Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byRichard Hunter Modified over 5 years ago

1
1 Generation of Private Signals by Analysts EAA2006, Dublin, Eire

2
2 Background Empirical regularities regarding analyst behaviour have been documented Much of this is atheoretical, in particular – there is no modelling of the equilibrium e.g. what came first: – the analyst – or an informationally rich market ?

3
3 Empirical regularities - Following inversely related to price variability around announcements associated with speed with which forecast info. is incorporated in prices increasing (Bhushan 1989b) / decreasing (Rock et al 2001) in ownership concentration decreases in lines of business increasing in R 2 between firm return and market return increases for firms with low following (i.e. low competition) where return variability has declined in firms with regulated disclosure

4
4 Empirical regularities - Forecasts related to price changes revisions reflect prior returns Analyst superiority vs TS models of positively related to size Trading Volume related to forecast revision

5
5 The Issue How do analysts decide on signal quality ? Is the quality of the analyst-generated signal a function of the quality of the information environment (upcoming public signal) ? Other effects (not part of this paper) : if we model analysts as responding to public info quality, does this change our predictions regarding market metrics ?

6
6 Caveats My focus is on supply ("sell-side") analysts Motivations are more complex than buy-side analysts ??? As information intermediaries, how do they interplay with other sources of information

7
7 The approach Noisy Rational Expectations and cognate signalling literature models simple markets where a signal is generated in a semi-game- theoretic way, i.e. actors have rational, linear expectations Given an objective function, expected characteristics of the signal can be modelled

8
8 Potential Frameworks Kyle (1985) noise comes from uninformed demand a market maker clears the market investors are risk neutral Grossman & Stiglitz (1980) noise due to supply a less artificial setting risk-averse investors self-fulfilling conjectures about price linearity in signals Kim & Verrecchia (1991) there are multiple private signals; implications for differential informedness; Demski & Feltham (1994) a single private signal is purchasable by investors

9
9 Demski and Feltham (1994) … allow for the purchase of a private signal (i.e. costly acquisition of private information) … have derived some testable comparative statics (not relevant for this paper): Analysts can be included as producers of the private signal

10
10 Method Extend D&F by endogenising: cost quality of the private signal I derive additional comparative statics (not for this paper)

11
11 The Model 4 dates, 1 (monopolist) analyst t=0investors endowed with wealth; have a negative exponential utility function: u(w)=-e -bw t=1a private signal y 1 is generated by the analyst. This signal is y 2 + noise. trade occurs - supply is uncertain t=2the public signal y 2 is released. y 2 =x+noise trade occurs - supply is uncertain t=3realisation occurs All stochastic variables are assumed normal Variances are known but not outcomes

12
12 The Model – what happens ? the t=1 signal, y 1 : is available to investors at a cost c. investors purchase the signal (so 1- remain "uninformed"); they weigh expected utility of the signal against expect utility of observing price this signal can be thought of as an analyst forecast of signal y 2 (the earnings announcement)

13
13 Endogenisation of the analyst The analyst sells signal y 1 into the market at a price c. He chooses the quality of the signal, σ 1 2 Can capture revenue directly proportional to the number of purchasers, R = λc – k /σ 1 2 key assumptions – R is increasing in. – analyst faces a cost function preventing infinitely precise info – cost is linear in precision The analyst's choice variables are [σ 1 2, c].

14
14 Investors demands are a function of information available. price works out to be linear in information available (i.e. posterior of informed, posterior of uninformed) and supply noise. Why is price linear in information ? A (convenient) outcome of assuming normality at t=2everyone has the same expectations at t=1informed investors have posterior expectations of true value of x uninformed investors make assessment of what they think the informed investors know We can ascribe linear price conjectures to the market, and show that such conjectures are self-fulfilling. This allows us to solve for price and other variables. Solving for Equilibrium (1) – Approach

15
15 Price at t=1 is a function of, since P1 results from a weighting of the posterior expectations of the informed and uninformed. itself is a function of the cost and quality of the private signal. The optimum c cannot be derived algebraically Simulation: Vary quality (1/ σ 2 2 ) of public signal y 2 determine optimum: a search algorithm that finds the -maximising [ σ 1 2, c] pair for each value of. Solving for Equilibrium (2) – Process

16
Solving for Equilibrium (3) – Basic Result (Figure 2)

17
Solving for Equilibrium (4) – Intuition (~Figure 3)

18
Solving for Equilibrium (5) – Intuition (Figure 4)

19
19 Empirics – Data Earnings forecasts from I/B/E/S International Inc. Income statement data and release dates from Standard and Poor's Compustat service Price and volume data from Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP)

20
20 Empirics – Measures (Figure 5) σ 1 2 measured by deviation of forecast from earnings ultimately announced FNOISE = [ (y 0 acteps-mean) / y 0 acteps ] 2 σ 2 2 ENOISE 1/R 2 from Foster (1977) model of earnings (+other measures) Logic ?

21
21 Empirics – Controls LMKVALQ – size URET= is the unsystematic return for the firms ordinary stock between the forecast and the earnings announcement NEWRET= is the return from the previous forecast summary to the current forecast summary for this firm (oops) PERFORM= recent returns prior to forecast NEWINFO= (NUMUP+NUMDOWN) / NUMEST Horizon– controlled by selection

22
22 Empirics - Sample start with all IBES quarterly forecast summaries remove data where – no announcement date available – EPS unavailable – confounded 25 075 data points

23
23 Empirics - Approach just use extreme quintiles on ENOISE

24
24 Results

25
VariableParam.PredictedParam. Est. t Value p Intercept 0 4.866116.4950.0000 ENOISE 1 1 <0 -0.2049-1.7020.0889 ENOISE HIQUINT 2 1 + 2 0 0.20771.7000.0892 LMKVALQ 1 -0.4508-11.4750.0000 URET 2 -0.7744-0.7330.4635 NEWRET 3 -0.3056-0.5670.5710 PERFORM 4 0.07010.2260.8214 NEWINFO 5 -0.1438-0.3330.7393 Table 4, Panel A

26
26 Results removing insignificant controls makes no difference (Table 4, Panel B) adding analyst following makes no difference (Table 5) regression by size quintiles – all the action is happening in quintiles 2 and 3 (Table 6, change heading)

27
27 Stuff I need to do What is the analyst following in the various quintiles?

28
28 Intuition Slides to be used if necessary

29
29 Solving for Equilibrium (7) – Intuition

30
30 Solving for Equilibrium (6) – Intuition

Similar presentations

OK

Skewness in Stock Returns: Reconciling the Evidence on Firm versus Aggregate Returns Rui Albuquerque Discussion by: Marcin Kacperczyk (NYU and NBER)

Skewness in Stock Returns: Reconciling the Evidence on Firm versus Aggregate Returns Rui Albuquerque Discussion by: Marcin Kacperczyk (NYU and NBER)

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google