Does director affiliation lead to analyst bias?

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prem G. Mathew ◽  
H. Semih Yildirim
Keyword(s):  
Analyst Bias

PRIOR UNCERTAINTY, ANALYST BIAS, AND SUBSEQUENT ABNORMAL RETURNS

1997 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy F. Ackert ◽  
George Athanassakos
Keyword(s):  
Abnormal Returns ◽  
Analyst Bias

Diagnostic Data Evaluation. Part III. Collaborative Study Evaluation: Standard Deviation Considered To Be A Constant

1990 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Anthony J Malanoski
Keyword(s):  
Crude Protein ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Performance Standard ◽  
Evaluation Standard ◽  
Pork Sausage ◽  
Sample Weights ◽  
Study Evaluation ◽  
Analyst Bias ◽  
Kjeldahl Digestion ◽  
Standard Deviations

Abstract The diagnostic evaluation of the crude protein collaborative study Identified possible problems with a standardized Interval for the Kjeldahl digestion, with sample preparation, and with excess sample weights. The standard deviations for the ham and the beef samples cannot be considered to be representative of the method because of these problems. The standard deviations for the frankfurter and the pork sausage samples for all analysts met the performance standard of 0.24. There was no evidence of analyst bias.

Probability Weighting and Analyst Bias: Theory and Evidence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Elizabeth Warner Brightbill ◽  
Cristi A. Gleason ◽  
Mark Penno
Keyword(s):  
Probability Weighting ◽  
Analyst Bias

The relation of firm size, security analyst bias, and neglect

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Dowen
Keyword(s):  
Firm Size ◽  
Security Analyst ◽  
Analyst Bias

Monitors or Predators: The Influence of Institutional Investors on Sell-Side Analysts

2012 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoyang Gu ◽  
Zengquan Li ◽  
Yong George Yang
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Fund ◽  
Institutional Investors ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Financial Analysts ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Stock Recommendations ◽  
Analyst Bias ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Unique Dataset

ABSTRACT: Regulators and the investment community have been concerned that institutional investors pressure financial analysts through trading commission fees to issue optimistic opinions in support of their stock positions. We use a unique dataset that identifies mutual fund companies' allocation of trading commission fees to individual brokerages and provide direct evidence on this issue. In particular, we show that for stocks in which the fund companies have taken large positions, analysts are more optimistic in their stock recommendations when their brokerages receive trading commission fees from these fund companies. The relationship is stronger when the commission fee pressure is greater. The market reacts less favorably to the “Strong Buy” recommendations of analysts facing greater commission fee pressure. The funds also respond negatively to such recommendations in making portfolio adjustments. These results point to a source of analyst bias that has been little explored in the literature. Data Availability: The data are publically available from the sources identified in the paper.

Analyst bias and forecast consistency

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanghyuk Byun ◽  
Kristin Roland
Keyword(s):  
Analyst Bias

Extent of analyst bias in drug-assay results

1982 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-487
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Lesko ◽  
Thomas T. Turo
Keyword(s):  
Drug Assay ◽  
Analyst Bias

Analyst and etching protocol effects on the reproducibility of apatite confined fission-track length measurement, and ambient-temperature annealing at decadal timescales

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (10) ◽  
pp. 1421-1435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat T. Tamer ◽  
Ling Chung ◽  
Richard A. Ketcham ◽  
Andrew J.W. Gleadow
Keyword(s):  
Fission Track ◽  
Image Data ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Automated System ◽  
Track Length ◽  
High Dispersion ◽  
Reflected Light ◽  
Analyst Bias ◽  
Length Measurements ◽  
Statistical Expectation

Abstract Previous inter-laboratory experiments on confined fission-track length measurements in apatite have consistently reported variation substantially in excess of statistical expectation. There are two primary causes for this variation: (1) differences in laboratory procedures and instrumentation, and (2) personal differences in perception and assessment between analysts. In this study, we narrow these elements down to two categories, etching procedure and analyst bias. We assembled a set of eight samples with induced tracks from four apatite varieties, initially irradiated between 2 and 43 years prior to etching. Two mounts were made containing aliquots of each sample to ensure identical etching conditions for all apatites on a mount. We employed two widely used etching protocols, 5.0 M HNO3 at 20 °C for 20 s and 5.5 M HNO3 at 21 °C for 20 s. Sets of track images were then captured by an automated system and exchanged between two analysts, so that measurements could be carried out on the same tracks and etch figures, in the same image data, allowing us to isolate and examine the effects of analyst bias. An additional 5 s of etching was then used to evaluate etching behavior at track tips. In total, 8391 confined fission-track length measurements were performed; along with 1480 etch figure length measurements. When the analysts evaluated each other's track selections within the same images for suitability for measurement, the average rejection rate was ~14%. For tracks judged as suitable by both analysts, measurements of 2D and 3D length, dip, and c-axis angle were in excellent agreement, with slightly less dispersion when using the 5.5 M etch. Lengths were shorter in the 5.0 M etched mount than the 5.5 M etched one, which we interpret to be caused by more prevalent under-etching in the former, at least for some apatite compositions. After an additional 5 s of etching, 5.0 M tracks saw greater lengthening and more reduction in dispersion than 5.5 M tracks, additional evidence that they were more likely to be under-etched after the initial etching step. Systematic differences between analysts were minimal, with the main exception being likelihood of observing tracks near perpendicular to the crystallographic c axis, which may reflect different use of transmitted vs. reflected light when scanning for tracks. Etch figure measurements were more consistent between analysts for the 5.5 M etch, though one apatite variety showed high dispersion for both. Within a given etching protocol, each sample reflected a decrease of mean track length with time since irradiation, giving evidence of 0.2–0.3 μm of annealing over year to decade timescales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document