About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Sell-Side Coverage of European Companies Plummets Post-MiFID II, Finds Cass

Subscribe to our newsletter

A new paper from Cass Business School has found that sell-side analyst coverage of European companies has dropped “significantly” since the implementation of MiFID II in January 2018 – with a whopping 334 firms losing their analyst coverage completely.

The paper, entitled ‘The Effects of MiFID II on Sell-Side Analysts, Buy-Side Analysts, and Firms’, examined the effects of the MiFID II research unbundling requirement on all public firms headquartered in European Economic Area (EEA) countries from February 2015 to February 2019.

On average, the analysts who dropped coverage have higher lifetime forecast errors, higher forecast optimism, less experience on the job, and less experience covering the firm dropped – and the research did not find any significant changes in consensus forecast errors or dispersion. However, the remaining analysts are more likely to make sell or hold stock recommendations, their recommendation revisions garner greater market reactions, and their recommendations are more profitable.

In addition, sell-side analysts seem to cater more to the buy-side after MiFID II by providing industry recommendations along with stock recommendations. Importantly, the research found evidence to suggest that buy-side investment firms have turned to more in-house research after MiFID II implementation, and buy-side analysts have increased their participation and engagement in earnings conference calls.

The paper also found evidence of stock-market liquidity decreases post-MiFID II (after taking into account firms’ disclosure responses and changes in analyst coverage).

“MiFID II represented a shake-up of traditional business practices in Europe and has polarised opinion, with some industry figures being highly critical of its introduction.  We should not be surprised that such sweeping regulatory changes have had such a mixed impact,” says co-author Dr Zhongwei Huang.

“Our findings have implications beyond Europe, as investors are currently pressuring the US Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt a similar regulation.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Navigating a Complex World: Best Data Practices in Sanctions Screening

As rising geopolitical uncertainty prompts an intensification in the complexity and volume of global economic and financial sanctions, banks and financial institutions are faced with a daunting set of new compliance challenges. The risk of inadvertently engaging with sanctioned securities has never been higher and the penalties for doing so are harsh. Traditional sanctions screening...

BLOG

Basel III / FRTB: One Framework, Multiple Timelines, Mounting Pain for Global Firms

For much of the past decade, Basel III has been discussed as a global regulatory reform programme moving at uneven speed, but broadly in the same direction. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority’s confirmation of its Basel 3.1 timetable brings welcome clarity for firms operating in the UK market, yet it also underlines a deeper reality:...

EVENT

RegTech Summit London

Now in its 9th year, the RegTech Summit in London will bring together the RegTech ecosystem to explore how the European capital markets financial industry can leverage technology to drive innovation, cut costs and support regulatory change.

GUIDE

What the Global Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Will Mean for Your Firm

It’s hard to believe that as early as the 2009 Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh the industry had recognised the need for greater transparency as part of a wider package of reforms aimed at mitigating the systemic risk posed by the OTC derivatives market. That realisation ultimately led to the Dodd Frank Act, and...