Abstract
We analyze three different mechanical models to forecast earnings and compare their forecasts with those of analysts. Moreover, we evaluate implied cost of capital (ICC) estimates that are based on these forecasts. With our analyses we answer three open questions in the literature. 1) Do model forecasts or analysts’ forecasts perform better? 2) Are ICCs derived from analysts’ forecasts more reliable than ICCs based on model forecasts? And 3) does higher forecast performance also translate into more reliable ICCs? First, we find that analysts’ forecasts are even more accurate than the most accurate model forecasts. However, second, we find that model-based ICCs are always more reliable than analyst-based ICCs. Moreover, model-based ICCs are particularly reliable for a sample of firms for which no analysts’ forecasts are available. While the lack of reliability of analyst-based ICCs seems to indicate a missing link between forecast performance and ICC reliability, in fact, third, we find that ceteris paribus higher forecast performance translates into more reliable ICCs, that is, within one earnings definition the most accurate forecasts also yield the most reliable ICCs.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
