2015
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1920
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Management Earnings Forecasts and Value of Analyst Forecast Revisions

Abstract: This study examines the stock-price reactions to analyst forecast revisions around earnings announcements to test whether pre-announcement forecasts reflect analysts' private information or piggybacking on confounding events and news. We find that management earnings forecasts influence the timing and precision of analyst forecasts. More importantly, evidence suggests that prior studies' finding of weaker (stronger) stock-price responses to forecast revisions in the period immediately after (before) the prior-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Altinkilic, Balashov, and Hansen (2013) find a similar result using intraday returns around earnings forecasts, the second and more sought-after analyst report. Chen, Francis, and Schipper (2005) and Kim and Song (2014) also find that price reactions to releases of analysts' reports are overstated in extant studies. In support, research shows that analysts have incentives to piggyback on other news because timeliness affects forecast accuracy (O'Brien 1988;Guttman 2010).…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Altinkilic, Balashov, and Hansen (2013) find a similar result using intraday returns around earnings forecasts, the second and more sought-after analyst report. Chen, Francis, and Schipper (2005) and Kim and Song (2014) also find that price reactions to releases of analysts' reports are overstated in extant studies. In support, research shows that analysts have incentives to piggyback on other news because timeliness affects forecast accuracy (O'Brien 1988;Guttman 2010).…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In robustness analyses, we use stock price at the beginning of the quarter to define price-deflated quarterly earnings forecast revision (Hope & Zhao, 2018). Moreover, we follow Kim and Song (2014) to define analyst forecast revision as the difference between the two consecutive EPS forecasts divided by the absolute value of the previous EPS forecast.…”
Section: Independent Variablementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EA literature has examined whether EA reports contain value-relevant information for pricing equity securities as opposed to serving as a marketing tool for their investment bank (e.g., Altinkilic and Hansen, 2009;Bradley et al, 2014;Li et al, 2015;Loh and Stulz, 2011;Mehran and Stulz, 2007). The empirical evidence has been mixed, with some papers arguing that the information content of EA reports has been overstated by the prior literature (e.g., Altinkilic and Hansen, 2009;Altinkilic et al, 2013;Kim and Song, 2015;Loh and Stulz, 2011). For example, Altinkilic and Hansen (2009) argue that prior studies have attributed the market impact of confounding news announcements to EA reports released on the same day.…”
Section: Sell-side Equity Analystsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EA literature has produced mixed evidence on the extent to which sell-side analyst reports provide value-relevant information to capital markets. Several studies find significant market reactions to revisions in EA recommendations (e.g., Bradley et al, 2014;Li et al, 2015;Yezegel, 2015), yet other papers argue that the information content of EA reports has been overstated (e.g., Altinkilic and Hansen, 2009;Altinkilic et al, 2013;Kim and Song, 2015). For example, Altinkilic and Hansen (2009) argue that EAs piggyback on corporate news announcements and revisions in EAs' stock recommendations are "information-free" after controlling for these confounding events.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%