The Effectiveness of Reputation as a Disciplinary Mechanism in Sell-Side Research

Using 1983-2002 U.S. data, we examine whether the quality differentials in earnings forecasts between reputable and non-reputable analysts vary as the severity of conflicts of interest varies. We measure personal reputation using the Institutional Investor All-American (AA) awards, and bank reputation using Carter-Manaster ranks. While both personal reputation and bank reputation are associated with higher-quality forecasts overall, their effectiveness against conflicts of interest differs. The severity of conflicts (proxied by the aggregate volume of new equity issues) has a negative and significant effect on the performance of non-AAs at top-tier banks relative to both AAs at top-tier banks and non-AAs at lower-tier banks. In contrast, the severity of conflicts has a positive and significant effect on the performance of AAs at top-tier banks relative to both non-AAs at top-tier banks and AAs at lower-tier banks. These findings suggest that personal reputation is an effective disciplinary device against conflicts of interest, while bank reputation alone is not