Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum reference:

Surveys comparing buy-side and sell-side research priorities


Source: IR Magazine, October 27, 2014 article

Inside the black box of analyst decision making

October 27, 2014 | By Jeff Cossette

Sell side values one-on-one engagement more highly than buy side, find surveys

A pair of large-scale surveys of buy-side and sell-side analysts has uncovered an array of valuable and perhaps surprising insights into the different inputs and incentives that shape their respective research. Among the findings:

Sell-side analysts rank private communication with management as more important than their own primary research, recent earnings performance or the latest 10K and 10Q reports when determining earnings forecasts and stock recommendations.

Buy-side analysts say recent 10K or 10Q reports are more useful than quarterly conference calls, management earnings guidance and recent earnings performance when determining their stock recommendations.

Less than 3 percent of buy-side analysts believe sell-side stock recommendations are very useful.

‘Financial analysts are in the academic spotlight,’ says study co-author Nathan Sharp, associate professor of accounting at Texas A&M University. ‘Until now, however, little was known about the context in which they made their decisions. We wanted to penetrate that ‘black box’.’

To do so, Sharp, along with colleagues Andrew Call at Arizona State University, Michael Clement at the University of Texas at Austin, and Lawrence Brown at Temple University, surveyed more than 700 US buy-side and sell-side analysts, following up with 32 detailed interviews to shed light on the more intriguing data.

For Sharp, perhaps the most notable revelation is the enduring impact private communication with management has on the sell side’s earnings forecasts and recommendations. ‘We thought Reg FD would have rendered private conversations of limited use,’ he says. ‘But it appears managers give valuable information selectively to certain analysts in private communications.’ He adds that the findings may be consistent with an aspect of Reg FD that allows managers to disclose immaterial information to an analyst that helps complete a ‘mosaic’ of information, which, taken together, is material.

One analyst interviewee describes the information discussed on the private calls as follows: ‘It’s not non-public material information; it’s clarification of points. They help you digest the information a little bit better.’

Another analyst reports that buy-side clients believe the insights of sell-side analysts are more valuable when analysts have direct contact with management: ‘Regardless of Reg FD, investors value analysts’ direct contact with management more than anything. As an analyst, if I call up a money manager, a hedge fund, whoever, and I’ve got a call to make on a stock and I’m able to say, Hey, by the way, we were able to spend 20-30 minutes talking to senior management, then boom! Their ears are just straight up.’

For their part, many buy-side analysts consider talking to management to be far less important. One describes the risks of getting to close to management members: ‘Some buy-siders don’t even want to touch management because they feel it’s going to bias them. If I become friends with this guy, I don’t want to bias my objective outlook on the fundamentals.’

Sharp says these divergent views underscore a range of fundamentally different inputs affecting each class of analyst’s professional outputs. ‘Buy-side analysts emphasize fundamentals like financial reports more than they emphasize relationships with management,’ he says. ‘Critics have said financial reports lack timeliness and have lost relevance. As accounting professors, we were surprised and pleased to discover that this isn’t the case.’

Study results also point to stark contrasts between how buy-side and sell-side analysts evaluate the integrity of financial statements. ‘Essentially, sell-side analysts tell us, We take the statements on faith. If auditors can’t catch problems neither will we,’ says Sharp. ‘The buy side, on the other hand, has real skin in the game. We find it is much more willing to scrutinize statements looking for red flags of intentional misrepresentation.’

The researchers further find that buy-side analysts give little consideration to either brokerage size or Institutional Investor-style all-star status when deciding which sell-side analyst’s information to use. Instead, they value sell-side analysts’ industry knowledge and the frequency with which they communicate with management.

‘Buy-side analysts report they often rely on the sell side to quickly get up to speed on a new industry they cover,’ says Sharp, adding that divergent financial incentives to produce profitable stock recommendations may partially explain the buy side’s lack of interest in sell-side recommendations.

‘Although the profitability of the recommendations buy-side analysts submit to their portfolio managers is the most important determinant of their compensation, sell-side analysts’ compensation is less closely tied to the profitability of their stock picks,’ explains Sharp. ‘Interestingly, sell-side analysts’ recommendations are less valuable to the buy side than information the sell side provides about other investors’ opinions or holdings.’



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.