独立分析师研究:谁付费重要吗?

IF 1.2 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
{"title":"独立分析师研究:谁付费重要吗?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>On April 28, 2003, ten of the largest investment banks reached an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies regarding alleged misconduct of security analysts. This agreement, called the Global Research Analyst Settlement, allocated $460 million to source independent analyst research. Unlike other forms of analyst research, this research was not financed through investment banking or trading commissions and was theoretically “unbiased research”. We compare independent research funded by the Global Settlement to research provided by the same firms that was not funded by the Global Settlement. Research funded by the Global Settlement appears to be of lower quality than non-funded research produced by the same set of firms, suggesting that unbiased research does not necessarily generate higher quality research. More specifically, we find that quality declined in the later years of the Global Settlement period when there was no expectation of future funding for this research, commonly referred to as the horizon effect.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46906,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Independent analyst research: Does it matter who pays?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>On April 28, 2003, ten of the largest investment banks reached an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies regarding alleged misconduct of security analysts. This agreement, called the Global Research Analyst Settlement, allocated $460 million to source independent analyst research. Unlike other forms of analyst research, this research was not financed through investment banking or trading commissions and was theoretically “unbiased research”. We compare independent research funded by the Global Settlement to research provided by the same firms that was not funded by the Global Settlement. Research funded by the Global Settlement appears to be of lower quality than non-funded research produced by the same set of firms, suggesting that unbiased research does not necessarily generate higher quality research. More specifically, we find that quality declined in the later years of the Global Settlement period when there was no expectation of future funding for this research, commonly referred to as the horizon effect.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Accounting\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611023000597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611023000597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2003 年 4 月 28 日,十家最大的投资银行与美国证券交易委员会及其他监管机构就证券分析师被指控的不当行为达成协议。该协议被称为 "全球研究分析师和解协议",拨款 4.6 亿美元用于独立分析师研究。与其他形式的分析师研究不同,这项研究的资金来源不是投资银行或交易佣金,理论上属于 "无偏见研究"。我们将《全球和解协议》资助的独立研究与未获《全球和解协议》资助的同类公司提供的研究进行了比较。由《全球和解协议》资助的研究似乎比同类公司未获资助的研究质量要低,这表明无偏见的研究并不一定会产生更高质量的研究。更具体地说,我们发现,在全球和解的后期几年,由于没有预期未来的研究资金,研究质量有所下降,这就是通常所说的地平线效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Independent analyst research: Does it matter who pays?

On April 28, 2003, ten of the largest investment banks reached an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies regarding alleged misconduct of security analysts. This agreement, called the Global Research Analyst Settlement, allocated $460 million to source independent analyst research. Unlike other forms of analyst research, this research was not financed through investment banking or trading commissions and was theoretically “unbiased research”. We compare independent research funded by the Global Settlement to research provided by the same firms that was not funded by the Global Settlement. Research funded by the Global Settlement appears to be of lower quality than non-funded research produced by the same set of firms, suggesting that unbiased research does not necessarily generate higher quality research. More specifically, we find that quality declined in the later years of the Global Settlement period when there was no expectation of future funding for this research, commonly referred to as the horizon effect.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Accounting
Advances in Accounting BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting continues to provide an important international forum for discourse among and between academic and practicing accountants on the issues of significance. Emphasis continues to be placed on original commentary, critical analysis and creative research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信