This study compares the performance of sell-side equity analysts with and without a Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA) designation. Using a large sample of forecasts, our tests indicate that CFA charterholders issue forecasts that are timelier than those of non-charterholders. The results for accuracy are mixed. We establish that while charterholders perform at statistically significant higher levels than non-charterholders in some tests, the economic significance of these differences is questionable. For a subsample of analysts, we find evidence that charterholders improve along the dimension of timeliness after they receive their CFA charter. This result provides support for a human-capital explanation in which charterholders improve their productivity during the CFA program. Finally, we show that the market reaction for smaller firms is stronger for charterholders than non-charterholders after controlling for timeliness, boldness, accuracy, and optimism. This result provides evidence consistent with “credentialism,” a variant of signaling theory in which a professional's education level provides a signal about the professional's quality to his or her clients.

This study uses a large sample of sell‐side bond analysts' reports to examine the properties of recommendations provided by bond analysts and the impact of these recommendations on bond securities. First, we document that the distribution of bond analysts' buy, hold, and sell recommendations is skewed positively, but less so than the distribution of equity analysts' recommendations. The positive skewness in bond analysts' recommendations is greater for low than for high credit quality bonds. Second, we find that bond analysts' reports generate bond trading and return reactions that are both economically significant and greater for low credit quality bonds. The bond market reaction is greater for bond analysts' reports than for equity analysts' reports. Finally, while both bond and equity analysts lead rating agency announcements, we find no evidence of a difference in timeliness between bond and equity analysts' reports. Overall, our results are consistent with bond analysts issuing more negative reports than equity analysts and providing more information about low credit quality bonds as a result of the asymmetric demand for negative information by bond investors.