IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jforec/v31y2012i8p736-756.html

Are Analysts' Loss Functions Asymmetric?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark A. Clatworthy
  • David A. Peel
  • Peter F. Pope

Abstract

Recent research by Gu and Wu (2003) and Basu and Markov (2004) suggests that the well-known optimism bias in analysts’ earnings forecasts is attributable to analysts minimizing symmetric, linear loss functions when the distribution of forecast errors is skewed. An alternative explanation for forecast bias is that analysts have asymmetric loss functions. We test this alternative explanation. Theory predicts that if loss functions are asymmetric then forecast error bias depends on forecast error variance, but not necessarily on forecast error skewness. Our results confirm that the ex ante forecast error variance is a significant determinant of forecast error and that, after controlling for variance, the sign of the coefficient on forecast error skewness is opposite to that found in prior research. Our results are consistent with financial analysts having asymmetric loss functions. Further analysis reveals that forecast bias varies systematically across style portfolios formed on book-to-price and market capitalization. These firm characteristics capture systematic variation in forecast error variance and skewness. Within style portfolios, forecast error variance continues to play a dominant role in explaining forecast error.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Mark A. Clatworthy & David A. Peel & Peter F. Pope, 2012. "Are Analysts' Loss Functions Asymmetric?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 736-756, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jforec:v:31:y:2012:i:8:p:736-756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Philip Hans Franses & Rianne Legerstee & Richard Paap, 2017. "Estimating loss functions of experts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 386-396, January.
    2. Demetrescu, Matei & Roling, Christoph, 2025. "Testing the Predictive Ability of Possibly Persistent Variables under Asymmetric Loss," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 80-104.
    3. Demetrescu, Matei & Hacıoğlu Hoke, Sinem, 2019. "Predictive regressions under asymmetric loss: Factor augmentation and model selection," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 80-99.
    4. De Rezende, Rafael B., 2015. "Risks in macroeconomic fundamentals and excess bond returns predictability," Working Paper Series 295, Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden).
    5. George Christodoulakis, 2006. "Generalised Rational Bias in Financial Forecasts," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 397-405, October.
    6. Po‐Chang Chen & Ganapathi S. Narayanamoorthy & Theodore Sougiannis & Hui Zhou, 2020. "Analyst underreaction and the post‐forecast revision drift," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(9-10), pages 1151-1181, October.
    7. Fildes, Robert, 2015. "Forecasters and rationality—A comment on Fritsche et al., Forecasting the Brazilian Real and Mexican Peso: Asymmetric loss, forecast rationality and forecaster herding," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 140-143.
    8. de Mendonça, Helder Ferreira & de Deus, Joseph David Barroso Vasconcelos, 2019. "Central bank forecasts and private expectations: An empirical assessment from three emerging economies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 234-244.

    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:wly:jforec:v:31:y:2012:i:8:p:736-756. 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: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966 .

    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.