Analyst Responses to Changes in Credit Risk

ABSTRACT Do analysts adjust their recommendations when a company's credit risk changes? Using an extensive sample of 300,145 observations, covering 3722 US firms from 2000 to 2021, we find that analysts revise their recommendations when a firm's credit risk decreases but not when it increases. This result is consistent with analysts’ optimism bias, as previously identified in the literature. However, we further find that this optimism bias disappears for firms with low information asymmetry or good informativeness. The fact that analysts for these firms have less cognitive bias and greater pressure to make accurate recommendations may explain this result. Our research highlights that analyst disclosures should be treated with caution, especially in firms with poor informational characteristics. A proper understanding of analyst recommendations is critical for the decision‐making processes of investors and companies and calls for better regulations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting
Published
2025-02-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12231
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.82

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Analyst Responses to Changes in Credit Risk

Pilar Corredor, Isabel Abínzano, B. Martínez
2 citations
Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
7.82
article

Analyst Responses to Changes in Credit Risk

Pilar Corredor, Isabel Abínzano, B. Martínez
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Do analysts adjust their recommendations when a company's credit risk changes? Using an extensive sample of 300,145 observations, covering 3722 US firms from 2000 to 2021, we find that analysts revise their recommendations when a firm's credit risk decreases but not when it increases. This result is consistent with analysts’ optimism bias, as previously identified in the literature. However, we further find that this optimism bias disappears for firms with low information asymmetry or good informativeness. The fact that analysts for these firms have less cognitive bias and greater pressure to make accurate recommendations may explain this result. Our research highlights that analyst disclosures should be treated with caution, especially in firms with poor informational characteristics. A proper understanding of analyst recommendations is critical for the decision‐making processes of investors and companies and calls for better regulations.

Journal of International Financial Management and AccountingVol. 36(3)
Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) (ES)
Fundación Ramón Areces, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
7.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.