.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
How do analysts interpret management range forecasts?
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.005.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Range forecasts have evolved to be the most common form of management forecasts. Prior studies typically use the midpoint to evaluate analyst reaction to range forecasts, implicitly assuming that analysts place equal weights on the upper and the lower bounds of management range forecasts. We empirically test this restrictive assumption and provide strong evidence of unequal weights - analysts place significantly more (less) weight on the lower (upper) bound of forecast ranges. Moreover, such overweight on the lower bound is more pronounced when analysts face higher ambiguity, consistent with the max-min axiom, which predicts that decision-makers tend to assign higher probability to the worst-case scenario when facing ambiguity. Further tests show that optimal revisions with perfect foresight of actual earnings also overweight the lower bound. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
EARNINGS FORECASTS
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
GUIDANCE
INFORMATION
UNCERTAINTY
INCENTIVES
ACCURACY
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
4
Papers:
1.3K
Citations:
8.4K