Financial analysts interact with their peers in various contexts. While prior research typically characterizes analyst relationships as purely competitive, we use a multiple-method approach drawing on social comparison theory to show that these relationships likely are more nuanced than previously understood. We argue that social comparison can enhance self-evaluation and therefore motivate effort, contributing to improved performance. Using peer analyst coverage overlaps for other firms in the focal analyst's portfolio to measure social comparison, we find that greater social comparisons are associated with more accurate forecasts. Importantly, social comparisons are also associated with various proxies of analyst effort, consistent with our theory. Cross-sectionally, overlaps of firms with greater importance and a longer history of being covered by the analyst have stronger effects, consistent with better knowledge of peers increasing the value of social comparisons. We conduct various analyses to rule out two alternative explanations based on competition and information-sharing among peers. Finally, we conduct 12 semi-structured interviews with analysts to offer rich descriptive evidence to provide context for our findings and test the assumptions of social comparison theory. Findings from these interviews support the notion that peer comparisons among analysts are an important element of the institutional environment and suggest areas for future research.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
