This paper reports the results of an experiment that examines how analyst forecast accuracy (i.e., how close an analyst's forecast is to realized earnings) and forecast boldness (i.e. how far the analyst's forecast is from the consensus forecast) affect the analyst's perceived credibility and investors' willingness to rely on and purchase the analyst's future reports. We hypothesize and find that forecast boldness magnifies the effect of forecast accuracy on these variables. That is, analysts who provide accurate, bold forecasts experience more positive consequences than those who provide accurate, non-bold forecasts, and analysts who provide inaccurate, bold forecasts experience more negative consequences than those who provide inaccurate, non-bold forecasts. We also find that these effects are not symmetric - the negative consequences of being bold and inaccurate exceed positive consequences of being bold and accurate. Our results are not sensitive to the level of the analyst's prior reputation.

Today’s financial sector faces multiple challenges stemming from ecological, societal, and technological risks such as climate change, political extremism, and cyber-attacks. However, these non-traditional risks are yet to be fully identified and measured, in order to ensure their successful management. This edited collection sheds light on the topic by examining the unique measurement and modelling challenges associated with each of these risks, and their interaction with finance. Offering a comprehensive analysis of non-traditional finance risks, the authors provide the basis for developing appropriate risk management techniques. With new approaches to protect against emerging threats to the financial sector, this edited collection will appeal to academics researching sustainability, development finance, and risk management, as well as policy-makers and practitioners within the banking sector.

We examine how investor reaction to management earnings forecasts is a joint function of the form of the forecast and management's perceived credibility. In a laboratory experiment involving 126 individual investors, we compare investors' earnings predictions and their confidence therein after receiving point and closed range forecasts issued by managements whose previous forecasting accuracy is known to be either high or low. We used point and range forecasts, because they differ in the degree to which they communicate management's uncertainty about the future. We use management's prior forecasting accuracy as a measure of management's credibility, because prior research has documented the importance of this factor when considering the usefulness of management's voluntary forecasts.Our results show that, as expected, investors' earnings predictions are responsive to management's forecasts. However, as we hypothesized, forecast form did not influence investors' earnings estimates. In contrast, investors' confidence in their earnings predictions was influenced by the form of management's forecasts, but this effect emerged only when management was previously accurate in their forecasting. A similar interactive pattern was found in the dispersion of investors' predictions about the company's future earnings. Finally, consistent with the hypothesis that confidence is an important determinant of investor behavior, we find that investors' judgments of future stock price appreciation are a positive function of both unexpected earnings and the change in their confidence.Our study extends the literature on management forecasts by empirically testing the joint influence of management's credibility (i.e., forecasting accuracy) and forecast form. The prior literature has argued that both factors should be important, but has not delineated whether or how these two factors might interact. We present a theoretical framework that indicates when both factors should influence investor judgment.

This study examines the impact of unidentifiable individual differences among financial analysts on the cross section of their earnings forecast accuracy. Various psychological factors, such as decision style and personality traits, are documented to impact individuals' decision making. However, analysts' individual differences in such psychological factors are not captured by identifiable personal attributes employed in finance literature, such as years of experience. In this paper, we employ the concept of analyst fixed effects to control for unidentifiable individual differences. Examining the factors related to forecast accuracy, we document that controlling for these unidentifiable analyst-specific effects improves model fitting, and changes the explanatory power of some of the traditionally used independent variables in the literature. We confirm that the analyst's firm-specific experience, the intensity of following that a firm receives, and the forecast horizon are all significantly and consistently related to forecast accuracy. However, we find that analyst general experience and coverage complexity lose explanatory power when individual differences are controlled for. Furthermore, we document that analyst general experience is not monotonically associated with better accuracy, and that analysts only benefit from increased general experience during the early to middle stages of their career. Finally, we observe that when analysts' individual differences are controlled for, the boldness of a forecast revision is no longer a significant determinant of the improvement of accuracy. This is one of the first studies to highlight the necessity of recognizing individual differences among financial analysts. We argue that this treatment advances the literature of analyst forecast performance, and closely relates financial agents' decision making to psychology theories of decision style and personality.

There is a considerable volume of research on what influences the accuracy of financial analysts' predictions. Although the findings suggest a variety of explanations related to firm size, analyst experience, and forecasting task complexity, the evidence is inconclusive. The meta-analysis method allows an integration of some results on the association between analyst errors and their principal influences. The findings show that country, measurement of the variables, and time period of forecast moderate the effect of some characteristics on analysts' accuracy.