Stats › Global markets and exchanges › Research unbundling
Paying for research separately cost European companies analyst coverage and made the surviving forecasts more accurate
| Study | Coverage effect | Significance | Where the loss fell |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fang, Hope, Huang and Moldovan | -0.44 analysts, 6.12% | Significant, coefficients not extractable | Larger for small firms |
| Lang, Pinto and Sul | -0.057 log, about 10% by the paper's own conversion | t = -4.53 | Large and medium firms; small firms insignificant |
| Anselmi and Petrella | -0.159 unmatched, -0.566 matched | t = -2.32 and t = -5.74 | Not tested as a difference in differences |
| Guo and Mota | -7.67% | None reported in the document opened | Concentrated in large firms |
All four compare European firms against United States or Japanese controls around January 2018. The supervisor's own summary of this literature restates three of the four differently from the underlying papers, including about -0.18 analysts for Anselmi and Petrella and about -0.65 for Guo and Mota, and those restatements could not be reproduced from the papers.
Four difference in differences studies measure the coverage loss at between 5 and 15 per cent. Every study that tested forecast accuracy found it improved or held, and the studies disagree about whether small companies or large ones lost the most.
Members only
The rest of this page is for members
Below this point there are 4 sections and 5 named sources, roughly 500 words of it. Every figure carries the source it came from and the date the data is from.
You can keep browsing every statistic in the library for free. The intro and the summary are always open.