IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v56y2016i2p363-391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do analysts issue forecast revisions inconsistent with prior stock returns? Determinants and consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaobo Dong
  • Kuan-Chen Lin
  • Roger Graham
  • Anne Wyatt

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="acfi12101-abs-0001"> We examine the informativeness of analyst forecast revisions that are directionally inconsistent with prior stock price movements (sign-inconsistent revisions). Sign-inconsistent revisions represent approximately one-half of the forecast revisions from 1995 through 2010. Our tests indicate that sign-inconsistent revisions are less informative than are sign-consistent revisions. Sign-inconsistent revisions are less likely to be closer to actual earnings realizations and they generate smaller stock price reactions. We also find evidence that sign-inconsistent revisions are associated with analysts' economic incentives to generate trading volume and their behavioural limitations related to information uncertainty. These results suggest that sign-inconsistent revisions do not necessarily benefit investors.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaobo Dong & Kuan-Chen Lin & Roger Graham & Anne Wyatt, 2016. "Why do analysts issue forecast revisions inconsistent with prior stock returns? Determinants and consequences," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(2), pages 363-391, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:56:y:2016:i:2:p:363-391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/acfi.2016.56.issue-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iselin, Michael & Park, Min & Van Buskirk, Andrew, 2021. "Seemingly inconsistent analyst revisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    2. Ihtisham A. Malik & Robert W. Faff & Kam F. Chan, 2020. "Market response of US equities to domestic natural disasters: industry‐based evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3875-3904, December.
    3. Hasibul Chowdhury & Robert Faff & Khoa Hoang, 2021. "Using abnormal analyst coverage to unlock new evidence on stock price crash risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1557-1588, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:56:y:2016:i:2:p:363-391. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.