An analysis of 4,814 SEOs during 1986–1999 indicates that the average offering ofnew shares is priced at a discount of 3% from the closing price on the day before the issue. Discounts have risen steadily over time, sharply increasing the indirect costs of issuing seasoned equity. There is evidence of increased clustering of offer prices at integers, and of greater importance in the analyst coverage provided by underwriters. Adjusting for other factors, we find that issues with integer offer prices, and underwriters with highly regarded analysts, are increasingly associated with larger discounts. The rise in discounts is consistent with an increased ability of investment bankers to extract rents from issuing firms.

This paper extends the literature on analyst optimism. Our analysis of a large sample of recommendations issued from 1995 through 2006 indicates that sell-side analysts are likely to assign frequent and favorable ratings to a stock after the analysts’ affiliated mutual funds invest in that stock. Controlling for a number of variables, including the ties between analysts and investment banks, we find that the greater the portfolio weight of a stock in the fund family, the more optimistic the stock ratings from affiliated analysts become. Since 2002, analysts’ optimism on stocks held by affiliated mutual funds has declined. However, an analyst's decision of upgrading a stock to a “strong buy” rating is still significantly associated with the portfolio weight of that stock in the fund family.

ABSTRACT This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm's future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for that firm's stock. After the introduction of regulations that curtailed the informational advantage of analysts in the early 2000s, the investor recognition role of analysts remains important. Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers. In addition, controlling for other factors, we find that firms that lose all analyst coverage for one year are significantly more likely to delist than their covered peers. Our results provide insight into the reasons why firms place so much importance on analyst coverage.