Abstract
AbstractWe uncover a new source for the conflict of interest in analyst coverage existed before the Regulation FD period by examining whether recommendations within the parent–subsidiary (PS) relationship are more optimistic and whether they have better investment value than non‐PS recommendations. We find evidence consistent with the conflict of interest: PS analysts on average issue more optimistic recommendations, but their recommendations have worse or no better investment value in the calendar‐time portfolio analysis. Analyst firm PS relationship is another source for the conflict of interest in analyst coverage that has not been identified before.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
