Corporate Responsibility Disclosure, Information Environment and Analysts’ Recommendations: Evidence from Malaysia

The purpose of this study was to extend our understanding of how corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures impact capital market participants, specifically sell-side analysts. The sample of this study was based on a dataset from a panel of 285 Malaysian firms for the period of 2008–2013 (738 firm-year observations). This study employed ordinary least square regression. This study found that firms with better CSR disclosures are more likely to receive optimistic investment recommendations. Subsample analyses revealed that the CSR-recommendation nexus is more pronounced under a transparent information environment (i) when there is less family control and (ii) when a firm is audited by a prominent Big Four auditor. The results implied that analysts tend to give favorable stock recommendations to high CSR companies operating in a more transparent information environment. To gain analysts’ confidence and make them more appreciative of the CSR disclosures, family firms with proactive CSR engagement are encouraged to switch to Big Four auditors or to seek assurance on their CSR reports. This study broadens our understanding of the factors influencing analysts’ recommendations and the preferences of analysts towards CSR engagement in an emerging market. This paper expands the literature on how corporate responsibility disclosures impact analysts’ final output, as reflected in the recommendation opinion, an area that has so far received little attention, particularly in emerging markets. Furthermore, this study also provides fresh evidence that analyst behavior towards CSR disclosures varies based on the strength of the firm’s information environment.

Financial restatements and sell-side analysts' stock recommendations: evidence from Malaysia

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of financial restatements on the sell-side analysts' stock recommendations.Design/methodology/approachThe sample of this study is based on a dataset from a panel of 246 Malaysian public listed companies for the period 2008 to 2013 (651 company-year observations). This study employs feasible generalized least squares regression.FindingsThis study finds a negative and significant relationship between restated companies and sell-side analysts' stock recommendations, which means that sell-side analysts issue less favorable stock recommendations for restated companies.Practical implicationsThe findings based on observations from an emerging economy complement the results of the US studies that analysts revise their earnings forecasts or recommendations downwards or drop coverage following financial restatements. The results of this study should be useful to capital market participants in understanding how analysts perceive and evaluate restated companies.Originality/valueThis paper expands the literature on financial restatements consequences in an emerging market which is largely unstudied. Prior research on analyst behavior towards restatements has focused on the consequences of restatements in terms of analyst following and forecast accuracy and dispersion. This study examines if and how the restatements affect the analysts' final output as reflected in the recommendation opinion, an area that has so far received little attention.

Sustainability of Analyst Recommendations in Multiple Lead Underwriter IPOs

Recently, a new organizational form of syndicate—multiple lead underwriter (MLU) initial public offerings (IPOs)—has emerged in IPOs. In addition to the increased deal complexity, lead underwriters in MLU IPOs face a new competition between them after underwriter selection, which is not present in single lead underwriter (SLU) IPOs. It is therefore questionable whether recommendations by analysts from lead underwriters of the MLU IPOs are as sustainable as those of the SLU IPOs. We examine IPO recommendations to capture how this new syndicate structure affects analyst behavior in terms of analyst optimism and investment value. In contrast to the popular conflict of interest perspective, our findings point to the notion that the new syndicate structure suppresses bias in recommendations and that reputation upholding incentive dominates pressure from competition. MLU-affiliated analysts are not more optimistic and provide more informative research coverage whose informativeness, however, fades away shortly after the recommendation releases. Our findings overall indicate the existence of sustainability in the MLU IPO recommendations.

Evaluation Markers and Mitigators in Analyst Reports in Light of Market Response to Stock Recommendations

Professionals and individuals who invest in equity markets rely on financial analysts’ recommendations and reports to decide on what to invest in and when to trade. This study examines the role of two groups of communication strategies, evaluation markers and mitigators, in establishing analysts’ credibility. The sample consists of 80 reports written in Polish for companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange in Poland. In this emerging market setting, where credibility is challenged by uncertainty, analysts deploy various strategies depending on the recommendation they make: “buy,” “hold,” or “sell” shares. The findings point toward a specific group of mitigators, namely subjectivization, as a means of communicating expert opinion. Regression results reveal that investors’ reaction to the publication of a recommendation to “hold” or “sell” shares, measured based on the changes in share prices, is stronger when subjectivization is used in a report. The findings carry implications for research into analyst behavior and for the development of professional writing skills.