nach oben

Review of Accounting Studies

Erschienen in:

01.06.2010

Inflation, earnings forecasts, and post-earnings announcement drift

verfasst von: Sudipta Basu, Stanimir Markov, Lakshmanan Shivakumar

Erschienen in: Review of Accounting Studies | Ausgabe 2/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We examine whether financial analysts fully incorporate expected inflation in their earnings forecasts for individual stocks. We find that expected inflation proxies, such as lagged inflation and inflation forecasts from the Michigan Survey of Consumers, predict the future earnings change of a portfolio long in high inflation exposure firms and short in low or negative inflation exposure firms, but analysts do not fully adjust for this relation. Analysts’ earnings forecast errors can be predicted using expected inflation proxies, and these systematic forecast errors are related to future stock returns. Overall, our evidence is consistent with the Chordia and Shivakumar (J Account Res 43(4):521–556, 2005) hypothesis that the post-earnings announcement drift is related to investor underestimation of the impact of expected inflation on future earnings change.

Vorheriger Artikel Return predictability and shareholders’ real options

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The report was written by Lisa Gil, Atif Rahim, and Michael Minchak and was dated December 6, 2004.

The report was written by Jack Murphy and Teresa Ging and was dated April 27, 2004.

The report was written by Mark Kalinowski, Jeffrey Carnevale, and Kwame Aryeh and was dated November 9, 2004.

To simplify notation, we drop the subscript ‘t’, which refers to the forecasting month, in the equations.

The power of tests is critical for our study, because our analyses are predictive in nature and our sample period is characterized by relatively low and stable inflation. Thus, unless the earnings exposure to inflation is sufficiently large, it would be difficult to identify empirically any relation between inflation and future earnings change or future forecast errors.

The stationarity assumption is critical because it justifies the use of past observations on inflation and SUEs to estimate current inflation exposure.

A more sophisticated time-series model would require parameter estimation and would introduce an unknown amount of noise into the expected inflation proxy. In any case, the loss of power from using lagged inflation as a proxy for expected inflation is not a concern because we find statistically significant results even with this proxy.

The survey data are available monthly from 1978 and are based on a random sample of at least 500 households. The Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan conducted the telephone interviews.

On average, in each quarter, there are 8,730 firms with COMPUSTAT data on earnings per share excluding extra-ordinary items. On average, in each quarter, we lose 2,742 firms lacking data needed to compute SUE_i,t,q and 4,167 firms lacking data on recent analysts’ forecasts in the detailed IBES database.

Standardizing seasonal earnings change (X _i,q − X _i,q−4) by price at end of month t, instead of σ _iq, leaves our results qualitatively unchanged.

Because they do not study analysts’ earnings forecasts, Chordia and Shivakumar’s sample is not restricted to the large profitable firms that analysts tend to follow, and they can analyze the longer time period 1972–2001, which includes the high inflation 1970s.

The dependent and independent variables are not measured in quarter q (that is, SUE_i,q and $ {\text{INF}}^{ts}_{t} $), as such a regression would be run on portfolios sorted on the dependent variable, and would therefore be misspecified.

For regressions based on firm-level observations, we report test statistics based on Huber–White standard errors clustered at the firm level.

Chordia and Shivakumar (2005) find statistical significance for eight of 10 portfolios. Their tests are likely more powerful because their sample is not restricted toward the large profitable firms that analysts tend to follow. Nance et al. (1993) show that large firms hedge more of their inflation risk, both through real decisions such as geographic diversification and through financial instruments, and so they are likely to be less exposed to inflation.

Macroeconomic data are from the St. Louis Federal Reserve website at http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/.

This slope coefficient is a weighted average, rather than the sum, of the (negative of) slope coefficient for the bottom decile and the coefficient for top decile, with the weights dependent on the number of observations in the two deciles. The reason is that we are combining the two decile samples to form a larger sample; the hypothesized effect in this larger sample is a weighted average, rather than the sum, of the effects in the constituent samples.

Unlike Bernard and Thomas (1990), we analyze firms from the extreme deciles that are formed by sorting stocks on SUE_i,q. This approach includes the extreme values of SUE_i,q in the regressions, causing our coefficients on SUE_i,q to be attenuated relative to those reported by Bernard and Thomas (1990).

IBES-provided consensus forecasts often include stale forecasts. O’Brien (1988) shows that a consensus forecast, constructed from recent individual forecasts, is more accurate than the IBES consensus forecast. Brown (1991) shows that timely composite earnings forecasts are more accurate than either the mean of all outstanding forecasts or the most recent forecast. Our sample size increases by a quarter if we use IBES-provided consensus forecasts, but our results remain qualitatively unchanged. Also, we have replicated our results using split-unadjusted data from IBES.

In other words, if at time t there is no consensus forecast for a specific firm-quarter, then that observation is dropped, even in the analyses of SUE_i,q+j.

Our results are qualitatively unaffected when stocks with prices less than $1 are deleted from the analysis.

This result is robust to including lagged forecast errors $ \left( {{\text{that is, FE}}^{*}_{i,q} {\text{ to FE}}^{*}_{i,q - 3} } \right) $ as additional explanatory variables.

Our results are qualitatively similar if we redefine PMN using all SUE deciles as in Sect. 4.4.1 (that is, long in the top five SUE deciles, P ₆ through P ₁₀, and short in the bottom five SUE deciles, P ₁ through P ₅).

We have alternatively constructed the portfolio-level variables at a quarterly rather than monthly frequency so as to eliminate overlapping observations and obtained qualitatively similar results.

Keane and Runkle (1998) also report that predictability of forecast errors based on lagged earnings is not robust to controls for cross-correlation. Also, we emphasize that our results are not directly comparable to those of Abarbanell and Bernard (1992), who study average effects, whereas our tests examine cross-sectional variation in the predictive ability of earnings change for forecast errors.

The lagged earnings changes $ {\text{SUE}}^{*}_{i,q - k} $ (k = 0–3) and proxies for expected inflation are mean-adjusted to aid interpretation of interactive terms.

In untabulated parallel regressions with future earnings changes as the dependent variables, the interaction terms are statistically significant for the time-series proxy but not for the survey proxy.

The results in Table 1 panel B indicate that the PMN portfolio is not sensitive to industrial production growth, suggesting that correlated omitted variables are less of an issue in our analyses.

As Ball and Bartov (1996) point out, the negative coefficients for the first three lags of SUE arise because these variables are positively correlated with expected earnings of the current quarter, and stock returns—because of their positive relation with earnings surprises—are negatively related to the current quarter’s expected earnings. A similar argument applies to the positive coefficient for the fourth lagged of SUE.

Following the suggestions of Basu and Markov (2004), we re-examine the evidence in Table 3 using LAD regressions. The LAD estimations provide weaker evidence of forecast error predictability, implying that differences in the reward functions faced by analysts could partly explain the economically inefficient use of expected inflation in their forecasts.

Abarbanell, J. S., & Bernard, V. L. (1992). Tests of analysts’ overreaction/underreaction to earnings information as an explanation for anomalous stock price behavior. The Journal of Finance, 47(3), 1181–1207.CrossRef

Akerlof, G. A. (2002). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 411–433.

Ball, R., & Bartov, E. (1996). How naïve is the stock market’s use of earnings information? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(3), 319–337.CrossRef

Ball, R., & Brown, P. (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 159–178.CrossRef

Bartov, E., Radhakrishnan, S., & Krinsky, I. (2000). Investor sophistication and patterns in stock returns after earnings announcements. The Accounting Review, 75(1), 43–63.CrossRef

Basu, S., Hwang, L., & Jan, C. (1998). International variation in accounting measurement rules and analysts’ earnings forecast errors. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 25(9/10), 1207–1247.CrossRef

Basu, S., & Markov, S. (2004). Loss function assumptions in rational expectations tests on financial analysts’ earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 38(1–3), 171–203.CrossRef

Bergman, N., & Roychowdhury, S. (2008). Investor sentiment and corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1057–1083.

Bernard, V. L. (1984). The use of market data and accounting data in hedging against consumer price inflation. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(2), 445–466.CrossRef

Bernard, V. L. (1986). Unanticipated inflation and the value of the firm. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(3), 285–322.CrossRef

Bernard, V. L., & Thomas, J. K. (1990). Evidence that stock prices do not fully reflect the implications of current earnings for future earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 13(4), 305–340.CrossRef

Brown, L. D. (1991). Forecast selection when all forecasts are not equally recent. International Journal of Forecasting, 7(3), 349–356.CrossRef

Brown, P., & Ball, R. (1967). Some preliminary findings on the association between the earnings of a firm, its industry, and the economy. Journal of Accounting Research, 5(Suppl), 55–77.CrossRef

Campbell, J. Y., & Vuolteenaho, T. (2004). Inflation illusion and stock prices. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 19–23.CrossRef

Chordia, T., & Shivakumar, L. (2005). Inflation illusion and post-earnings-announcement drift. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(4), 521–556.CrossRef

Cohen, R. B., Polk, C., & Vuolteenaho, T. (2005). Money illusion in the stock market: The Modigliani–Cohn hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 639–668.CrossRef

Das, S., Levine, C. B., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1998). Earnings predictability and bias in analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 73(2), 277–294.

Easterwood, J. C., & Nutt, S. R. (1999). Inefficiency in analysts’ earnings forecasts: Systematic misreaction or systematic optimism? The Journal of Finance, 54(5), 1777–1797.CrossRef

Fama, E. F. (1998). Market efficiency, long term returns, and behavioral finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 283–306.CrossRef

Hong, H., & Kubik, J. D. (2003). Analyzing the analysts: Career concerns and biased earnings forecasts. The Journal of Finance, 58(1), 313–351.CrossRef

Horngren, C. T. (1955). Security analysts and the price level. The Accounting Review, 30(4), 575–581.

Keane, M. P., & Runkle, D. E. (1998). Are financial analysts’ forecasts of corporate profits rational? Journal of Political Economy, 106(4), 768–805.CrossRef

Kothari, S. P., Lewellen, J., & Warner, J. B. (2006). Stock returns, aggregate earnings surprises and behavioral finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(3), 537–568.CrossRef

Markov, S., & Tamayo, A. (2006). Predictability in financial analyst forecast errors: Learning or irrationality. Journal of Accounting Research, 44(4), 725–761.CrossRef

Mikhail, M. B., Walther, B. R., & Willis, R. H. (1997). Do security analysts improve their performance with experience? Journal of Accounting Research, 35(Suppl), 131–157.CrossRef

Mikhail, M. B., Walther, B. R., & Willis, R. H. (1999). Does forecast accuracy matter to security analysts? The Accounting Review, 74(2), 185–200.CrossRef

Modigliani, F., & Cohn, R. A. (1979). Inflation, rational valuation and the market. Financial Analysts Journal, 35(2), 24–44.CrossRef

Nance, D. R., Smith, C. W., Jr., & Smithson, C. W. (1993). On the determinants of corporate hedging. The Journal of Finance, 48(1), 267–284.CrossRef

O’Brien, P. C. (1988). Analysts’ forecasts as earnings expectations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 10(1), 53–83.CrossRef

Thomas, J. K., & Zhang, F. (2007). Inflation illusion and stock prices: Comment. (July 15). http://www.som.yale.edu/Faculty/jkt7/papers/cvcomment.pdf.

Titel: Inflation, earnings forecasts, and post-earnings announcement drift
verfasst von: Sudipta Basu
Stanimir Markov
Lakshmanan Shivakumar
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2010
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Review of Accounting Studies / Ausgabe 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1380-6653
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7136
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-009-9112-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2010

Confidence and trading aggressiveness of naïve investors: effects of information quantity and consistency

The effect of pension accounting on corporate pension asset allocation

Return predictability and shareholders’ real options

Limited attention and the earnings announcement returns of past stock market winners

The role of audit thresholds in the misreporting of private information

Accounting restatements and information risk