This book explores the concept of disability through a social, political, cultural, religious, and economics lens. It challenges the categorization of 'physically-disabled' produced by way of legal, medical, political, cultural, and literary narratives that comprise an exclusionary discourse.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
AbstractThere is very little research on the topic of buy‐side analyst performance, and that which does exist yields mixed results. We use a large sample from both the buy‐side and the sell‐side and report several new results. First, while the contemporaneous returns to portfolios based on sell‐side recommendations are positive, the returns for buy‐side analysts, proxied by changes in institutional holdings, are negative. Second, the buy‐side analysts' underperformance is accentuated when they trade against sell‐side analysts' recommendations. Third, abnormal returns positively relate to both the portfolio size and the portfolio turnover of buy‐side analysts' institutions, suggesting that large institutions employ superior analysts and that superior analysts frequently change their recommendations. Abnormal returns are also positively related to buy‐side portfolios with stocks that have higher analyst coverage, greater institutional holding, and lower earnings forecast dispersion. Fourth, there is substantial persistence in buy‐side performance, but even the top decile performs poorly. These findings suggest that sell‐side analysts still outperform buy‐side analysts despite the severe conflicts of interest documented in the literature.
AbstractIn this study, we revisit the link between R2 (synchronicity) and earnings management (opacity) because of the importance of the ongoing debate on the relation between idiosyncratic risk and earnings management in the finance and accounting literatures. Hutton et al. (J. Financial Economics, 2009) provide evidence of a positive link between opacity and R2. They interpret their finding to imply that firms with high R2 (high synchronicity) have less firm‐specific information impounded in their stock price. Our results for this relationship fail to unequivocally support the results reported in Hutton et al. (2009). We show that their results are not only time variant but also not robust to the alternative empirical technique recommended for panel data by Petersen (2009) and alternative estimation of discretionary accruals adjusted for firm performance prescribed by Kothari et al. (2005). We also find no support for a convex relation between idiosyncratic risk and opacity. The findings documented in this study substantially revise some of Hutton et al.'s findings in this important and growing area of research.