How do analysts interpret management range forecasts?

Michael Tang, Paul Zarowin and Li Zhang

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2015, vol. 42, issue C, 48-66

Abstract: Range forecasts have evolved to be the most common form of management forecasts. Prior studies typically use the midpoint to evaluate analyst reaction to range forecasts, implicitly assuming that analysts place equal weights on the upper and the lower bounds of management range forecasts. We empirically test this restrictive assumption and provide strong evidence of unequal weights – analysts place significantly more (less) weight on the lower (upper) bound of forecast ranges. Moreover, such overweight on the lower bound is more pronounced when analysts face higher ambiguity, consistent with the “max–min” axiom, which predicts that decision-makers tend to assign higher probability to the worst-case scenario when facing ambiguity. Further tests show that “optimal revisions” with perfect foresight of actual earnings also overweight the lower bound.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368215000100
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:42:y:2015:i:c:p:48-66

DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.005

Access Statistics for this article

Accounting, Organizations and Society is currently edited by Christopher Chapman

More articles in Accounting, Organizations and Society from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().