Do Publicly Signalled Earnings Management Incentives Affect Analyst Forecast Accuracy?

Using a panel of listed Australian firms for the years 1999–2007, this paper investigates whether analysts' forecast efficiency is improved by the occurrence of a publicly observable event, such as a CEO appointment, which signals a firm's earnings management incentives. Two supporting hypotheses are also tested: first, that CEO appointments are associated with income‐decreasing earnings management; and second, that analyst forecast errors increase with the level of earnings management present in current period financial statements. Consistent with prior literature, we find income‐decreasing earnings management in the year of CEO appointment. Earnings management, as a general phenomenon, is found to be significantly related to analyst forecast errors in the period in which the earnings management occurs. However, we present evidence that analyst forecasts for current year earnings are significantly more accurate with respect to earnings management in cases where a CEO is appointed during the current financial period.     

Do Managers Use Meeting Analyst Forecasts to Signal Private Information? Evidence from Patent Citations

This study examines whether firms manage earnings to meet analyst forecasts to signal superior future performance. Prior research finds that firms use earnings management to just meet analyst forecasts and that these firms have a positive association with future performance (Bartov et al., 2002). There are two potential explanations for the positive association – signaling and attaining benefits that allow for better future performance (i.e., the real benefits explanation). Prior studies cannot provide evidence of signaling because they do not control for the real benefits explanation. Our research design enables us to control for the real benefits explanation because we can identify potential signaling firms within the sample of firms that just meet analyst forecasts. We use a unique database from the National Bureau of Economic Research to construct a proxy for the manager's belief about future firm value due to patents. We find that firms with more patent citations are more likely to just meet the analyst forecast and manage earnings to achieve this goal. We also find firms that just meet analyst forecasts with more patent citations have significantly better performance than firms with fewer patent citations, which is consistent with signaling and not the real benefits explanation.     

Security Issue Timing: What Do Managers Know,and When Do They Know It?

We study put option sales on company stock by large firms. An often‐cited motivation for these transactions is market timing, and managers' decision to issue puts should be sensitive to whether the stock is undervalued. We provide new evidence that large firms successfully time security sales. In the 100 days following put option issues, there is roughly a 5% abnormal stock return, with much of the abnormal return following the first earnings release date after the sale. Direct evidence on put option exercises reinforces these findings: exercise frequencies and payoffs to put holders are abnormally low.     

What Do Management Earnings Forecasts Convey About the Macroeconomy?

We decompose quantitative management earnings forecasts into macroeconomic and firm‐specific components to determine the extent to which voluntary disclosure provided by management has macroeconomic information content. We provide evidence that the forecasts of bellwether firms, which are defined as firms in which macroeconomic news explains the greatest amount of variation in the forecasts, provide timely information to the market about the macroeconomy when bundled with earnings announcements. Further, we show that bellwether firms provide timely information about both industry‐specific events and broader economic events. Finally, we document that the macroeconomic news in individual forecasts is more pronounced for bad news and point forecasts.     

It's Showtime: Do Managers Report Better News Before Annual Shareholder Meetings?

Annual shareholder meetings provide an opportunity for shareholders to express their concerns with corporate performance, pressuring managers to demonstrate good performance. We show that managers respond to the shareholder pressure by reporting positive corporate news before the annual shareholder meetings. Specifically, we find significantly positive average cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) during the 40 days before the annual meeting date. The premeeting returns are significantly higher when shareholder discontent with managerial performance is likely to be stronger. The decile of companies with the worst past stock price performance exhibits average CARs of 3.4% and buy‐and‐hold returns of 7.0% during the 40‐day premeeting period. Companies with poor past performance exhibit even higher premeeting returns when shareholder pressure on management is greater, such as when institutional ownership is high, when CEO compensation is high, and when shareholders submit proxy proposals on corporate governance. We complement the evidence based on CARs by showing how managers of poorly performing firms manage the timing and content of earnings announcements and management forecast announcements before the annual shareholder meetings. Overall, the results suggest that managers attempt to influence shareholders before annual shareholder meetings through positive news.     

Does IFRS Adoption Increase the Accuracy of Chinese Analysts’ Forecasts?

This article investigates the impact of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption on the accuracy of Chinese analysts’ earnings forecasts. We find that after IFRS adoption, the accuracy of Chinese analysts’ forecasts decreases rather than increasing as they do in developed countries documented by the extant literature. Further investigation finds that this decrease is associated with a fair value measurement of financial assets held for trading. Our finding provides empirical evidence supporting the argument that the effectiveness of IFRS adoption could be negative in a developing country depending on its setting and fair value measurement brought about by IFRS could contribute to the negative effect in this setting.     

The Global Child Labor Problem: What Do We Know and What Can We Do?

The problem of child labor has moved from a matter of regionaland national concern to one of international debate and possibleglobal persuasion and policy intervention. In crafting policyfor mitigating this enormous problem of our times, it is importantto start with a proper theoretical and empirical understandingof the phenomenon. What gives rise to child labor, and whatare its consequences? What interventions might end child laborwithout hurting children? A well-meaning but poorly designedpolicy can exacerbate the poverty in which these laboring childrenlive, even leading to starvation. The article surveys the largeand rapidly growing literature on this subject, focusing mainlyon the new literature based on modern economic theory and econometrics.It also looks at some of the broad policy implications of thesenew findings, with the objective of contributing to better informeddiscussion and policy design.     

Does the Scope of the Sell‐Side Analyst Industry Matter? An Examination of Bias,Accuracy, and Information Content of Analyst Reports

We examine changes in the scope of the sell‐side analyst industry and whether these changes impact information dissemination and the quality of analysts’ reports. Our findings suggest that changes in the number of analysts covering an industry impact analyst competition and have significant spillover effects on other analysts’ forecast accuracy, bias, report informativeness, and effort. These spillover industry effects are incremental to the effects of firm level changes in analyst coverage. Overall, a more significant sell‐side analyst industry presence has positive externalities that can result in better functioning capital markets.     

The Client Is King: Do Mutual Fund Relationships Bias Analyst Recommendations?

This paper investigates whether the business relations between mutual funds and brokerage firms influence sell‐side analyst recommendations. Using a unique data set that discloses brokerage firms’ commission income derived from each mutual fund client as well as the share holdings of these mutual funds, we find that an analyst's recommendation on a stock relative to consensus is significantly higher if the stock is held by the mutual fund clients of the analyst's brokerage firm. The optimism in analyst recommendations increases with the weight of the stock in a mutual fund client's portfolio and the commission revenue generated from the mutual fund client. However, this favorable recommendation bias toward a client's existing portfolio stocks is mitigated if the stock in question is highly visible to other mutual fund investors. Abnormal stock returns are significantly greater both for the announcement period and, in the long run, for favorable stock recommendations from analysts not subject to client pressure than for equally favorable recommendations from business‐related analysts. In addition, we find that, subsequent to announcements of bad news from the covered firms, analysts are significantly less likely to downgrade a stock held by client mutual funds. Mutual funds increase their holdings in a stock that receives a favorable recommendation but this impact is significantly reduced if the recommendation comes from analysts subject to client pressure.     

Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?

Despite issuing extensive guidance related to the evaluation of accounting estimates, the PCAOB continues to identify deficiencies related to the audit of estimates through their inspections process. We examine whether PCAOB inspections lead to more accurate audited accounting estimates, defined as those that more closely match economic reality, by examining a significant estimate within the banking industry. We find that in contrast with the PCAOB's goal of more accurate and unbiased estimates, allowance for loan losses (ALL) estimates become less accurate and more conservative with higher levels of ALL‐related inspection findings for public company audits. We find no evidence of auditor response to PCAOB inspection findings for private‐company audits, which are not subject to PCAOB inspection. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the efficacy of PCAOB inspections in improving estimate accuracy and suggest that firms are managing inspection risk to the potential detriment of audit quality.     

Announcements of Interest Rate Forecasts: Do Policymakers Stick to Them?

If central banks value the ex post accuracy of their published forecasts, previously announced interest rate paths might influence the current policy rate. We explore if “forecast adherence” has affected monetary policy in New Zealand and Norway, where central banks have published their interest rate forecasts the longest. We derive and estimate policy rules with separate weights on past interest rate forecasts and find that they have explanatory power for current policy decisions, over and above their correlation with other conventional interest rate rule arguments.     

Do Industry‐Level Analyses Improve Forecasts of Financial Performance?

Prior research documents mean reversion in firm profitability and growth under the implicit assumption that profitability and growth of all firms revert to a common benchmark at the same rate. However, a large body of academic research suggests that there are systematic interindustry differences (e.g., industry barriers to entry) that differentially affect firm performance based on industry membership. We evaluate the relative forecast accuracy of mean reverting models at the industry and economywide levels and find that industry-specific models are generally more accurate in predicting firm growth but not profitability.     

The Bigger the Better? Merger and Acquisition Performance of Financial Holding Corporations

This study investigates the performance of the merger and acquisition activities of 14 financial holding corporations (FHCs) in Taiwan before and after their establishment in 2002. We find weak evidence of improved performance of FHCs. The findings have implications for other reforming emerging countries in East Asia with similar economic structures and financial environment.     

Are Some Mutual Fund Managers Better Than Others? Cross-Sectional Patterns in Behavior and Performance

We examine whether mutual fund performance is related to characteristics of fund managers that may indicate ability, knowledge, or effort. In particular, we study the relationship between performance and the manager's age, the average composite SAT score at the manager's undergraduate institution, and whether the manager has an MBA. Although the raw data suggest striking return differences between managers with different characteristics, most of these can be explained by behavioral differences between managers and by selection biases. After adjusting for these, some performance differences remain. In particular, managers who attended higher-SAT undergraduate institutions have systematically higher risk-adjusted excess returns.     

Do Decomposed Financial Ratios Predict Stock Returns and Fundamentals Better?

We investigate the prediction of excess returns and fundamentals by financial ratios, which include dividend‐price ratios, earnings‐price ratios, and book‐to‐market ratios, by decomposing financial ratios into a cyclical component and a stochastic trend component. We find both components predict excess returns and fundamentals. Cyclical components predict increases in future stock returns, while stochastic trend components predict declines in future stock returns in long horizons. This helps explain previous findings that financial ratios in the absence of decomposition find weak predictive power in short horizons and some predictive power in long horizons. We also find both components predict fundamentals.     

Do Corporate Managers Know When Their Shares Are Undervalued? New Evidence Based on Actual (and Not Just Announced) Stock Buybacks

This article summarizes the findings of the authors' recent study, published in the Journal of Financial Economics, of whether public companies are able to repurchase their own shares at a discount to the market, thereby earning more than a market return on such “investments.” To the extent the answer is yes, it would suggest that management has an advantage in assessing the intrinsic value of the companies they manage. Using as their sample all 2,237 publicly traded U.S. companies that repurchased their own stock between 2004 and 2011, the authors compared the average price paid during the month to the average price at which the firm's shares traded during that month as well as three and six months after the repurchase. (All earlier studies had measured stock performance from the date of the repurchase announcements rather than from the date of the actual repurchases.) The authors' conclusion, which may come as more of a surprise to financial economists than practicing corporate executives, was that the majority of companies repurchasing their shares have in fact earned a positive return on their investment in their own stock. Perhaps the most important finding of the study, however, was that infrequent repurchasers—defined as companies that bought back their own stock four or fewer times a year—have been much more successful in buying undervalued shares than regular repurchasers. For example, when evaluated over a six‐month holding period, the annual “alpha” of infrequent repurchasers was 2.4% greater than that of frequent repurchasers—those that bought back their shares at least nine times a year. And this advantage was even more significant for companies that repurchased just once during the year—a group that recorded an alpha of 5.9%, as compared to 1.5% for monthly repurchasers. Moreover, the results were essentially the same when extended over considerably longer holding periods. For the entire sample of companies that repurchased their shares, the authors reported finding positive and significant alphas of 0.3% per month over windows ranging from three months to three years after the repurchase. But, as reported above, the infrequent repurchasers significantly outperformed frequent repurchasers over all time horizons, with differences in alpha that ranged from a low of 0.3% and to as high as 0.6% per month.     

Do Corporate Governance Analysts Matter? Evidence from the Expansion of Governance Analyst Coverage

T his paper examines the economic consequences of the initiation of governance analyst coverage. Governance analysts process, enhance, and disseminate governance‐related information to capital market participants via, for example, governance reports and ratings. Using an exogenous shock in the United Kingdom, I find that an increase in governance analyst coverage results in increased governance quality, improved liquidity, increased financial analyst following, and improved investor breadth. These findings are consistent with governance analysts creating value for firms via monitoring, information dissemination/production, and investor recognition.