IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ufajxx/v71y2015i4p24-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Conference Call Tones: Managers vs. Analysts

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Brockman
  • Xu Li
  • S. McKay Price

Abstract

In this study, the authors extracted the linguistic tones of managers and analysts during earnings conference calls and examined the differences between them. The authors found that manager tones convey much more optimism (less pessimism) than their analyst counterparts and that investors (particularly institutional investors) react more strongly to analyst tones than to manager tones. Following the August 2000 adoption of Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, interest in the conference call disclosure medium within the investment community, among corporate executives, and by academics has increased substantially. Quarterly earnings conference calls are now open to the public, and recent research has shown that market participants react to the incremental information contained therein. However, prior work has not disentangled the most prominent and interesting aspect of these interactive corporate events—the open dialogue between managers and analysts. The ability to distinguish and examine “who said what” during conference calls has important implications for understanding the mechanisms by which information is mapped into stock prices. Most studies to date have treated these important interactions between managers and analysts as a black-box process: we know who goes in (managers and analysts), and we know what comes out (abnormal stock returns), but we do not know who is responsible for which aspect of what comes out.In this study, we conducted just such an in-depth examination of conference call transcripts by identifying and comparing the linguistic tones of managers and analysts. We used call transcripts to construct a sample that includes conference calls over the 16-quarter period from 2004 through 2007. For each call, we parsed the transcript into its basic components and, using a specialized textual analysis program, extracted the linguistic content (i.e., “tone”) of managers and analysts separately.Our results provide several contributions to our understanding of the informational roles played by managers and analysts. First, we measured and compared the linguistic tones of managers and analysts during conference calls and showed that managers present more optimistic tones, on average, than analysts present. This finding suggests that investors should pay close attention to managerial incentives when weighing the content and meaning of managerial disclosures. Second, we documented that analyst tones are subject to less discounting by market participants than manager tones are. This finding highlights the important role of information intermediaries, such as financial analysts, in discerning the information content of public disclosures. Third, we showed that institutional investors appear to be more capable of analyzing and interpreting linguistic tones than individual investors are. This finding adds to our knowledge of the sources of institutional investors’ information advantages.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Brockman & Xu Li & S. McKay Price, 2015. "Differences in Conference Call Tones: Managers vs. Analysts," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(4), pages 24-42, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:71:y:2015:i:4:p:24-42
    DOI: 10.2469/faj.v71.n4.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2469/faj.v71.n4.1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2469/faj.v71.n4.1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:71:y:2015:i:4:p:24-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ufaj20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.