重新划定界限:勉强超过分析师预测和记者在收益相关新闻文章中的共同报道选择

IF 2.9 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics Pub Date : 2023-08-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jcae.2023.100376
Jingjing Xia
{"title":"重新划定界限:勉强超过分析师预测和记者在收益相关新闻文章中的共同报道选择","authors":"Jingjing Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.jcae.2023.100376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Do journalists use editorial tools to help investors clarify uncertain earnings performance? This study examines this question in the context of WSJ reporters’ co-coverage choices. Using narrowly beating consensus analyst forecasts as a proxy for earnings evaluation uncertainty, I find that journalists tend to co-cover peers that are more economically related to the announcing firm when it reported earnings that narrowly beat consensus analyst forecasts (“beaters”) than when discussing the earnings of non-beaters. Using intra-day data, I further find that stock investors appear to use the co-covered peers as a benchmark to evaluate the earnings of the beaters but not the earnings of the non-beaters. These findings highlight the usefulness of media’s editorial content to investors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46693,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redrawing the line: Narrowly beating analyst forecasts and journalists’ co-coverage choices in earnings-related news articles\",\"authors\":\"Jingjing Xia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcae.2023.100376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Do journalists use editorial tools to help investors clarify uncertain earnings performance? This study examines this question in the context of WSJ reporters’ co-coverage choices. Using narrowly beating consensus analyst forecasts as a proxy for earnings evaluation uncertainty, I find that journalists tend to co-cover peers that are more economically related to the announcing firm when it reported earnings that narrowly beat consensus analyst forecasts (“beaters”) than when discussing the earnings of non-beaters. Using intra-day data, I further find that stock investors appear to use the co-covered peers as a benchmark to evaluate the earnings of the beaters but not the earnings of the non-beaters. These findings highlight the usefulness of media’s editorial content to investors.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1815566923000267\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1815566923000267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

记者是否使用编辑工具来帮助投资者澄清不确定的盈利表现?本研究在《华尔街日报》记者共同报道选择的背景下考察了这个问题。使用勉强超出分析师预期的收益评估不确定性作为代理,我发现记者倾向于共同报道与宣布公司有更大经济关联的同行,当它报告的收益略高于分析师预期时(“优于”),而不是讨论非优于的收益时。通过使用当日数据,我进一步发现,股票投资者似乎使用共覆盖同行作为基准来评估跑赢者的收益,而不是非跑赢者的收益。这些发现突出了媒体编辑内容对投资者的有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Redrawing the line: Narrowly beating analyst forecasts and journalists’ co-coverage choices in earnings-related news articles

Do journalists use editorial tools to help investors clarify uncertain earnings performance? This study examines this question in the context of WSJ reporters’ co-coverage choices. Using narrowly beating consensus analyst forecasts as a proxy for earnings evaluation uncertainty, I find that journalists tend to co-cover peers that are more economically related to the announcing firm when it reported earnings that narrowly beat consensus analyst forecasts (“beaters”) than when discussing the earnings of non-beaters. Using intra-day data, I further find that stock investors appear to use the co-covered peers as a benchmark to evaluate the earnings of the beaters but not the earnings of the non-beaters. These findings highlight the usefulness of media’s editorial content to investors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Expanded auditor’s reports and voluntary disclosure Long-term tax strategy and corporate acquisition payment structure: An analysis based on the book-tax tradeoff theory Dividend signalling and investor protection: An international comparison MD&A tone and stock returns The bright side of staggered boards: Evidence from labor investment efficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1