Are the wall street analyst rankings popularity contests?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We investigate the (sell-side) analyst rankings of Institutional Investor (111) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), using data from 1993-2005. We find that factors with a primary component of recognition are the most important determinants of the rankings, although performance measures are statistically significant determinants in some cases. The single exception to this finding is with existing WSJ stars, where industry-adjusted investment-recommendation performance is the only significant determinant of repeating as a star. Further, in the year after becoming stars, the recommendations of WSJ stars are significantly worse than those of nonstars; and the recommendations and earnings forecasts of Ill stars, as well as the earnings forecasts of WSJ stars, are not significantly different from those of nonstars. We conclude that these rankings are largely "popularity contests." COPYRIGHT 2009, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)411-437
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2009

Fingerprint

Ranking
Analysts
Contests
Earnings forecasts
Factors
Industry
Institutional investors
Sell-side analysts
Performance measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Accounting
  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Are the wall street analyst rankings popularity contests? / Emery, Douglas; Li, Xi.

In: Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 44, No. 2, 01.04.2009, p. 411-437.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72cb020509594580b23efce9cd12e237,
title = "Are the wall street analyst rankings popularity contests?",
abstract = "We investigate the (sell-side) analyst rankings of Institutional Investor (111) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), using data from 1993-2005. We find that factors with a primary component of recognition are the most important determinants of the rankings, although performance measures are statistically significant determinants in some cases. The single exception to this finding is with existing WSJ stars, where industry-adjusted investment-recommendation performance is the only significant determinant of repeating as a star. Further, in the year after becoming stars, the recommendations of WSJ stars are significantly worse than those of nonstars; and the recommendations and earnings forecasts of Ill stars, as well as the earnings forecasts of WSJ stars, are not significantly different from those of nonstars. We conclude that these rankings are largely {"}popularity contests.{"} COPYRIGHT 2009, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.",
author = "Douglas Emery and Xi Li",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0022109009090140",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "411--437",
journal = "Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis",
issn = "0022-1090",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are the wall street analyst rankings popularity contests?

AU - Emery, Douglas

AU - Li, Xi

PY - 2009/4/1

Y1 - 2009/4/1

N2 - We investigate the (sell-side) analyst rankings of Institutional Investor (111) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), using data from 1993-2005. We find that factors with a primary component of recognition are the most important determinants of the rankings, although performance measures are statistically significant determinants in some cases. The single exception to this finding is with existing WSJ stars, where industry-adjusted investment-recommendation performance is the only significant determinant of repeating as a star. Further, in the year after becoming stars, the recommendations of WSJ stars are significantly worse than those of nonstars; and the recommendations and earnings forecasts of Ill stars, as well as the earnings forecasts of WSJ stars, are not significantly different from those of nonstars. We conclude that these rankings are largely "popularity contests." COPYRIGHT 2009, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.

AB - We investigate the (sell-side) analyst rankings of Institutional Investor (111) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), using data from 1993-2005. We find that factors with a primary component of recognition are the most important determinants of the rankings, although performance measures are statistically significant determinants in some cases. The single exception to this finding is with existing WSJ stars, where industry-adjusted investment-recommendation performance is the only significant determinant of repeating as a star. Further, in the year after becoming stars, the recommendations of WSJ stars are significantly worse than those of nonstars; and the recommendations and earnings forecasts of Ill stars, as well as the earnings forecasts of WSJ stars, are not significantly different from those of nonstars. We conclude that these rankings are largely "popularity contests." COPYRIGHT 2009, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68949170356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68949170356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0022109009090140

DO - 10.1017/S0022109009090140

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:68949170356

VL - 44

SP - 411

EP - 437

JO - Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

JF - Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

SN - 0022-1090

IS - 2

ER -