A study of analyst forecast reliability in Australia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Purpose – This paper aims to use Australian analysts' forecast data to compare the relative accuracy of consensus and the most recent forecast in the month before the earnings announcement. Design/methodology/approach – Cross-sectional regression is used on a sample of 4,358 company-year observations of annual analyst forecasts to examine whether the number of analysts following and the timeliness of an individual analyst's forecast is more strongly associated with the superior forecast measure. Findings – The results suggest that whilst in the late 1980s the most recent forecast was more accurate than the consensus, since the early 1990s the accuracy of the consensus forecast has outperformed the most recent forecast in 15 out of 17 years, and the differences are significant for nine out of 15 years. The forecasting superiority of the consensus can be attributed to the aggregating value of the consensus outweighing the small timing advantage of the most recent forecast over the short forecast horizon examined in this paper. Research limitations/implications – Given the consistent use of analysts' forecasts as proxies for expected earnings in Australian research, this paper provides insights to what extent the expected level of forecast accuracy is realised and the reasons for the greater accuracy in the superior forecast measure. Practical implications – The findings confirm market practitioners' views that the consensus forecast is a better measure of the market's earnings expectations. Originality/value – This paper provides direct evidence of the accuracy of alternative forecast measures and the importance of diversifying idiosyncratic individual error across analyst forecasts.
Journal of Business Research, 1992
This paper examines the effects of disagreement in financial analysts' earnings forecasts on the accuracy of analysts', time series, and combined forecasts made at four forecast horizons. The empirical analysis indicates that, while analysts do better than any of the three time series models studied, simple combinations of analysts' and time series forecasts are superior to forecasts from either source at every horizon. The accuracy of individual and combined forecasts is inversely related to the dispersion of analysts' forecasts, and the improvement from combination is greatest when analysts' forecast dispersion is greatest and the forecast horizon longest.
Consensus analysts' earnings forecasts and security returns
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1996
This study examines the information content and informational efficiency of consensus analysts'forecasts' in an Australian setting. Consistent with and , analysts'forecasts were found to possess information content but did not incorporate all publicly available information. The empirical analysis in this paper suggests tlutt negative security returns are associated with higher forecast errors. This contrasts with the results of and is consistent with a positive bias in fi)recasts. However, this did not preclude analysts'forecasts from being viable proxies for the market k expectations of fiaure earnings.
Investment Analysts’ Forecasts of Earnings
2009
The literature on investment analysts' forecasts of firms' earnings and their forecast errors is enormous. This paper summarizes the evidence on the distribution of analysts' forecasts and forecast errors using data for all U.S. firms from 1990 to 2004. The evidence indicates substantial asymmetry of earnings, earning forecasts, and forecast errors. There is strong support for average and median earning forecasts being higher than actual earnings a year before the earnings announcement. Such differences between earnings and forecasts also exist across time periods and industries. A month before the earnings announcement, the mean and median differences are small. (JEL G17, C53)
The information content of financial analysts' forecasts of earnings
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1979
The paper assesses the information content of revisions in financial analysts' forecasts of earnings by analyzing the relation between the direction of these revisions and stock price behavior. Abnormal returns during the months surrounding the revisions in analysts' forecasts are computed and evaluated. The results strongly indicate that information on revisions in forecasts of earnings per share is valuable to investors. It is also suggested that market reaction to the disclosure of analysts' forecasts is relatively slow and gives rise to potential abnormal returns to investors who act upon this type of publicly available information.
Earnings forecast bias - a statistical analysis
2005
The evaluation of the reliability of analysts' earnings forecasts is an important aspect of research for different reasons: Many empirical studies employ analysts' consensus forecasts as a proxy for the market's expectations of future earnings in order to identify the unanticipated component of earnings, institutional investors make considerable use of analysts' forecasts when evaluating and selecting individual sharesand the performance
Long-Run Earnings Forecasts By Managers and Financial Analysts
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 1991
This paper examines the relative accuracy of long-run forecasts of annual earnings (forecasts made at least eight months before year-end) voluntarily disclosed by managers and by financial analysts. The sample sizes in this study and prior studies of management forecasts (MFs) indicate that only a small number of corporations in the United States disclose long-run MFs. In contrast, short-run MFs are disclosed by a relatively large number of companies (see , and financial analysts routinely disclose both longrun and short-run earnings forecasts for many more companies. The relative scarcity of long-run MFs suggests that they may differ from comparable forecasts made by financial analysts.'
A note on analysts’ earnings forecast errors distribution
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2003
Abarbanell and Lehavy provide evidence that analysts' forecast errors are not normally distributed exhibiting a high occurrence of extreme negative forecast errors (left-tail asymmetry) and a high occurrence of small positive forecast errors (middle asymmetry). This is important for researchers who rely on techniques that are sensitive to the distributional assumptions of analysts' forecast errors. Many of the conclusions drawn by Abarbanell and Lehavy, however, are based on visual impressions (as opposed to formal empirical tests) or based on methods that are very sensitive to the empirical methods used (e.g., whether the serial correlation of forecast errors is caused by the lefttail asymmetry).