Has Sarbox made life tougher for stock analysts?

Three academics have reasoned that Sarbanes Oxley should have led to wider availability of better information about companies. If so, should analysts' forecast have become more accurate? And shouldn't there have been less variation? The New York Times notes that the professors--Joy Begley, of the University of British Columbia; Qiang Cheng, of the same university; and Yanmin Gao, of University of Alberta in Edmonton--have found the opposite. Forecasts became slightly less accurate after the law took effect, despite an early bump in accuracy. This may mean that the law has not really led to better financial disclosures. But there is a lot to control for, such as the effects of Reg FD. It's also true in some cases that fast-moving events, such as mortgage market downshifts, can lead to less predictability. But the results are interesting.

For more:
- here's the New York Times article