The Influence of Corporate Governance Ratings on Buy-Side Analysts' Earnings Forecast Certainty: Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom (Retracted)

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwadwo N. Asare ◽  
Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi ◽  
James E. Hunton

ABSTRACT The current study investigates how corporate governance ratings affect the certainty of buy-side analysts' earnings forecasts. Nineteen financial analysts from the United States (U.S.) and 17 from the United Kingdom (U.K.) participated in a 1 × 2 (corporate governance ratings: below or above industry average) within-participant experiment. We find that, on average, analysts exhibit more certainty in their range forecasts when the corporate governance rating is above average, relative to below average. We also observe a significant interaction between the corporate governance ratings and country, indicating that U.K. analysts exhibit stronger responses to a below average rating than U.S. analysts, while responses to an above average rating are not significantly different between the two countries. These results suggest a need to investigate cultural or other factors that can impede the seamless integration of national capital markets into a unified global financial network. Data Availability: Available upon request.

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrij Euler

The paper is about domestic laws’ response to the greater need of publicly listed corporation to be accountable to the public in accordance with international law. The paper is dedicated to the transparency of multinational corporations listed and incorporated in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. Under these applicable laws, transparency of publicly listed corporations has significantly changed in the last decade. Some countries oblige corporations to disclose non-financial and financial information immediately; others merely require periodic reporting of financial information. In particular, the connection between Impact Investor, an investor that invests based on social or environmental criteria in addition to the financial performance, and the investment target, publicly listed corporations contributed to some change. The applicable law provides a minimum standard of transparency. This minimum standard defines how the reasonable investor invests in the publicly listed corporation. Depending on this standard, the responsibility owed by the publicly listed corporation extends from the shareholder, several stakeholders to the public. Reasons for these differences lie in the greater accountability of publicly listed corporations from shareholders, to stakeholders or even the public. The OECD’s different standard on Corporate Governance, the Ruggie principles and other recommendations of non-governmental organisations (NGO) keep shaping the accountability under the applicable law. These standards provide guidance to corporations to voluntarily implement greater responsibilities beyond the minimum standard in the form of Corporate Governance. However, once publicly listed corporations implement these standards, the applicable law seem to not adequately impose duties on publicly listed corporations to disclose the information under its self-imposed standard to stakeholders or even the public. The paper researches the problem of transparency of publicly listed corporations in European Union, in particular Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States and Switzerland wither regard to impact investors. Its hypotheses is that the applicable law lacks clear wording that transfers voluntary standards into binding law. The paper will not focus on obligations of corporation established under contracts with groups of shareholders. It will also not focus on stock market programmes to audit corporations based on environmental and social criteria. The paper excludes inter partes obligations because they give the contracting party merely a right to rely on the disclosure. The paper will also not look at methods for evaluation of non-financial information with regard to publicly listed corporations.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Pflugrath ◽  
Peter Roebuck ◽  
Roger Simnett

SUMMARY This study reports the results of a behavioral experiment examining whether financial analysts from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom perceive a difference in the credibility of stand-alone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports depending on whether they are assured, and the type of assurance provider (professional accountants versus sustainability consultants). We further examine whether the perceived credibility differs for financial analysts from the different countries and whether results hold for companies from different industries. The overall results show the credibility of a CSR report is greater when it is assured and when the assurer is a professional accountant. While assurance increases the credibility of the information in each of the three countries included, the relative impact is context-specific. Information is perceived to be more credible when a company is from an industry where assurance is more commonplace, and by financial analysts from the United States when the assurer is a professional accountant. Financial analysts from Australia and the United Kingdom perceive little difference in the enhanced credibility provided by the different assurance providers. Data Availability: Contact the first author about the availability of the data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document