For firms conducting initial or seasoned equity offerings, recent studies document that their stock returns are lower than those of non-issuers for about five years following the issue, and this underperformance is greater for small issuers. This study shows that analysts' earnings forecasts have greater optimistic bias for issuers than for non-issuers during the five year period. Moreover, the incremental optimistic bias is greater for small issuers. This result is consistent with the Loughran and Ritter (1995) conjecture that one of the reasons for the long-run underperformance of issuers' stocks is optimistic bias in the market's expectations of these firms' earnings.

Ldquo;Anchoringrdquo; describes the fact that in forming numerical estimates of uncertain quantities, adjustments in assessments away from an arbitrary initial value are often insufficient. We show that this cognitive bias has significant economic consequences for the efficiency of financial markets. We find that analysts make optimistic (pessimistic) forecasts when a firm's forecast earnings per share (FEPS) is lower (higher) than the industry median. Further, firms with FEPS greater (lower) than the industry median experience abnormally high (low) future stock returns, particularly around subsequent earnings announcement dates. Finally, split firms experience greater positive forecast revisions, larger forecast errors, and larger negative earnings surprises after a stock split compared to which did not split their stocks, especially for firms with a low FEPS relative to the industry median.

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.

I present evidence of inefficient information processing in equity markets by documenting that biases in analysts' earnings forecasts are reflected in stock prices. In particular, I show that investors fail to fully account for optimistic bias associated with analyst disagreement. This bias arises for two reasons. First, analysts issue more optimistic forecasts when earnings are uncertain. Second, analysts with sufficiently low earnings expectations who choose to keep quiet introduce an optimistic bias in the mean reported forecast that is increasing in the underlying disagreement. Indicators of the missing negative opinions predict earnings surprises and stock returns. By selling stocks with high analyst disagreement institutions exert correcting pressure on prices.

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.

Benjamin Kleidt analyzes why firms decide to issue hybrid securities. He provides insights into the financing behaviour of issuing firms with regard to operating and stock price performance prior and subsequent to hybrid security issues and shows that issuance motives for the use of different forms of hybrid securities are as diverse as available structures for this asset class.