English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this paper we verify the degree of reliability of brokerage analysts’ recommendations, with reference to Italian IPOs and measure their long-term performance, distinguishing among affiliated and non-affiliated analysts, to test the conflict of interests hypothesis against an alternative ‘superior information hypothesis’. The empirical evidence shows that IPOs recommended by affiliated analysts have a long-run performance that is worse than firms recommended by unaffiliated ones by a relevant amout. This result supports the conflict of interest hypothesis, while it seems to be inconsistent with the hypothesis that underwriter analysts have superior information.

Equity research credibility in the Italian stock market