I examine publicly released annual earnings forecasts issued in conjunction with stock recommendations by mutual fund managers of actively managed open‐end mutual funds. I find that mutual fund manager annual earnings forecasts systematically overestimate the earnings number later disclosed at the annual earnings announcement. In further analyses, I attempt to distinguish between two explanations for this forecast bias: an untruthful reporting bias (market manipulation) and a truthful cognitive bias (optimism). These explanations generate different predictions about the timing of changes in fundholdings of forecasted securities between the forecast release and annual earnings announcement dates. I interpret my findings as more consistent with an optimism explanation for mutual fund manager annual forecast bias and less consistent with a market manipulation explanation for this bias. I am, however, unable to eliminate an unobservable selection bias either in the decision of the mutual fund manager to report a forecast publicly or in the media’s decision to publish that forecast as an explanation for my finding that mutual fund manager forecasts are biased.

We examine if analysts more fully incorporate prior earnings and returns information in their current quarter forecasts as their experience following a firm increases. We measure analyst firm-specific forecasting experience as the number of prior quarters for which the analyst has issued an earnings forecast for the firm. We find that analysts underreact to prior earnings information less as their experience increases, suggesting one reason why analysts become more accurate with experience.

Michael B. Mikhail, Beverly R. Walther, Richard H. Willis, Do Security Analysts Improve Their Performance with Experience?, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 35, Studies on Experts and the Application of Expertise in Accounting, Auditing, and Tax (1997), pp. 131-157

We investigate whether security analysts exhibit persistence in their stock picking ability. We find that analysts whose recommendation revisions earned the most (least) excess returns in the past continue to outperform (underperform) in the future. Further, the market recognizes these performance differences in the five-day period surrounding the recommendation revision. This market reaction, however, is incomplete. Excess returns in the one and three trading months following the revision are significant and positively associated with analysts’ prior performance. However, a trading strategy taking long (short) positions in recommendation upgrades (downgrades) conditional on analysts’ prior performance is unprofitable.

Regulators' interest in analyst reports stems from the belief that small investors are unaware of the conflicts sell-side analysts face and may, as a consequence, be misled into making suboptimal investment decisions. We examine who trades on security analyst stock recommendations by extending prior research to focus on investor-specific responses to revisions. We find that both large and small traders react to analyst reports; however, large investors appear to trade more than small traders in response to the information conveyed by the analyst's recommendation and earnings forecast revision (proxied by the magnitudes of the recommendation change and the earnings forecast revision, respectively). We also find that small investors do not fully account for the effects of analysts' incentives on the credibility of analyst reports, as captured by the type of recommendation (i.e., upgrade versus downgrade or buy versus sell). In particular, small investors not only trade more than large investors following upgrade and buy recommendations, but also trade more following upgrade and buy recommendations than they do following downgrade and hold/sell recommendations. Furthermore, we observe that, on average, small traders are net purchasers following recommendation revisions regardless of the type of the recommendation; large traders tend to be net sellers following downgrades and sells. Consequently, large traders generate statistically positive returns from their trading, while small traders generate statistically negative returns from their trading. These findings are consistent with large investors being more sophisticated processors of information, and provide some support for regulators' concerns that analysts may more easily mislead small investors.

We investigate if earnings forecast accuracy matters to security analysts by examining its association with analyst turnover. Controlling for firm- and time-period effects, forecast horizon and industry forecasting experience, we find that an analyst is more likely to turn over if his forecast accuracy is lower than his peers. We find no association between an analyst's probability of turnover and his absolute forecast accuracy. We also investigate another observable measure of the analyst's performance, the profitability of his stock recommendations. There is no statistical relation between the absolute or relative profitability of an analyst's stock recommendations and his probability of turnover. We interpret our findings as indicating that forecast accuracy is important to analysts.

We study the joint effects of intercompany investing and reporting of equity method investments on the accuracy and dispersion of analysts' annual earnings-per-share (EPS) forecasts. We compare firm-year observations with and without equity method investments. We posit two non-mutually exclusive explanations for how equity method investments may affect analyst forecast properties. The Opacity Effect posits that the condensed equity method disclosures increase information asymmetry, increasing analysts' forecast errors and forecast dispersion. The Diversification Effect suggests that the diversification of the investor and its investee earnings streams enhances earnings predictability, decreasing analysts' forecast errors and forecast dispersion. Our findings are consistent with both effects operating in the analyst forecasting task. Additional analyses are consistent with the Opacity Effect dominating. This occurrence results, on net, in less accurate and more dispersed forecasts for firm-years with equity method investments.