Corporate Social Reporting (CSR) assumes that the companies are socially conscious to discharge their social obligations for the well being of the society. Now business enterprises are under pressure from stakeholders to report to them, as to what extent they have been successful in protecting their interests. Thus, it is essential for them to adopt social accounting practices and report to interested parties as to what extent they have discharged the social responsibilities delegated to them. This study reveals that most of the listed companies in Bangladesh did not provide any information regarding the environment, human resources, community, and consumers in 1996‐97. Though some progressive companies disclosed some information, that information was not at all adequate in discharging social responsibilities. All the information provided by these companies was qualitative in nature and the disclosure level was very poor.

This paper examines the use of valuation models by UK investment analysts. The study is based on, first, semi-structured interviews with 35 sell-side analysts from 10 leading investment banks and with 7 buy-side analysts from 3 asset management firms and, second, content analysis based on 98 equity research reports for FTSE-100 companies covered by the sell-side interviewees. We observe that analysts perceive the discounted cash flow (DCF) (and to some extent 'sophisticated' models in general) to have become significantly more important than prior survey evidence suggests, although we also find the (somewhat paradoxical) continued importance of 'unsophisticated' valuation multiples, notably the price/earnings ratio (PE). We find perceived limitations in the technical applicability of the DCF, which cause analysts to rely in practice upon valuation multiples and subjective judgement of whether the market price 'feels right'. We also find that contextual factors, notably the analysts' need for their research to be credible to buy-side clients, cause the use of subjective, unsophisticated methods of valuation to be played down. Given the inherent flexibility of the DCF model, coupled with its ostensible credibility, it becomes the natural vehicle for conveying the analyst's research, even though it is very rarely relied upon to determine target prices and investment recommendations. We conclude that, while the literature has focused on the technical merits of alternative valuation models, analysts' actual usage of valuation models also requires an understanding of social and economic context and motivations.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the nature of the work that financial analysts actually do in the context of the market for information and to further open up research in this area to qualitative and sociological inquiry. Design/methodology/approach – A field study with 49 financial analysts (both buy-side and sell-side) was undertaken in order to understand the work that they actually do. This field study was theoretically informed by the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Findings – The authors find, in contrast to both conventional wisdom and assumptions in prior (mostly quantitative) literature, that the primary value of sell-side analyst work lies not in the recommendations that analysts ultimately produce, but in the rich contextual information that they provide to buy-side analysts. In order to successfully provide this information, analysts have to embody large amounts of technical capital into their habitus. Research limitations/implications – Much research in this area erroneously presumes that forecasting is the primary function of analysts. Analyst work needs to be understood as multifarious and requiring a well-developed habitus that is attuned to the accumulation of both technical and social capital. Future qualitative research might usefully explore in more detail the way in which corporate managers interact with analysts. The present study solicits the viewpoints only of the analysts themselves. The organisational context of the analysts was not explored in detail and the interviews were pre-crisis, which possibly explains why the technical capital of sell-side analysts was extolled by interviewees rather than lambasted. Originality/value – The paper is one of few studies to look at analysts from a qualitative and sociological perspective. It both complements and extends both emerging sociological work on financial intermediaries and qualitative work on the “market for information”.

No abstract

No abstract