The Effect Of Meeting Analyst Forecasts And Systematic Positive Forecast Errors On The Information Content Of Unexpected Earnings PDF Download

Recent reports in the popular press allege that managers guide analysts' forecasts downward to improve their chances of meeting or beating these forecasts when earnings are announced. Since the majority of this alleged guidance is unobservable, I use systematic patterns in analysts' forecast errors as a proxy for firm-provided guidance and examine both the change in guidance over time as well as the characteristics of firms exhibiting evidence of this guidance. The evidence is consistent with an increase in firm-provided guidance in recent years and differences across firms in the propensity to guide forecasts downward. In particular, I find: 1) an increasing number of forecast errors exactly equal to zero particularly for firms with initially high forecasts; 2) when firms miss analysts' expectations at the earnings announcement, the proportion that miss quot;highquot; (positive earnings surprise) versus miss quot;lowquot; (negative earnings surprise) has increased in recent years particularly for firms with initially high forecasts; 3) firms with higher growth prospects, higher institutional ownership, and higher litigation risk are more likely to guide analysts' forecasts downward to ensure reported earnings meet expectations at the earnings announcement, while firms with low value relevance of earnings are less likely to do so; and 4) firms with high institutional ownership and reliance on implicit claims with their stakeholders tend to exceed rather than fall short of expectations at the earnings announcement.