Knowledge that Transforms

This research re‐examines whether there are differences in the forecast accuracy of financial analysts through a comparison of their annual earnings per share forecasts. The comparison of analyst forecast accuracy is made on both an ex post (within sample) and an ex ante (out of sample) basis. Early examinations of this issue by Richards (1976), Brown and Rozeff (1980), O'Brien (1987), Coggin and Hunter (1989), O'Brien (1990), and Butler and Lang (1991) were ex post and suggest the absence of analysts who can provide relatively more accurate forecasts over multiple years. Contrary to the results of prior research and consistent with the belief in the popular press, we document that differences do exist in financial analysts' ex post forecast accuracy. We show that the previous studies failed to find differences in forecast accuracy due to inadequate (or no) control for differences in the recency of forecasts issued by the analysts. It has been well documented in the literature that forecast recency is positively related to forecast accuracy (Crichfield, Dyckman, and Lakonishok 1978; O'Brien 1988; Brown 1991). Thus, failure to control for forecast recency may reduce the power of tests, making it difficult to reject the null hypothesis of no differences in forecast accuracy even if they do exist. In our analysis, we control for the differences in recency of analysts' forecasts using two different approaches. First, we use an estimated generalized least squares estimation procedure that captures the recency‐induced effects in the residuals of the model. Second, we use a matched‐pair design whereby we measure the relative forecast accuracy of an analyst by comparing his/her forecast error to the forecast error of another randomly selected analyst making forecasts for the same firm in the same year on or around the same date. Using both approaches, we find that differential forecast accuracy does exist amongst analysts, especially in samples with minimum forecast horizons of five and 60 trading days. We show that these differences are not attributable to differences in the forecast issuance frequency of the financial analysts. In sum, after controlling for firm, year, forecast recency, and forecast issuance frequency of individual analysts, the analyst effect persists. To validate our findings, we examine whether the differences in the forecast accuracy of financial analysts persist in holdout periods. Analysts were assigned a “superior” (“inferior”) status for a firm‐year in the estimation sample using percentile rankings on the distribution of absolute forecast errors for that firm‐year. We use estimation samples of one‐ to four‐year duration, and consider two different definitions of analyst forecast superiority. Analysts were classified as firm‐specific “superior” if they maintained a “superior” status in every year of the estimation sample. Furthermore, they were classified as industry‐specific “superior” if they were deemed firm‐specific “superior” with respect to at least two firms and firm‐specific “inferior” with respect to no firm in that industry. Using either definition, we find that analysts classified as “superior” in estimation samples generally remain superior in holdout periods. In contrast, we find that analysts identified as “inferior” in estimation samples do not remain inferior in holdout periods. Our results suggest that some analysts' earnings forecasts should be weighted higher than others when formulating composite earnings expectations. This suggestion is predicated on the assumption that capital markets distinguish between analysts who are ex ante superior, and that they utilize this information when formulating stock prices. Our study provides an ex ante framework for identifying those analysts who appear to be superior. When constructing weighted forecasts, a one‐year estimation period should be used because we obtain the strongest results of persistence in this case.

We formalize the effects of an earnings disclosure on security prices under an assumption of limited liability. We derive various nonlinear relations between equity prices and earnings under a variety of capital structure assumptions and. if possible, we tie the relations attained to results from the existing empirical literature. We also characterize how debt prices respond to earnings when holders of debt have limited liability. Finally, we analyze how changes in the degree of leverage and conversion features of debt affect the relation between price and earnings.

This study extends prior research on the average level of moral development in public accounting by examining five large accounting firms and three staff levels. The research is important because it highlights the need to include auditors from several firms in research designs, provides evidence of differences in moral development among public accounting firms, and profiles the professions' average level of moral development for three levels. The data are from 494 managers and seniors (204 females and 290 males) from five Big Six firms. Using the Defining Issues Test (Rest 1979a) to measure moral development, several results were noted. First, the results indicate a difference in the average level of moral development among firms, suggesting that use of subjects from only one firm inhibits the generalizability of findings regarding moral development. Second, female managers are at a significantly higher average level of moral development than male managers. In fact, the average scores for male managers fell between those expected for senior high school and college students. The data suggest that a greater percentage of high‐moral‐development males and low‐moral‐development females are leaving public accounting than their respective opposites. These results indicate that the profession has retained, through advancement, males who are potentially less sensitive to the ethical implications of various issues. The analysis also indicates that Kohlberg's (1969) theory of moral development is not biased towards the thought processes of males because female auditors did not score lower on the Defining Issues Test.

The accounting method in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ( SFAS ) No. 8 for restatement of a foreign operation's financial statements denominated in a foreign currency into the parent's currency equivalents for inclusion in the parent company's financial statements was severely criticized by market participants and managers. Its replacement, SFAS No. 52, represented an attempt to improve on the methods of SFAS No. 8. This study examines two questions: did SFAS No. 8 produce relevant information for valuing US multinational firms, and are the results reported under SFAS No. 52 more valuation relevant than those reported under SFAS No. 8? Valuation relevance is studied because the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has stated that relevance is an important criterion for choosing among alternative accounting methods. Considered collectively, the results suggest that the rules in SFAS No. 8 produced a poor accounting measure for valuing US multinational firms, and that the introduction of SFAS No. 52 has resulted in a significant improvement in the valuation relevance of the accounting numbers associated with the restatement of a foreign operation's financial statements. However, this improvement applies only to the subset of firms that designated a foreign currency as their functional currency (i.e., switched to the current‐rate method) and not to firms that designated the dollar as their functional currency (i.e., as if they still reported under SFAS No. 8).