[We study the effect of the Global Analyst Research Settlement and related regulations on sell-side research. These regulations attempted to mitigate the interdependence between research and investment banking. We document that following the regulations many brokerage houses have migrated from the traditional five-tier rating system to a three-tier system. Optimistic recommendations have become less frequent and more informative, whereas neutral and pessimistic recommendations have become more frequent and less informative. Importantly, the overall informativeness of recommendations has declined. The likelihood of issuing optimistic recommendations no longer depends on affiliation with the covered firm, although affiliated analysts are still reluctant to issue pessimistic recommendations.]

Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Reg FD”), adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2000 was intended to stop the practice of “selective disclosure”, in which companies give material information only to a few analysts and institutional investors prior to disclosing it publicly. Our analysis shows that the adoption of Reg FD caused a significant shift in analyst attention, resulting in a welfare loss for small firms, which now face a higher cost of capital. The loss of the “selective disclosure” channel for information flows could not be compensated for via other information transmission channels. This effect was more pronounced for firms communicating complex information and, consistent with the investor recognition hypothesis, for those losing analyst coverage. Moreover, we find no significant relationship of the different responses with litigation risks and agency costs. Our cross-sectional results suggest that Reg FD had unintended consequences and that “information” in financial markets may be more complicated than current finance theory admits.

We use the introduction of direct flights as an exogenous shock to the travel time between mutual funds and firms to estimate the causal effects of proximity on fund investment decisions and performance. We find that a fund invests significantly more in firms that become more proximate following the introduction of direct flights and that these more proximate investments exhibit superior performance. Our findings are robust to including a variety of fixed effects and potential confounders such as firm-level shocks, fund-level shocks, and time trends. Collectively, our results indicate that proximity enhances investors’ ability to acquire value-relevant information about firms.

We examine earnings forecasts by sell-side analysts employed by a bank with a lending relationship with the covered firms. We find that lender-affiliated analysts’ forecasts are more accurate than forecasts by their unaffiliated peers after establishment of the lending relationship. Evidence from exogenous variation suggests that the relationship is causal. Lender-affiliated analysts are also more likely to issue pessimistic forecasts below their peers’ consensus. These forecasts are likely to be followed by below-consensus earnings. The results suggest that lender-affiliated analysts enjoy an informational advantage that spills over from lending activities of banks.

We examine the role of social ties in IPO underwriting syndicate formation and find that an investment bank is more likely to be included in the underwriting syndicate when it is connected to the IPO firm through interpersonal social ties between the respective executives and directors. These social ties generate better outcomes, consistent with a quid pro quo arrangement between the respective parties. The investment bank benefits by receiving higher compensation, a more senior role in the IPO, and greater share allocations. For the IPO firm, the presence of social ties between the IPO issuer and the chosen underwriters is associated with net wealth gains for its pre-IPO shareholders.

Industry expertise is an important aspect of sell-side research. We explore this aspect using a novel dataset of industry recommendations, which are often issued by strategy analysts. We study sell-side analysts' ability to rank industries relative to each other (across-industry expertise), and how it relates to analysts' ability to rank firms in a particular industry (within-industry expertise). We find that analysts express more optimism towards industries with higher levels of investment, past profitability, and past returns. Analysts exhibit across-industry expertise, as portfolios based on industry recommendations generate abnormal returns over both short and long horizons, beyond what would be explained by industry momentum. Additionally, industry recommendations contain information, which is orthogonal to the information revealed in firm recommendations, and more so for brokers who benchmark their firm recommendations to industry peers. Consequently, the investment value of sell-side analysts' recommendations is enhanced when both dimensions of industry expertise are utilized by considering industry and firm recommendations in combination.

We study the effect of the Global Analyst Research Settlement and related regulations on sell-side research. These regulations attempted to mitigate the interdependence between research and investment banking. We document that following the regulations many brokerage houses have migrated from the traditional five-tier rating system to a three-tier system. Optimistic recommendations have become less frequent and more informative, whereas neutral and pessimistic recommendations have become more frequent and less informative. Importantly, the overall informativeness of recommendations has declined. The likelihood of issuing optimistic recommendations no longer depends on affiliation with the covered firm, although affiliated analysts are still reluctant to issue pessimistic recommendations. The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected], Oxford University Press.

Sell-side analysts employ different benchmarks when defining their recommendations. A buy for some brokers means the stock is expected to outperform its industry, while for other brokers, it means the stock is expected to outperform the market or some return threshold. We show that these stated benchmarks have implications for the distribution of recommendations, price reactions to recommendations, and the investment value of recommendations. We conclude that, depending on the question, academics may need to account for the benchmarks when studying analysts' outputs, and investors may find the benchmarks beneficial in interpreting analysts' advice.