Analyst coverage: Does the listing location really matter?Omaima A.G. Hassan and Frank S. Skinner International Review of Financial Analysis, 2016, vol. 46, issue C, 227-236 Abstract: Using a count panel regression method, we find that the listing location really does matter as stocks listed on the main board (FTSE350) rather than the junior market (AIM) attract more analyst coverage than can be explained by existing factors, even when we control for listing requirements and the type of cross-listing. We also find that listing requirements have a significantly greater impact on the number of analysts following AIM companies rather than their FTSE350 counterparts. Moreover, pooling stocks from different listing locations can conceal additional differences in the determinates of analyst services for the main board and junior markets. For example, cross-listing on a stock exchange increases analysts coverage for FTSE350 stocks but not AIM stocks and listing on less transparent trading venues such as over the counter and alternative trading systems (dark pools) decreases analyst coverage, especially for AIM stocks. Keywords: Analyst coverage; Analysts following; Security analyst; FTSE350; AIM; Alternative trading systems (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:finana:v:46:y:2016:i:c:p:227-236 DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2016.05.008 Access Statistics for this article International Review of Financial Analysis is currently edited by B.M. Lucey More articles in International Review of Financial Analysis from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.