Underwriting relationships,analysts' earnings forecasts and investment recommendations

We examine the effect of underwriting relationships on analysts' earnings forecasts and recommendations. Lead and co-underwriter analysts' growth forecasts and recommendations are significantly more favorable than those made by unaffiliated analysts, although their earnings forecasts are not generally greater. Investors respond similarly to lead underwriter and unaffiliated `Strong buy' and `Buy' recommendations, but three-day returns to lead underwriter `Hold' recommendations are significantly more negative than those to unaffiliated `Hold' recommendations. The findings suggest investors expect lead analysts are more likely to recommend `Hold' when `Sell' is warranted. The post-announcement returns following affiliated and unaffiliated analysts' recommendations are not significantly different.     

Stock market openness and analyst forecast bias

Biases in analysts’ forecasts can be reduced not only through regulation but also through market mechanisms. In 2014, China launched the Shanghai-Hong Kong Connect program, which opened part of its domestic equity market to foreign investors. The implementation of this program provides a quasi-natural experimental setting to explore whether stock market openness plays a governance role in brokerage firms and minimizes their affiliated analysts' forecast biases. We find that the participation of foreign institutional investors mitigates the forecast biases of affiliated analysts. We also show that these analysts exert more significant effort by conducting more site visits. Our findings suggest that market liberalization can help improving the quality of analysts’ forecasts.     

Natural disasters and analysts' earnings forecasts

The effects of natural disasters on capital markets have been investigated by limited evidence even though these calamities bring considerable damages or loss of life. To fill this gap, we investigate the impacts of natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, on security analysts' earnings forecasts for affected firms in China. We obtain three key findings. First, analysts' optimism significantly decreases for firms located in neighborhood areas. Second, earthquakes do not significantly affect firm earnings and stock returns, thereby indicating that post-earthquake analyst pessimism is not based on rational judgment. Third, media attention promotes irrational pessimism among analysts, and post-earthquake pessimism is a result of heuristics bias attributable to psychological shocks. However, analysts correct the bias after initial irrational forecasts. Taken together, our findings contribute to the broader psychology and economics literature on the effects of natural disasters on analyst forecasts.     

Does revenue-expense matching play a differential role in analysts’ earnings and revenue forecasts?

This paper investigates whether matching has differential implications for the accuracy of analysts' earnings and revenue forecasts. We construct a novel measure of firm-level matching and document that matching improves analysts' earnings forecasts to a greater extent than their revenue forecasts. We also document matching's differential impact on analysts' earnings and sales forecasts by proposing a new count metric capturing a wedge in the accuracy of earnings and revenue forecasts. In additional tests, we report that the differential impact of matching is less (more) pronounced in a situation where the balance sheet (income statement) orientation likely dominates. We also report that matching's differential role is weaker (stronger) when firms have high intangible intensity (analysts have appropriate resources or expertise). In short window tests, matching's role in analysts' forecast revisions is more pronounced for earnings than sales forecasts. Overall, these results show how analysts benefit from better revenue-expense matching.     

Accurate forecasts attract clients; Biased forecasts keep them happy

We examine whether business relationships between mutual funds and sell-side analysts influence earnings forecasts using Chinese data from 2007 to 2019. Consistent with prior studies, our results support the commission pressure hypothesis. Analysts' forecasts are overly optimistic for the holdings of existing fund clients. Significantly, we propose the potential client hypothesis and show that analysts' forecasts are more accurate for the holdings of funds that are not clients than for holdings of clients or for stocks not held by any fund. Our results suggest that commission pressure from existing fund clients increases analysts' optimistic bias, while potential clients pressure inhibits analysts' optimistic bias to some extent. Finally, our evidence supports the conflicts of interest hypothesis. Commission pressure is reduced as economic uncertainty grows.     

Short selling and the independence of business-related analysts: Evidence from an emerging market

This paper investigates whether short-sale deregulation improves analysts' independence in an emerging market where conventional mechanisms mitigating conflicts of interest are either ineffective or absent. Short selling reduces the effectiveness of analysts' favourable opinions in creating or sustaining overvalued stock prices, thus decreasing the incentives of institutional clients of brokerages to exert pressure on related analysts to initiate coverage and issue biased opinions. Using a difference-in-difference approach, we find strong evidence that stocks that are eligible for short sales experience a greater reduction in coverage by related analysts than stocks that are ineligible for short sales. When covered firms become eligible for short sales, the quality of forecasts and recommendations issued by related analysts improves considerably. Further analyses show that shortable firms with a significant reduction in related analysts' coverage are more likely to underperform and to experience stock price crashes in the future. Altogether, our results are consistent with short selling effectively restoring related analysts' independence in emerging markets.     

CEO happiness and forecasting

We utilize the IBM Watson Tone Analyzer to measure chief executive officers' (CEOs') levels of joy (happiness) in year-end conference calls, and empirically test how CEOs' happiness affects the properties of their own and analysts' forecasts. We find that joyful CEOs are more likely to issue forecasts, less likely to miss their forecast targets, and exhibit lower optimistic bias in their forecasts. When joyful CEOs issue earnings forecasts, analysts revise their forecasts upwards and produce forecasts that are less dispersed and more accurate. Our results demonstrate that inherent CEO happiness significantly impacts the forecast properties of both managers and analysts, thus supporting upper echelons theory.     

Disclosure Practices, Enforcement of Accounting Standards, and Analysts' Forecast Accuracy: An International Study

Using a sample from 22 countries, I investigate the relations between the accuracy of analysts' earnings forecasts and the level of annual report disclosure, and between forecast accuracy and the degree of enforcement of accounting standards. I document that firm‐level disclosures are positively related to forecast accuracy, suggesting that such disclosures provide useful information to analysts. I construct a comprehensive measure of enforcement and find that strong enforcement is associated with higher forecast accuracy. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that enforcement encourages managers to follow prescribed accounting rules, which, in turn, reduces analysts' uncertainty about future earnings. I also find evidence consistent with disclosures being more important when analyst following is low and with enforcement being more important when more choice among accounting methods is allowed.     

Financial Analysts and the False Consensus Effect

Social psychologists have documented a tendency for people to overestimate their similarity to others. I investigate whether financial analysts' forecast errors are consistent with this bias. I model the bias by assuming analysts overestimate the correlation of the private signals they receive about a firm's future earnings. My model predicts a positive relationship between (i) the likelihood of an analyst's revised forecast being too close to his earlier forecast and (ii) the number of analysts issuing forecasts during the time interval between his two forecasts. I empirically confirm this prediction and consider several alternative explanations.     

PRIOR UNCERTAINTY,ANALYST BIAS,AND SUBSEQUENT ABNORMAL RETURNS

In this paper we examine the relation between analysts' overoptimism and uncertainty as proxied by the standard deviation of earnings forecasts. We find a positive relation between overoptimism and uncertainty, but very little or no optimism when uncertainty is low. If the uncertainty surrounding a firm is high, analysts have fewer reputational concerns when they act on their inclinations to issue optimistic forecasts. Portfolio strategies based on these findings generate abnormal returns. The results suggest that greater prior uncertainty leads to higher analyst optimism, which in turn causes market overvaluation and profitable portfolio strategies.     

Analysts' forecasts as earnings expectations

I examine three composite analyst forecast of earnings per share as proxies for expected earnings. The most current forecast weakly dominates the mean and median forecasts in accuracy. This is evidence that forecast dates are more relevant for determining accuracy than individual error. Consistent with previous research, I find analysts more accurate than time-series models. However prior knowledge of forecast errors from a quarterly autoregressive model predicts excess stock returns better than prior knowledge of analysts' errors. This is inconsistent with previous research, and is anomalous given analysts' greater accuracy.     

Analyst reputation and management earnings forecasts

Prior studies show that analysts with high reputation are influential in the market. This paper examines whether managers consider analyst reputation in shaping their voluntary disclosure strategy. Using Institutional Investor magazine’s All-American (AA) rankings as a proxy for analyst reputation, we find that the coverage of AA analysts is positively associated with the likelihood of quarterly management earnings forecasts (MEFs). We also find that AA analysts’ forecast optimism is more positively associated with the likelihood of MEFs than non-AA analysts’ forecast optimism when the firm is covered by AA analysts. Analyses based on AA analyst coverage changes and AA status changes confirm the relation between analyst reputation and MEFs. We further find that analyst reputation influences other MEF properties, such as forecast news, bias, and revisions, and that our results are robust to alternative measures of analyst reputation. Further analyses show that market reactions at quarterly earnings announcements are more positive (negative) when firms meet/beat (miss) AA analysts’ forecasts than when firms meet/beat (miss) non-AA analysts’ forecasts. Collectively, our findings suggest that managers strategically provide voluntary forecasts by taking into account the reputation of individual analysts following their firms.     

RATIONAL EXPECTATIONS AND THE DYNAMIC ADJUSTMENT OF SECURITY ANALYSTS' FORECASTS TO NEW INFORMATION

We report the results of unbiasedness tests of security analysts' earnings forecasts. By examining how analysts incorporate new information into their updated earnings forecasts we can analyze directly the effect of new information on analysts' forecast revisions and evaluate whether these revised forecasts converge to rational expectations forecasts. The forecasts made by security analysts participating in the Institutional Brokers Estimate System (IBES) database are analyzed. Using standard statistical tests, we reject the simple form of the rational expectations hypothesis. However, by extending the standard tests used in previous studies, we obtain results that suggest that analysts' earnings forecasts conform to a dynamic form of rationality. The tendency of revised forecasts to converge stochastically toward the rational expectations forecast cautions against the rejection of more complicated forms of rationality.     

The impact of institutional analyst forecast divergence on crude oil market: Evidence from the mixed frequency models

As important information intermediaries, analysts play a non-negligible role in the crude oil market. Existing research often focuses on analysts' collection and interpretation of firm-specific information, but neglects the impact of analysts' forecasts on specific markets such as the crude oil market, which is crucial to the safe and stable development of the crude oil market. Therefore, this study uses historical data from January 2011 to December 2020 as a sample to construct analysts' forecast divergence indicators from 15 institutional analysts' forecast data on international crude oil futures prices. It then explores the impact of institutional analysts' forecast divergence on oil price return volatility, crude oil market jumps and crude oil futures trading volume, based on various mixed-frequency models. The results are as follows: First, volatility in oil price returns increases with a growing divergence in analysts' forecasts. Second, analysts' forecasts do not trigger jump in the crude oil market on the first six days after the information is released, but trigger a significant positive jump in the market on the seventh day. Third, the impact of analysts' forecast divergence on trading volume is weak; however, the reverse effect is significant, while the static and dynamic spillover results are consistent.     

Analysts' Forecasts Following Forced CEO Changes

This paper examines analysts' earnings forecasts during the period of uncertainty following a change of chief executive officer (CEO). It distinguishes between forced and non‐forced CEO changes, and examines whether analysts utilize their information advantage to reduce the heightened uncertainty of a forced change of CEO. Examining a sample of Australian companies followed by analysts between 1999 and 2009, we find that forecasting accuracy is lower and earnings forecasts are more optimistic for firms experiencing forced CEO turnover compared to firms not undergoing such a change. However, dispersion is not statistically different. The results suggest that forced CEO turnover events provide a challenge to the forecasting environment for analysts. During CEO changes, investors should be aware that forecasts are less accurate and have an optimistic bias.     

On the Determinants of Optimism in Financial Analyst Earnings Forecasts: The Effect of the Market's Ability to Adjust for the Bias

This paper examines whether the documented bias in analyst earnings forecasts is intentional by examining whether it is related to the market's ability to adjust for this bias. For intentional bias to exist it is not enough for analysts to face incentives but rather, analysts should also be willing to respond to these incentives. As the market's ability to adjust for the bias increases, its market effects decrease while analyst reputation costs increase reducing analyst willingness to bias their forecasts. The paper utilizes a firm‐specific design that allows for both the bias component of the forecast error and the market's ability to adjust for the bias to be computed at the firm level. Results suggest that even though forecast error is positive in the latter part of the period under review reflecting overall analyst pessimism, the bias embedded in the forecasts is optimistic throughout the period. More importantly, I find that analyst forecast bias is decreasing in the market's ability to adjust for it. This result provides further evidence that analysts knowingly bias their forecasts and provides support for the existence of reporting bias, in particular. Thus, the evidence provides justification for recent regulatory efforts to increase the objectivity of analyst research reports.     

Relationship Incentives and the Optimistic/Pessimistic Pattern in Analysts' Forecasts

We examine whether analysts' incentives to maintain good relationships with management contribute to the optimistic/pessimistic within‐period time trend in analysts' forecasts. In our experiments, 81 experienced sell‐side analysts from two brokerage firms predict earnings based on historical information and management guidance. Analysts' forecasts exhibit an optimistic/pessimistic pattern across the two timing conditions (early and late in the quarter), and the effect is significantly stronger when the analysts have a good relationship with management than when their only incentive is to be accurate. Debriefing results indicate that analysts are aware of this pattern of forecasts, and believe that this benefits their future relationships with management and with brokerage clients. The analysts most frequently cite favored conference call participation and information access when describing benefits from maintaining good relationships with management. Our results suggest the following: The optimistic/pessimistic pattern in forecasts is in part a conscious response to relationship incentives, information access is perceived to be a major benefit of management relationships, and recent regulatory changes may have lessened but have not eliminated this conflict of interest source.     

Additional Evidence on Analysts’ Decision to Issue Disaggregated Earnings Forecasts: Strategic Biasing

This study examines why analysts issue disaggregated earnings forecasts to I/B/E/S. Some recent studies suggest that analysts with superior forecasting ability issue disaggregated earnings forecasts to build reputation in the marketplace and stop forecast disaggregation once their reputation has been established. Based on an analysis of I/B/E/S forecast data for U.S. firms from 1998 to 2008, we find that, in a given year, about 20%–34% of analysts disaggregate for some, but not for all the firms that they follow. This evidence of selective disaggregation by analysts suggests that reputation building alone does not fully explain the decision to disaggregate forecasts. We hypothesize that the decision to disaggregate earnings forecasts is at the firm‐level as well and is systematically related to the analysts’ bias in the issued forecasts. Our findings are that (a) analysts’ overall optimistic bias and forecast errors decrease monotonically with the level of forecast disaggregation, and (b) analysts that selectively disaggregate their forecasts for some firms or who do not persistently disaggregate a given firm's forecasts exhibit more positive bias and larger forecast errors. Our findings are consistent with the notion that the analysts who issue biased forecasts, for example, to curry favour with the management, are less likely to provide disaggregated information as part of the forecast.     

Analyst responses to stock‐index adjustments: Evidence from MSCI Taiwan Index additions

Using data from MSCI Taiwan Index adjustments, we study analyst responses to stock additions from 1999 to 2007. The empirical results show that the magnitudes of changes in analysts' earnings-per-share forecasts are similar to those of their two benchmarks for new additions to the index. Therefore, in our sample we find no significant information effect from the additions. We also find that the absolute forecast errors made by analysts are smaller for new additions and those foreign analysts are more accurate than local analysts. This finding demonstrates that new additions to the index exhibit significant performance improvements.     

The supply of analysts and earnings forecasts

Using a unique set of hand-collected data, this study examines whether a larger supply of prospective analysts leads to existing financial analysts' higher earnings forecast accuracy. We analyze the effect of the analyst supply proxied by the number of universities and the number of finance and economics universities located in the same city as the headquarters of brokerage firms. Our findings suggest that brokerage firms located closer to a larger supply of potential analyst candidates are associated with higher analyst forecast accuracy, as observed by a lower forecast error. We further find that the degree of employed analysts' effort acts as a mediator between the supply of prospective analysts and the accuracy of their earnings forecasts.