The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analyst Coverage and Intangible Assets
Open accessAbstract
This study examines the relation between analysts' incentives to cover firms and the extent of their intangible assets. Because intangible assets typically are unrecognized and estimates of their fair values are not disclosed, absent analyst coverage firms with more intangible assets likely have less informative prices. Accordingly, we expect analysts have greater incentives to cover firms with more intangible assets and, thus, predict they have higher analyst coverage. As predicted, we find that analyst coverage is significantly greater for firms with larger research and development and advertising expenses relative to their industry, and for firms in industries with larger research and development expense. We also predict and find that analyst coverage is increasing in firm size, growth, trading volume, equity issuance, and perceived mispricing, and is decreasing in the size of the firm's analysts' brokerage houses and the effort analysts expend to follow the firm. These findings indicate that analyst coverage depends on private benefits and costs of covering a firm. We also test hypotheses related to analyst effort. We predict and find that analysts expend greater effort to follow firms with more intangible assets, after controlling for other factors associated with analyst effort. Our evidence indicates that intangible assets, most of which are not recognized in firms' financial statements, are associated with greater incentives for analysts to cover such firms, and greater costs of coverage. An open question is whether financial statement recognition of intangible assets could more efficiently provide information about such assets to investors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820
On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets
Stiglitz, J. E., & Grossman, S. J. (1980) · Columbia University · doi:10.7916/d8765r99 · Cited by 3,645
Cited by
Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.00000005 · Cited by 4,337
Casey, R. J., & Grenier, J. H. (2015) · AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/ajpt-50736 · Cited by 421
Harnessing aspect-based sentiment analysis: How are tweets associated with forecast accuracy?
The Australian National University, A., Ho, S. Y., Choi, K. W. (., The Australian National University, A., Yang, F. (., & The Australian National University, A. (2019) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00564 · Cited by 21
The importance of individual-pair lending relationships
Even-Tov, O., Li, X., Wang, H., & Williams, C. (2024) · Review of Accounting Studies · doi:10.1007/s11142-023-09782-9 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Barth, M. E., Kasznik, R., & McNichols, M. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-34
- ISSN
- 0021-8456 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-679X
- OpenAlex
- W3121691954
- Cited by
- 1,074
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 70.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analyst Coverage and Intangible Assets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-679x.00001
- The paper
- Barth, M. E., Kasznik, R., & McNichols, M. F. (2001). Analyst Coverage and Intangible Assets. Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.00001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.