Users of I/B/E/S data generally act as if I/B/E/S reported actual earnings represent the earnings analysts were forecasting when they issued their earnings estimates. For example, when assessing analyst forecast accuracy, users of I/B/E/S data compare analysts' forecasts of EPS with I/B/E/S reported actual EPS. I/B/E/S states that it calculates actuals using a “majority rule,” indicating that its actuals often do not represent the earnings that all individual analysts were forecasting. We introduce a method for measuring analyst inferred actuals, and we assess how often I/B/E/S actuals do not represent analyst inferred actuals. We find that I/B/E/S reported Q1 actual EPS differs from analyst inferred actual Q1 EPS by at least one penny 39 percent of the time during our sample period, 36.5 percent of the time when only one analyst follows the firm (hence, this consensus forecast is based on the “majority rule”), and 50 percent of the time during the last three years of our sample period. We document two adverse consequences of this phenomenon. First, studies failing to recognize that I/B/E/S EPS actuals often differ from analyst inferred actuals are likely to obtain less accurate analyst earnings forecasts, smaller analyst earnings forecast revisions conditional on earnings surprises, greater analyst forecast dispersion, and smaller market reaction to earnings surprises than do studies adjusting for these differences. Second, studies failing to recognize that I/B/E/S EPS actuals often differ from analyst inferred actuals may make erroneous inferences.

We describe variation in the reporting quality (i.e., accuracy and bias of reported net asset values (NAVs)) of private equity (PE) funds across types of external monitors (investors and auditors) and third-party service providers (valuation specialists, marketers, and administrators). In contrast to public markets, we find only limited evidence that reporting quality varies with the composition and types of investors in PE funds. We observe, however, that reporting quality varies with auditor involvement and the use of third-party service providers; these associations often differ across buyout (BO) and venture capital (VC) funds and from those observed in public markets. Our evidence is important to investors and regulators, especially now that PE supersedes public markets as the main vehicle to raise capital and as regulators increase their focus on private markets. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources listed in the paper.

We provide new evidence about how analysts incorporate and improve on management ETR forecasts. Quarterly ETR reporting under the integral method provides mandatory point-estimate forecasts by management, but firms must record certain “discrete” tax items fully in the quarter in which they occur, polluting these forecasts. We investigate management ETR accuracy, analysts' decisions to mimic management's estimate, analysts' accuracy relative to each other or to management, and dispersion. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that analysts deviate from management more and are more accurate relative to management as complexity increases, with real effects on EPS accuracy and dispersion. In contrast to prior research that analysts ignore or are confused by taxes, we provide evidence that analysts pay attention to taxes and improve on management estimates. Based on our evidence that management's quarterly ETRs have less predictive value in the presence of discrete items, we suggest standard-setters reexamine the discrete item exception to require more disclosure.