We demonstrate that time stamps reported in I/B/E/S for analysts' recommendations released during trading hours are systematically delayed. Using newswirereported time stamps, we find 30-minute returns of 1.83% (−2.10%) for upgrades (downgrades), but for this subset of recommendations we find corresponding returns of −0.07% (−0.09%) using I/B/E/S-reported time stamps. We also examine the information content of recommendations relative to management guidance and earnings announcements. Our evidence suggests that analysts' recommendations are the most important information disclosure channel examined.A LARGE BODY OF ACADEMIC research suggests that sell-side analysts play an important role in the price discovery process. Womack (1996) documents that recommendation changes generate a large and statistically significant threeday announcement period return, on average. This finding has been replicated in dozens of subsequent studies.1 However, recent papers by Altinkilic and Hansen (2009) and Altinkilic, Balashov, and Hansen (2010) challenge the view that analysts are important information intermediaries. Using intraday returns centered on recommendation revisions during trading hours, they find that revisions are associated with insignificant price reactions. They conclude that analysts "piggyback" by releasing recommendations soon after other news that materially impacts the stock price.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Risk and Society, 14(6), 511-531. Permanent AbstractBackground: Risk perception in women with high risk pregnancies can affect their

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent

Background Risk perception in relation to pregnancy and birth is a complex process influenced by multiple personal, psychological and societal factors. Traditionally, the risk perception of healthcare professionals has been presented as more objective and authoritative than that of pregnant women. Doctors have been presented as more concerned with biomedical risk than midwives. Such dichotomies oversimplify and obscure the complexity of the process. This study examines pregnancy-related risk perception in women and healthcare professionals, and what women and professionals believe about each other’s risk perception. Methods A cross sectional survey of set in UK maternity services. Participants were doctors working in obstetrics (N = 53), midwives (N = 59), pregnant women (N = 68). Participants were recruited in person from two hospitals. Doctors were also recruited online. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring the degree of perceived risk in various childbirth-related scenarios; and the extent to which they believed others agreed with them about the degree of risk generally involved in childbirth. Main outcome measures were the degree of risk perceived to the mother in baby in pregnancy scenarios, and beliefs about own perception of risk in comparison to their own group and other groups. Results There were significant differences in total risk scores between pregnant women, doctors and midwives in perception of risk to the mother in 68/80 scenarios. Doctors most frequently rated risks lowest. Total scores for perceived risk to the baby were not significantly different. There was substantial variation within each group. There was more agreement on the ranking of scenarios according to risk. Each group believed doctors perceived most risk whereas actually doctors most frequently rated risks lowest. Each group incorrectly believed their peers rated risk similarly to themselves. Conclusions Individuals cannot assume others share their perception of risk or that they make correct assessments regarding others’ risk perception. Further research should consider what factors are taken into account when making risk assessments,

Objective To examine the perception of risk among a group of women with high risk pregnancies who were either planning to give birth in hospital, or at home despite medical advice to the contrary. The intention was to consider differences and similarities between the groups to examine how perception of risk relates to choice of place of birth. Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting Maternity department in a hospital in South East England. Participants Twenty-six women with high risk pregnancies, at least 32 weeks pregnant. Half were planning hospital births and half homebirths. Measurements and findings Semi-structured interviews to investigate women's understanding and assessment of risk. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. Five themes emerged: understanding of situation; judgement of risk; reassuring factors; impact of risk; and coping with risk. Women from both groups had some understanding of the implications of their medical/obstetric conditions. They displayed concerns about their babies' wellbeing. Women planning homebirths assessed their risks as lower and expressed less concerns than women planning hospital births. Women planning hospital births more frequently described following professional advice. Key conclusions Risk perception is individual and subjective. Women with high risk pregnancies who plan to give birth at home perceive risk differently to women who plan hospital births. Implications for practice Healthcare professionals working with women with high risk pregnancies should be aware of the potential for differences in definitions and perceptions of risk within this group.

No abstract

professionals working with women with high risk pregnancies should acknowledge women's concerns and deliver impartial, evidence-based advice.