Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Analyst coverage: Does the listing location really matter?|
|Keywords:||Analyst coverage;Analysts following;Security analyst;FTSE350;AIM;Alternative trading systems|
|Citation:||International Review of Financial Analysis, 46: pp. 227–236, (2016)|
|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.|
|Appears in Collections:||Publications|
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.