- 20 Mar 2012
- Working Paper Summaries
The Stock Selection and Performance of Buy-Side Analysts
Important differences between buy- and sell-side analysts are likely to affect their behavior and performance. While considerable research during the last twenty years has focused on the performance of sell-side analysts (that is, analysts who work for brokerage firms, investment banks, and independent research firms), much less is known about buy-side analysts (analysts for institutional investors such as mutual funds, pension funds, and hedge funds). This paper examines buy recommendation performance for analysts at a large, buy-side firm relative to analysts at sell-side firms throughout the period of mid-1997 to 2004. The researchers find evidence of differences in the stocks recommended by the buy- and sell-side analysts. The buy-side firm analysts recommended stocks with stock return volatility roughly half that of the average sell-side analyst, and market capitalizations almost seven times larger. These findings indicate that portfolio managers (buy-side analysts' clients) prefer that buy-side analysts cover less volatile and more liquid stocks. The study also finds that the buy-side firm analysts' stock recommendations are less optimistic than their sell-side counterparts, consistent with buy-side analysts facing fewer conflicts of interest. This and future studies may help sell-side and buy-side executives to allocate their financial and human resources more strategically. Key concepts include: The failure to find that buy-side research out-performs that of sell-side analysts raises questions about whether investment firms should continue to rely on their own research rather than using research from sell-side analysts. Buy-side firms' analysts issued recommendations for companies with lower stock return volatility and larger market capitalizations than typical sell-side firms. Buy-side firm analysts recommended stocks with stock return volatility roughly half that of the average sell-side analyst (0.42% versus 0.95%), and market capitalizations almost seven times larger ($9.1 billion versus $1.3 billion). For stocks covered by both buy- and sell-side analysts, there were no differences in the buy recommendations' performance. Resolving whether buy-side research creates value is highly relevant to managers at buy-side firms who are faced with the challenge of allocating limited research resources. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 09 Mar 2012
- Working Paper Summaries
Causes and Consequences of Firm Disclosures of Anticorruption Efforts
Academic research on corruption has typically focused on its macro causes and consequences. While the country level is certainly important to understand, it is at the firm level where many questions remain unanswered. This study examines 480 of the world's largest companies, using ratings by Transparency International of firms' public disclosures of strategy, policies, and management systems for combatting corruption. Professors Paul Healy and George Serafeim find that firm disclosures are related to enforcement and monitoring costs, such as home country enforcement, US listing, big four auditors, and prior enforcement actions. Disclosures also reflect industry and country corruption risks. Meanwhile the financial implications of fighting disclosure are more nuanced. Key concepts include: While firm-level research on corruption is still at the formative stage, findings suggest that disclosure is more than cheap talk. Firms with high disclosure on their anticorruption efforts are committed to fighting corruption. The policies and enforcement actions reflected in their disclosures help to protect their public reputation and profitability, but at the cost of slower sales growth in high corruption risk markets. Firms with abnormally low disclosure have roughly 15 percent higher sales growth in corrupt country markets than their high disclosure peers. But this higher growth is accompanied by lower profit margins and return on equity. Firms with abnormally high anticorruption ratings have a lower frequency of subsequent allegations of corruption in the media, suggesting that disclosures reflect their commitment to fighting corruption. Future research could examine (among other issues) what factors, other than monitoring/enforcement costs and risk exposures, explain the differences in firms' level of disclosure and commitment to fight corruption. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 02 Mar 2012
- Working Paper Summaries
Short-Termism, Investor Clientele, and Firm Risk
In recent decades, commentators have argued that many corporations exhibit short-termism, a tendency to take actions that maximize short-term earnings and stock prices rather than the long-term value of the corporation. The authors develop a proxy for short-termism at the company level using conference call transcripts and then examine whether companies with more short-term horizons have (i) an investor base that is more short-term oriented, (ii) higher stock return volatility, and (iii) higher equity beta. The authors find that short-term oriented firms have more short-term oriented investors and higher risk. This paper contributes to the literature on the capital market effects of managerial and investor horizons. Key concepts include: Short-termism affects investor clientele but also firms' risk. Short-termism is non-diversifiable risk. Long-term investors require a risk premium for holding stocks of short-term oriented firms. Corporate short-termism is negatively associated with the extent to which long-term investors hold a firm's stock. Corporate short-termism is positively associated with return volatility. This is consistent with firms that have greater short-term emphasis (i) attracting investors that are more sensitive to short-term news and (ii) being more responsive to short-term news in their own planning decisions. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 06 Dec 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
What Impedes Oil and Gas Companies’ Transparency?
Oil and gas companies face asset expropriations and corruption by foreign governments in many of the countries where they operate. In addition, most of these companies operate in multiple host countries. What determines their disclosure of business activities and hence transparency? Paul Healy, Venkat Kuppuswamy, and George Serafeim examine three forms of disclosure costs that oil and gas managers could potentially consider. Both the US government and the European Union are currently considering laws that would require oil and gas companies to disclose information about operations in host countries. Key concepts include: Competitive risks are an important factor underlying differences in oil and gas firms' disclosure ratings across the host countries in which they operate. Requiring disclosure of payments to foreign governments is unlikely to increase proprietary costs for oil and gas companies. Mandating disclosures about the performance of oil and gas companies in host countries, however, is likely to increase proprietary costs, particularly risk of expropriations and costs related to product market competition. Companies that are coming from more corrupt home countries tend to be less transparent about their payments to host country governments. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 14 Nov 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Process and Performance
Robert G. Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou, and George Serafeim compared a matched sample of 180 companies, 90 of which they classify as High Sustainability firms and 90 as Low Sustainability firms, in order to examine issues of governance, culture, and performance. Findings for an 18-year period show that High Sustainability firms dramatically outperformed the Low Sustainability ones in terms of both stock market and accounting measures. However, the results suggest that this outperformance occurs only in the long term. Managers and investors who are hoping to gain a competitive advantage in the short term are unlikely to succeed by embedding sustainability in their organization's strategy. Overall, the authors argue that High Sustainability company policies reflect the underlying culture of the organization, where environmental and social performance, in addition to financial performance, are important, but these policies also forge a strong culture by making explicit the values and beliefs that underlie the mission of the organization. Key concepts include: Organizations voluntarily adopting environmental and social policies represent a fundamentally distinct type of modern corporation, characterized by a governance structure that takes into account the environmental and social performance of the company, in addition to financial performance, a long-term approach towards maximizing inter-temporal profits, and an active stakeholder management process. Societal concern about sustainability, at both the level of the firm and society as a whole, has been growing from almost nothing in the early 1990s to rapidly increasing awareness in the early 2000s, to being a dominant theme today. The High Sustainability firms in this study pay attention to their relationships with stakeholders—such as employees, customers, and NGOs representing civil society—through active processes of engagement. The Low Sustainability firms, by contrast, correspond to the traditional model of corporate profit maximization in which social and environmental issues are predominantly regarded as externalities created by firm actions which only need to be addressed if required to do so by law and regulation. The group of firms with a strong sustainability culture is significantly more likely to assign responsibility to its board of directors for sustainability and to form a separate board committee for sustainability. Moreover, High Sustainability companies are more likely to make executive compensation a function of environmental, social, and external perception (e.g., customer satisfaction) metrics. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 21 Oct 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information
During the past two decades, there have been many ideas for improving business reporting of nonfinancial information such as on a company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Using data from Bloomberg, authors Robert G. Eccles, Michael P. Krzus, and George Serafeim provide insights into market interest in nonfinancial information at a level of granularity not available until now. They identify exactly what information is of greatest interest, contrasting both the global and U.S. market across the full spectrum of ESG information and for each component of ESG, as well as Carbon Disclosure Project metrics. They also show variation in interest across asset classes and firm types, and present preliminary explanations for these differences. Key concepts include: From a practitioner perspective, these data can be used to benchmark one's own information use according to asset class and firm type. Practitioners can assess whether any differences represent competitive strengths or weaknesses in the information they are using in their decisions. Companies can use these findings to create more sophisticated communication strategies tailored to the information needs of market participants across asset classes and firm types. At the aggregate market level, interest in environmental and governance information is greater than interest in social information. Equity investors exhibit a higher interest in nonfinancial information compared to fixed income investors. Sell-side firms (broker-dealers) are primarily interested in greenhouse gas emissions data. In contrast, buy-side firms (hedge funds, insurance firms, pension funds, and money managers) are interested in a broad range of environmental, social, and governance information. The efforts of practitioners and researchers can improve the dissemination and use of nonfinancial information, thereby enabling companies to create more sustainable strategies for a more sustainable society. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 13 Oct 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
Market Competition, Government Efficiency, and Profitability Around the World
Understanding whether and how corporate profitability mean reverts across countries is important for valuation purposes. This research by Paul M. Healy, George Serafeim, Suraj Srinivasan, and Gwen Yu suggests that firm performance persistence varies systematically. Country product, capital, and to a lesser extent labor market competition all affect the rate of mean reversion of corporate profits. Corporate profitability exhibits faster mean reversion in countries with more competitive factor markets. In contrast, government efficiency decreases the speed of mean reversion, but only when the level of market competition is held constant. The findings are useful to practitioners and scholars interested in understanding how country factors affect corporate profitability. Key concepts include: There is predictable variation in mean reversion in corporate performance across countries. At a practical level, valuation exercises can benefit from considering country as well as traditional firm and industry factors in settling on the speed with which superior or inferior profits are likely to mean revert. Different level of performance persistence in each country will affect firm-value through valuation multiples. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 22 Jul 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
Corporate Social Responsibility and Access to Finance
Corporate social responsibility may benefit society, but does it benefit the corporation? Indeed it does, according to a new study that shows how CSR can make it easier for firms to secure financing for new projects. Research was conducted by George Serafeim and Beiting Cheng of Harvard Business School and Ioannis Ioannou of the London Business School. Key concepts include: The better a firm's CSR performance, the fewer capital restraints it will face. Better CSR performance is the result of improved stakeholder engagement, which in turn reduces the likelihood of opportunistic behavior and pushes managers to adopt a long-form strategy. This introduces a more efficient form of contracting with key constituents. Firms with good CSR performance are likely to report their CSR activities, thus increasing their overall transparency. Higher levels of transparency ease the fears of potential investors, making them more likely to invest. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 23 May 2011
- Op-Ed
Leading and Lagging Countries in Contributing to a Sustainable Society
To determine the extent to which corporate and investor behavior is changing to contribute to a more sustainable society, researchers Robert Eccles and George Serafeim analyzed data involving over 2,000 companies in 23 countries. One result: a ranking of countries based on the degree to which their companies integrate environmental and social discussions and metrics in their financial disclosures. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 23 May 2011
- Research & Ideas
Corporate Sustainability Reporting: It’s Effective
In a growing trend, countries have begun requiring companies to report their environmental, social, and governance performance. George Serafeim of HBS and Ioannis Ioannou of London Business School set out to find whether this reporting actually induces companies to improve their nonfinancial performance and contribute toward a sustainable society. Key concepts include: In the past 10 years, corporate investors have shown an increasing interest in the social responsibility of the companies whose stocks they pick. The researchers compared 16 countries that required sustainability reporting with a sample of 42 countries that didn't. Using several measures, they found that the social responsibility of business leaders and managerial credibility increased in those countries with reporting mandates. The data provide the first concrete evidence that mandating social responsibility reporting actually makes a positive difference. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 17 May 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting
The number of firms reporting sustainability information has grown significantly in the past decade, both due to voluntary actions and to mandates from several national governments and stock exchange authorities. In this paper, London Business School's Ioannis Ioannou and Harvard Business School's George Serafeim investigate whether mandatory sustainability reporting has any effect on a company's tendency to engage in socially responsible management practices. Key concepts include: The researchers show that mandatory sustainability reporting effectively promotes socially responsible managerial practices. Overall, supervision of managers by boards of directors improves, bribery and corruption decreases, and credibility of managers in society increases. In companies where sustainability reporting is a requirement, employee training becomes a higher priority, and corporate boards supervise management more effectively. These positive results are more pronounced in countries that have stronger law enforcement, countries where assurance of sustainability data is more frequent, and countries that are generally more developed. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 26 Apr 2011
- Op-Ed
HBS Faculty Comment on Environmental Issues for Earth Day
Harvard Business School faculty members offer their views on the many business facets of "going green." Open for comment; 0 Comments.
- 30 Sep 2010
- Working Paper Summaries
Does Mandatory IFRS Adoption Improve the Information Environment?
Created by the International Accounting Standards Board, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) comprise several principles designed to help public companies increase transparency in their financial reports. But are they worth the hefty compliance costs associated with them? This paper investigates whether adopting the IFRS improves the information environment for firms in which the standards are legally required. Research was conducted by Joanne Horton at the London School of Economics, George Serafeim at Harvard Business School, and Ioanna Serafeim at the Greek Capital Market Commission. Key concepts include: Consensus forecast errors decrease significantly after mandatory IFRS adoption at firms that mandatorily adopt the International Financial Reporting Standards, relative to early voluntary IFRS adopters and firms that continue to report under local GAAP. The extent of the error decrease is associated with the differences between the IFRS and the firm's existing generally-accepted accounting principles. The decrease in forecast errors is driven both by improved comparability across companies and better information being communicated in the reports. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 10 Sep 2010
- Working Paper Summaries
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Investment Recommendations
Security analysts are increasingly awarding more favorable ratings to firms with corporate socially responsible (CSR) strategies, according to this paper by Ioannis Ioannou and HBS professor George Serafeim. Their work explores how CSR strategies can affect value creation in public equity markets through analyst recommendations. Key concepts include: Top executives and managers interested in implementing CSR strategies in their organizations know that negative analysts' reactions, and subsequent value destruction in capital markets is a real possibility when they initially attempt to implement such strategies. Managers should be aware that not only what is communicated matters but also to whom it is communicated in the investment community. Research analysts differ in their ability to understand the implications of CSR. Among theoretical contributions, the research integrates diverse theoretical streams and offers the first empirical piece of evidence about how CSR strategies are perceived as value-creating by an important information intermediary: sell-side analysts. The work also integrates the CSR management literature with a large body of research in accounting and finance, to shed light on aspects of CSR activity for which little is known and much less is being understood; namely, the channels and the mechanisms through which the CSR impact is perceived and realized in public equity markets. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
The High Risks of Short-Term Management
A new study looks at the risks for companies and investors who are attracted to short-term results. Research by Harvard Business School's Francois Brochet, Maria Loumioti, and George Serafeim. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.