Does Analyst Coverage Affect Bias and Information Content of Management Forecasts and Are Results Comparable Across Industries?

Article ID

5VP25

Does Analyst Coverage Affect Bias and Information Content of Management Forecasts and Are Results Comparable Across Industries?

Ronald A. Stunda
Ronald A. Stunda
DOI

Abstract

This study provides empirical evidence regarding the bias of management forecasts and information content of management forecasts as analyst coverage increases both by firm and industry. Findings indicate that, on average, management forecasts in the sample exhibit downward bias in the forecast. This is a result that many prior researchers have found. However, when an industry analysis was performed, the industries with the highest analyst coverage (i.e., oil and gas, technology, and healthcare) had minimal bias. In fact, the bias of the management forecast approached zero. All other industries observed contained negative bias results. With respect to information content of the management forecast, firms with fewer than 14 analysts covering them were compared to firms with coverage by greater than 14 analysts. Findings suggest that firms with analysts exceeding 14 have an enhanced information signal to the investors and other interested parties than do firms with fewer than 14 analysts.

Does Analyst Coverage Affect Bias and Information Content of Management Forecasts and Are Results Comparable Across Industries?

This study provides empirical evidence regarding the bias of management forecasts and information content of management forecasts as analyst coverage increases both by firm and industry. Findings indicate that, on average, management forecasts in the sample exhibit downward bias in the forecast. This is a result that many prior researchers have found. However, when an industry analysis was performed, the industries with the highest analyst coverage (i.e., oil and gas, technology, and healthcare) had minimal bias. In fact, the bias of the management forecast approached zero. All other industries observed contained negative bias results. With respect to information content of the management forecast, firms with fewer than 14 analysts covering them were compared to firms with coverage by greater than 14 analysts. Findings suggest that firms with analysts exceeding 14 have an enhanced information signal to the investors and other interested parties than do firms with fewer than 14 analysts.

Ronald A. Stunda
Ronald A. Stunda

No Figures found in article.

Ronald Stunda. 2016. “. Global Journal of Management and Business Research – D: Accounting & Auditing GJMBR-D Volume 15 (GJMBR Volume 15 Issue D4): .

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Classification
GJMBR-D Classification: JEL Code: H83
Keywords
Article Matrices
Total Views: 3870
Total Downloads: 1996
2026 Trends
Research Identity (RIN)
Related Research
Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Does Analyst Coverage Affect Bias and Information Content of Management Forecasts and Are Results Comparable Across Industries?

Ronald A. Stunda
Ronald A. Stunda

Research Journals