Measure for Measure: The Relation between Forecast Accuracy and Recommendation Profitability of Analysts

We examine the contemporaneous relation between earnings forecast accuracy and recommendation profitability to assess the effectiveness with which analysts translate forecasts into profitable recommendations. We find that, after controlling for expertise, more accurate analysts make more profitable recommendations, albeit only for firms with value‐relevant earnings. Next, we show that conflicts of interest from investment banking activities affect the relation between accuracy and profitability. In the case of buy recommendations, more accurate forecasts are associated with more profitable recommendations only for the nonconflicted analysts. For hold recommendations, higher levels of accuracy are associated with higher levels of profitability for conflicted analysts, provided these recommendations are treated as sells. Finally, we find that regulatory reforms aimed at mitigating analyst conflicts of interest appear to have improved the relation between accuracy and profitability. Specifically, the integrity of buy and hold recommendations has improved and the change is more pronounced for analysts expected to be most conflicted.     

Do analysts who understand accounting conservatism exhibit better forecasting performance?

This study investigates the performance of analysts when they match the asymmetric timeliness of their earnings forecast revisions (i.e., asymmetric forecast timeliness) with the asymmetric timeliness of firms’ reported earnings (i.e., asymmetric earnings timeliness). We find that better timeliness‐matching analysts produce more accurate earnings forecasts and elicit stronger market reactions to their forecast revisions. Further, better timeliness‐matching analysts issue less biased earnings forecasts, more profitable stock recommendations and have more favorable career outcomes. Overall, our results indicate that analysts’ ability to incorporate conditional conservatism into their earnings forecasts is an important reflection of analyst expertise and professional success.     

Do Political Connections Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from a Developing Country

We investigate how politicians serving on the boards of directors influence firm performance. The results show a negative relationship between political connections and firm performance. Specifically, politically connected firms underperform nonconnected firms directors by almost 17 percent and 15 percent based on return on assets and return on equity, respectively. By stratifying the sample duration into two periods based on the political environment, we find that this effect is more pronounced in autocratic as opposed to democratic regimes. Finally, our results also suggest that the performance of connected firms with more growth opportunities is not affected by political connections.     

Political embeddedness and firms’ choices of earnings management strategies in China

We examine whether and how political embeddedness influences financial reporting quality in China by investigating how government ownership and political connections affect Chinese listed firms’ choices of earnings management strategies. The results show that state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and in particular, central SOEs, are more likely to substitute accrual-based earnings management strategies with costlier but less detectable real earnings management strategies than non-SOEs. The results also indicate that politically connected enterprises (PCEs) are more likely to employ less detectable real earnings management strategies than non-PCEs, so much so that PCEs’ total earnings management level is higher than that of non-PCEs.     

Forecast accuracy and stock recommendations

We examine whether it is profitable to trade according to the recommendations of analysts who made accurate earnings forecasts in a prior year. Prior research has shown that analysts who made the most accurate earnings forecasts in the current period also made the most profitable recommendations during that period. Unfortunately, our research shows that these accurate forecasters cannot be identified on the basis of their track record. While there is statistically significant evidence that forecasting ability is persistent, it is not sufficient to generate profitable stock recommendations in the future. We also attempted to identify superior analysts with respect to the combination of forecast accuracy and recommendation profitability. Even with this finer segmentation of analysts there is no difference in their ability to make profitable recommendations in the future. Furthermore, regardless of forecasting ability, analysts are pre-disposed to recommend stocks with low book-to-market ratios and positive price momentum. This bias may impede their ability to make profitable recommendations.     

The politics of government investment

This paper investigates the relation between corporate political connections and government investment. We study various forms of political influence, ranging from passive connections between firms and politicians, such as those based on politicians’ voting districts, to active forms, such as lobbying, campaign contributions, and employment of connected directors. Using hand-collected data on firm applications for capital under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), we find that politically connected firms are more likely to be funded, controlling for other characteristics. Yet investments in politically connected firms underperform those in unconnected firms. Overall, we show that connections between firms and regulators are associated with distortions in investment efficiency.     

Political Connection and Stock Returns: A Longitudinal Study

A stock market should display informational efficiency and, therefore, should appropriately reflect the value of political connections, if any value exists. Using a comprehensive data set that incorporates both obvious and less obvious political connections to firms in Thailand, we provide a longitudinal study which shows that higher realized stock returns are systematically associated with political connectedness. Consistent with the view that such a relationship provides economic rents, this finding is particularly prominent in more regulated industries. The politically connected premium is higher for higher level political connections and when the political bodies hold an equity stake in the firm.     

Financial reporting and corporate political connections: An analytical model of interactions

We analyze the interactions between accounting institutions and corporate political connections (CPCs). We present a model where a costly policy depends on the perceived economic condition of a firm. This policy and the valuation of the firm by capital market participants create incentives for the firm to manipulate its financial reports. A politician has some discretion over the policy and can use it to favor a connected firm. Our analysis reveals that the firm’s financial reporting is determined by the interplay of an accounting standard, enforcement strictness, and the salience of the policy for the firm. The possibility to manipulate the financial reports imposes an upper boundary on the value of political connectedness which does not exist if only truthful reporting is possible. The reason is that a low credibility of reported figures leads only to a weak revision of the policy. In general, the value of CPCs is highest when the financial reporting regime evenly splits between firms in good and bad economic condition. Our analysis further suggests that while connected firms generally report being in good condition more often than non-connected firms do, the effect of CPCs on absolute reporting manipulation depends on policy salience. If policy salience is low, connected firms exhibit a higher absolute degree of manipulation than non-connected firms do; the opposite holds if policy salience is high.     

Political influence in hedge fund activism: Causal evidence from U.S. gubernatorial election

This study examines the causal impacts of political influence on hedge fund activism in an exogenous setting of U.S. gubernatorial election. Local incumbent politicians have incentives to protect local inefficient firms from being targeted by activists because activism could lead to divestment and local worker layoffs. And such incentives can become weaker in election years because political competition increases the incumbent politician’s accountability to broader groups of stakeholders. Consistent with this prediction, the likelihood of local firms being targeted by activists is shown to be significantly higher during election years. Moreover, the firm’s political connections mitigate the effects of election, suggesting that politicians still maintain protection to connected firms. Further cross-sectional tests show that the effects of election are stronger (1) for firms with lower labor intensity, severer problem of free cash flow and lower efficiency, and (2) when the political competition is fiercer. Additional tests reveal that hedge fund activism enhances the target firm’s operating performance and creates larger value for investors when it faces weaker political influence. To sum up, our findings suggest that political influence affects hedge fund activism and the activists strategically adjust the timing of initiating campaigns according to the changes of such influence.     

Analysts’ stock recommendations,earnings growth and risk

A key output of sell‐side analysts is their recommendations to investors as to whether they should, buy, hold or sell a company's shares. However, relatively little is known regarding the determinants of those recommendations. This study considers this question, presenting results that suggest that recommendations are dependent on analysts’ short‐term and long‐term earnings growth forecasts, as well as on proxies for the analysts’ unobservable views on earnings growth in the more distant future and risk. Furthermore, analysts who appear to incorporate earnings growth beyond the long‐term growth forecast horizons and risk into their recommendation decisions make more profitable stock recommendations.     

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ANALYSTS’ FORECAST REVISIONS AND EARNINGS COMPONENTS: THE EVIDENCE OF FRS 3

This study examines whether the earnings components as required by FRS 3 help UK analysts to predict firms’ earnings changes by investigating the statistical association between analysts’ forecast revisions and firms’ unexpected earnings components. I find that analysts’ forecast revisions made in different time horizons are consistently associated with unexpected earnings components as required by FRS 3. UK analysts are able to incorporate current-year unexpected earnings components into their current and future earnings forecasts even before firms officially release this information. However, empirical results also show that current-year unexpected earnings components are not fully incorporated into analysts’ forecasts of future earnings. Analysts appear to wait for more information releases regarding firms’ future earnings and delay their revisions of future earnings forecasts. This is consistent with the evidence that the cumulative revisions of current earnings forecasts are generally associated with prior-year unexpected earnings components, and the association appears to be stronger as time progresses. Overall, this study provides evidence suggesting that the earnings components as required by FRS 3 help UK analysts to identify firms’ permanent and transitory earnings changes over different forecast horizons. This study also provides strong evidence supporting the informativeness of earnings components for analysts’ forecasts and the information set perspective of FRS 3 that highlights the importance of earnings components in predicting a reporting entity’s future performance.     

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.     

GDP manipulation,political incentives,and earnings management

Political decisions often affect macroeconomic activity, which triggers effects on corporate decisions. Using satellite night light data to proxy for economic activity, we show that manipulation of GDP figures is associated with earnings management by local companies, especially when local politicians face more promotion pressure. We show that local politicians seeking career advancement exchange favors with local companies and pressure them to inflate earnings to increase local GDP numbers. Our findings illustrate how the macro-level political agenda and GDP manipulation can affect micro-level corporate earnings management.     

Do Opinions on Financial Misstatement Firms Affect Analysts’ Reputation with Investors? Evidence from Reputational Spillovers

We examine whether opinions on firms subsequently revealed to have misstated earnings affect analysts’ reputation with investors. We find that positive opinions by bullish analysts hurt their reputation, leading investors to react less to their research on non‐misstatement firms after the misstatement revelation (i.e., negative spillovers). We also find that bearish analysts issuing more negative opinions gain reputation and experience positive spillovers. Finally, for analysts who dropped coverage of the misstatement firm before the misstatement revelation, we find no spillovers, which suggests that analysts experience limited reputational gains when they did not issue a public negative opinion.     

How does earnings management influence investor’s perceptions of firm value? Survey evidence from financial analysts

Survey evidence shows CFOs to believe that earnings management can enhance investor valuation of their firms. This evidence raises the question of correspondence between the beliefs of CFOs and investors. Surveying financial analysts to gain insight into how earnings management influences investor perception of firm value, we find analysts’ and CFOs’ beliefs to be generally consistent. We find that analysts perceive meeting earnings benchmarks and smoothing earnings to enhance investor perception of firm value and all earnings management actions to reach a benchmark, save share repurchases, to be value destroying. CFOs, however, are reluctant to repurchase shares, preferring to use techniques viewed by analysts as value destroying (e.g., reductions in discretionary spending). Analysts’ inability to unravel such techniques perhaps explains CFOs’ preferences.     

Do Managers Always Know Better? The Relative Accuracy of Management and Analyst Forecasts

We examine the relative accuracy of management and analyst forecasts of annual EPS. We predict and find that analysts’ information advantage resides at the macroeconomic level. They provide more accurate earnings forecasts than management when a firm's fortunes move in concert with macroeconomic factors such as Gross Domestic Product and energy costs. In contrast, we predict and find that management's information advantage resides at the firm level. Their forecasts are more accurate than analysts’ when management's actions, which affect reported earnings, are difficult to anticipate by outsiders, such as when the firm's inventories are abnormally high or the firm has excess capacity or is experiencing a loss. Although analysts are commonly viewed as industry specialists, we fail to find evidence that analysts have an information advantage over managers at the industry level. The two have comparable abilities to forecast earnings for firms with revenues or earnings that are more synchronous with their industries.     

Underwriting Relationships and Analyst Independence in Europe

This paper examines the accuracy of security analysts’ earnings forecasts and stock recommendations for firms in 13 European countries. We document at least three key findings. First, we find strong evidence that lead and co‐lead underwriter analysts’ earnings estimates and stock recommendations are significantly more optimistic than those provided by unaffiliated analysts. Second, we find that lead and co‐lead underwriter analysts’ earnings forecast and stock recommendations are significantly more optimistic for underwriter stocks than for those they provide for other stocks. Third, we also find evidence that these biases found within earnings forecasts and stock recommendations are not driven by one particular country. In short, these findings suggest that affiliated analysts are more optimistic perhaps to maintain investment banking relations.     

Investor-legislators: Tax holiday for politically connected firms

In this paper, we examine whether political connections in the U.S. Congress affect voting patterns with respect to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA). Using the financial disclosure statements of members of the U.S. Congress, we define political connections as equity-based ties between lawmakers and business groups, which capture the deliberate decision of lawmakers to establish a relationship by investing personal wealth in firm equity. We first examine whether politicians are more likely to hold equity in firms receiving benefits under the AJCA (i.e., firms with high repatriation tax costs). Our results suggest that politicians are more likely to hold equity positions in firms with high repatriation tax benefits only when such firms donate to their political campaign. We further examine how equity-based connections affect the AJCA voting outcomes and find that members of the House, but not of the Senate, holding repatriating firm's equity are more likely to vote in favour of the AJCA when PAC donations support their election campaigns. Last, we investigate whether politicians with equity holdings in repatriating firms are more likely to receive larger donations from firm-affiliated PACs before the AJCA vote in Congress. We find that PACs have larger contributions to House members who purchase equity in repatriating firms immediately prior to the AJCA vote. The results suggest that PACs of repatriating firms strategically target House representatives to increase political support for the tax holiday.     

Cash holdings of politically connected firms

Politically connected firms benefit from soft-budget constraints and are unlikely to suffer from liquidity constraints. This argument suggests that politically connected firms should hold less cash than non-connected peers. Another view posits that these firms exhibit acute corporate governance problems. In this setting, politically connected firms are more likely to hold more cash than non-connected firms. Using a sample of 50,119 firm-year observations from 31 countries, we find that politically connected firms hold more cash than their non-connected peers. We put forth two explanations for this result. Firstly, politicians use politically connected firms as “cash cows” to advance their political agendas. Secondly, political connections are conducive to agency problems. In additional analyses, we find that the positive relationship between political connections and cash holdings is stronger when corporate governance is weak.     

Friends in the right places: The effect of political connections on corporate merger activity

This study examines how the appointment of former politicians and regulators to boards of directors or management teams influences corporate acquisition activity and performance. We find that bidders with political connections are more likely to acquire targets and avoid regulatory delay or denial. The merger premium paid increases with political connectedness. The announcement period returns show that investors recognize that bids by politically connected acquirers are more likely to create firm value. Connected bidders make more bids and bid on larger targets. Connected acquirers also enjoy superior post-merger financial and operating performance.