Do Suppliers Care About Analyst Forecasts When Extending Trade Credit? A Quasi‐Natural Experiment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We examine whether suppliers care about analyst forecasts for their customers when making trade credit decisions. Using the suspension of the 2018 New Fortune Star Analyst Contest in China as an exogenous shock and employing difference‐in‐differences analyses, we find that after the suspension of this contest, there is a significant improvement in the information environment of firms followed mainly by analysts signing up for the 2018 contest, as evidenced by more accurate analyst earnings forecasts and lower bid‐ask spreads, and that suppliers extend more trade credit to these firms. Further analyses reveal that the effect of the suspension of this contest on trade credit is more pronounced for firms with higher information asymmetry, for firms whose future earnings are more challenging to forecast, for firms whose suppliers have higher information acquisition costs, and for firms followed by more competent analysts. These findings support the view that the star analyst contest distracts analysts and shed light on the benefits of suspending this contest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it