Financial analysts are considered inefficient when they do not fully incorporate relevant information into their forecasts. In this dissertation, I investigate differences in the observable efficiency of analysts' earnings forecasts between firms that consistently meet or exceed analysts' earnings expectations and those that do not. I then analyze the extent to which the market incorporates this (in)efficiency into its earnings expectations. Consistent with my hypotheses, I find that analysts are relatively less efficient with respect to prior returns for firms that do not consistently meet expectations than for firms that do follow such a strategy, especially when prior returns convey bad news. However, forecast errors for firms that consistently meet expectations do not appear to be serially correlated to a greater extent than those for firms that do not consistently meet expectations. It is not clear whether the market considers such inefficiency when setting its own expectations. While the evidence suggests they may do so in the context of a shorter historical pattern of realized forecast errors, other evidence suggests they may not distinguish between predictable and surprise components of forecast error when the historical forecast error pattern is more established.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TEXASAandM/oai:repository.tamu.edu:1969.1/1136 |
| Date | 15 November 2004 |
| Creators | Chevis, Gia Marie |
| Contributors | Sivaramakrishnan, K., Rees, Lynn, Swanson, Edward, Wilkins, Mike, Gutierrez, Robert |
| Publisher | Texas A&M University |
| Source Sets | Texas A and M University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Dissertation, text |
| Format | 264317 bytes, 87024 bytes, electronic, application/pdf, text/plain, born digital |
Page generated in 0.1328 seconds