This paper provides evidence of systematic errors in the way I/B/E/S reports analyst earnings forecasts. Analysis of the I/B/E/S earnings forecast database over the 1982-2014 period pinpointed a lack of consistency in the identification of financial analysts, a number of whom are consequently (1) identified by several different codes, and (2) erroneously attributed forecasts that were issued by namesakes. The present empirical investigation reveals that over 10% of the analyst codes in the database are subject to such reporting errors. These reporting errors impact the evaluation of analysts' characteristics, and may bias empirical studies that rely on tracking analysts.

Forecasting company earnings is a difficult and hazardous task. In an efficient market where analysts learn from past mistakes, there should be no persistent and systematic biases in consensus earnings accuracy. Previous research has already established how some (single) individual-company characteristics systematically influence forecast accuracy. So far, however, the effect on consensus earnings biases of a company's sector and country affiliation combined with a range of other fundamental characteristics has remained largely unexplored. Using data for 1993-2002, this article disentangles and quantifies for a broad universe of European stocks how the number of analysts following a stock, the dispersion of their forecasts, the volatility of earnings, the sector and country classification of the covered company, and its market capitalization influence the accuracy of the consensus earnings forecast.

The effectively mandatory provision of management earnings forecasts (MEF) is an unique feature of Japan's financial disclosure system. The first objective of this study is to identify the determinants of systematic bias in MEF using a sample of nearly 25,000 one-year-ahead earnings forecasts announced by Japanese firms at the beginning of a fiscal year over the period 1979-1999. The examination of ex post management forecast errors shows that financial distress, firm growth, firm size, and prior forecast errors are all associated with bias in MEF. The second objective of this study is to investigate whether analysts are aware of these factors that are related to systematic bias in MEF. The examination of analysts' forecasts issued subsequent to the announcement of management forecasts reveals that analysts take these factors into consideration when they issue their own earnings forecasts. These findings indicate that analysts are well aware of the determinants of systematic bias in MEF and make correct adjustments that lead to the higher accuracy of analysts' forecasts than management forecasts.

If either economic incentives or psychological phenomena cause the bias in analysts' forecasts to persist long enough, it would be potentially discoverable and exploitable by investors. quot;Exploitationquot; in this context implies that investors, through examination of historical forecasting performance, can more or less reliably estimate the direction and extent of bias, and impute unbiased estimates for themselves, given analysts' forecasts. The absence of persistence in forecast errors would suggest that analysts' own behavior ultimately quot;self-correctsquot; within a time frame that eliminates the possibility that the patterns could be exploited by investors. We use two look-back methods that capture salient features of analysts' past forecasting behavior to form quintile portfolios that describe the range of analysts' forecasting behavior. Parametric and nonparametric tests are performed to determine whether the two portfolio formation methods provide predictive power with respect to subsequent forecast errors. The findings support a conclusion that analysts' behaviors in both optimistic and pessimistic extremes do not entirely self-correct, leaving open the possibility that investors may find historical forecast errors useful in making inferences about current forecasts.

Managerial behavior differs considerably when managers report quarterly profits versus losses. When they report profits, managers seek to just meet or slightly beat analyst estimates. When they report losses, managers do not attempt to meet or slightly beat analyst estimates. Instead, managers often do not forewarn analysts of impending losses, and the analyst's signed error is likely to be negative and extreme (i.e., a measured optimistic bias). Brown (1997 Financial Analysts Journal) shows that the optimistic bias in analyst earnings forecasts has been mitigated over time, and that it is less pronounced for larger firms and firms followed by many analysts. In the present study, I offer three explanations for these temporal and cross-sectional phenomena. First, the frequency of profits versus losses may differ temporally and/or cross-sectionally. Since an optimistic bias in analyst forecasts is less likely to occur when firms report profits, an optimistic bias is less likely to be observed in samples possessing a relatively greater frequency of profits. Second, the tendency to report profits that just meet or slightly beat analyst estimates may differ temporally and/or cross-sectionally. A greater tendency to 'manage profits' (and analyst estimates) in this manner reduces the measured optimistic bias in analyst forecasts. Third, the tendency to forewarn analysts of impending losses may differ temporally and/or cross-sectionally. A greater tendency to 'manage losses' in this manner also reduces the measured optimistic bias in analyst forecasts. I provide the following temporal evidence. The optimistic bias in analyst forecasts pertains to both the entire sample and the losses sub-sample. In contrast, a pessimistic bias exists for the 85.3% of the sample that consists of reported profits. The temporal decrease in the optimistic bias documented by Brown (1997) pertains to both losses and profits. Analysts have gotten better at predicting the sign of a loss (i.e., they are much more likely to predict that a loss will occur than they used to), and they have reduced the number of extreme negative errors they make by two-thirds. Managers are much more likely to report profits that exactly meet or slightly beat analyst estimates than they used to. In contrast, they are less likely to report profits that fall a little short of analyst estimates than they used to. I conclude that the temporal reduction in optimistic bias is attributable to an increased tendency to manage both profits and losses. I find no evidence that there exists a temporal change in the profits-losses mix (using the I/B/E/S definition of reported quarterly profits and losses). I document the following cross-sectional evidence. The principle reason that larger firms have relatively less optimistic bias is that they are far less likely to report losses. A secondary reason that larger firms have relatively less optimistic bias is that their managers are relatively more likely to report profits that slightly beat analyst estimates. The principle reason that firms followed by more analysts have relatively less optimistic bias is that they are far less likely to report losses. A secondary reason that firms followed by more analysts have relatively less optimistic bias is that their managers are relatively more likely to report profits that exactly meet analyst estimates or beat them by one penny. I find no evidence that managers of larger firms or firms followed by more analysts are relatively more likely to forewarn analysts of impending losses. I conclude that cross-sectional differences in bias arise primarily from differential 'loss frequencies,' and secondarily from differential 'profits management.' The paper discusses implications of the results for studies of analysts forecast bias, earnings management, and capital markets. It concludes with caveats and directions for future research.