditions under which a ban on coupled exit‐exchange offers—or alternatively, constraints on “debt‐for‐debt” exchanges—would be efficiency‐enhancing.

ABSTRACT The issuer's decision to include warrants as compensation to underwriters is studied for a sample of 1,991 negotiated firm commitment issues of seasoned equity. Using a two‐stage logit model to correct for self‐selection bias, we find direct evidence that warrant compensation functions as a bond, substituting for reputational capital and enabling the underwriter to certify the issue price. To a lesser degree, the decision also is affected by regulations on underwriter compensation and on the use of underwriter warrants. Issuers' decisions are consistent with an objective of minimizing total underwriting cost, including cash compensation, warrants, and underpricing.

The issuer's decision to include warrants as compensation to underwriters is studied for a sample of 1,991 negotiated firm commitment issues of seasoned equity. Using a two-stage logit model to correct for self-selection bias, we find direct evidence that warrant compensation functions as a bond, substituting for reputational capital and enabling the underwriter to certify the issue price. To a lesser degree, the decision also is affected by regulations on underwriter compensation and on the use of underwriter warrants. Issuers' decisions are consistent with an objective of minimizing total underwriting cost, including cash compensation, warrants, and underpricing.