Skip to main content

Removing predictable analyst forecast errors to improve implied cost of equity estimates

Review of Accounting Studies volume 18, pages 443–478 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Prior research documents a weak association between the implied cost of equity inferred from analyst forecasts and realized returns. It points to predictable errors in analyst forecasts as a possible cause. We show that removing predictable errors from analyst forecasts leads to a much stronger association between implied cost of equity estimates obtained from adjusted forecasts and realized returns after controlling for cash flow news and discount rate news. An estimate of implied risk premium based on the average of four commonly used methods after making adjustments for predictable errors exhibits strong correlations with future realized returns as well as the lowest measurement error. Overall, our results confirm the validity of implied cost of equity estimates as measures of expected returns. Future research using implied cost of equity should remove predictable errors from implied cost of capital estimates and then average across multiple metrics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. In a recent theory paper, Hughes et al. (2009) show that when the expected return is stochastic, the implied cost of equity can differ from expected return. Lambert (2009) however suggests that the expected difference between implied cost of equity and expected returns might not be a first-order effect.

  2. We do not estimate implied cost of equity using the dividend discount model as in Botosan and Plumlee (2002) and Brav et al. (2005) for two reasons. First, these models rely on target prices and forecasts of dividends that are available only for a small subset of firms. Second, bias in target future prices is less clearly understood than bias in earnings forecasts, as the latter has been the focus of much research.

  3. Easton and Monahan (2010) evaluate these two approaches and conclude that ranking implied RP metrics based on their correlation with risk factors is illogical because the use of accounting-based implied RP metrics implicitly assumes that the factors determining expected returns are either unknown or cannot be estimated reliably.

  4. Reconciling these two streams of research, Easterwood and Nutt (1999) show that analysts react differently based on the nature of the earnings news, by under-reacting to extreme bad news and overreacting to extreme good news.

  5. Payout is estimated as the ratio of indicated annual dividend from I/B/E/S (iadiv) to actual earnings (fy0a). If it cannot be estimated from I/B/E/S, payout is calculated as the ratio of annual dividend (Compustat #21) to net income before extraordinary items (Compustat #18). If earnings are negative, payout is estimated as the ratio of earnings to 6 % of total assets (Compustat #6).

  6. Industry median ROE is estimated as the median of all ROEs from firms in the same industry defined using the Fama and French (1997) classification over the past 5 years with positive earnings and book values, where ROE is defined as the ratio of net income before extraordinary items (Compustat #18) to lagged total common shareholders’ equity (Compustat #60).

  7. Note from Eq. 1 that the expression for RPOJ contains a square root. When short-term growth is very low [less than (γ−1)], this expression can be negative, and hence no valid estimate can be inferred.

  8. Easton and Monahan (2005) use continuously compounded expected returns [that is, log (1 + ret)], while we use the untransformed metrics. Results are virtually identical if we also continuously compound the implied RP metrics and realized returns.

  9. Accruals are defined as earnings before extra-ordinary items (Compustat #18) minus cash from operations (Compustat #308) scaled by lagged total assets (Compustat #6). For years prior to 1988, we use the balance sheet approach to calculating accruals. See Sloan (1996) for details. Results are unchanged if we use the balance sheet approach for the entire period.

  10. Accruals may represent mispricing that neither markets (Sloan 1996) nor analysts (Bradshaw et al. 2001) understand. We hence rerun the error prediction regressions without accruals. Results are essentially unchanged.

  11. We reran the error prediction methodology with only the variables with significant coefficients. Results are essentially unchanged. We do not use this as our default approach as doing so might impose a look-ahead bias.

  12. To reduce the influence of outliers, we winsorize PSURP1 and PSURP2 at the 0.5 and 99.5% level annually. Results are unchanged if we truncate extreme values instead of winsorizing.

  13. Sometimes the adjusted estimates of two-year-ahead EPS are below the adjusted estimates of one-year-ahead EPS, that is, two-year growth is negative. In that case, we set the short-term growth rate (STG) used for ARPOJ and ARPPEG equal to the forecasted long-term growth rate (LTG).

References

  • Abarbanell, J. (1991). Do analysts’ earnings forecasts incorporate information in prior stock price changes? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 14, 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baginski, S., & Wahlen, J. (2003). Residual income risk, intrinsic values, and share prices. The Accounting Review, 78, 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, M., Konchitchki, Y., & Landsman, W. (2010). Cost of equity and earnings transparency. Working paper—Stanford University.

  • Botosan, C. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 72, 323–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2002). A re-examination of disclosure levels and expected cost of equity capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2005). Assessing alternative proxies for the expected risk premium. The Accounting Review, 80, 21–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, M., Richardson, S., & Sloan, R. (2001). Do analysts and auditors use information in accruals? Journal of Accounting Research, 39, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brav, A., Lehavy, R., & Michaely, R. (2005). Using expectations to test asset pricing models. Financial Management, 34, 31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. (1993). Earnings forecasting research: Its implications for capital markets research. International Journal of Forecasting, 9, 295–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claus, J., & Thomas, J. (2001). Equity risk premium as low as three percent? Evidence from analysts’ earnings forecasts for domestic and international stocks. Journal of Finance, 56, 1629–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bondt, W., & Thaler, R. (1990). Do security analysts overreact? The American Economic Review, 80, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P., Hutton, A., & Sloan, R. (2000). The relation between analyst forecasts of long term earnings growth and stock price performance following equity offerings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 17, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P., & Sloan, R. (1997). Returns to contrarian investments: Tests of the naive expectations hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doukas, J., Chansoq, K., & Pantzalis, C. (2002). A test of the errors-in-expectations explanation of the value/glamour stock returns performance: Evidence from analyst forecasts. Journal of Finance, 57, 2143–2166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugar, A., & Nathan, S. (1995). The effect of investment banking relationships on financial analysts’ earnings forecasts and investment recommendations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 12, 131–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, P. (2004). PE ratios, PEG ratios, and estimating the implied expected rate of return on equity capital. The Accounting Review, 79, 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, P., & Monahan, S. (2005). An evaluation of accounting-based measures of expected returns. The Accounting Review, 80, 501–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, P., & Monahan, S. (2010). Evaluating accounting-based measures of expected returns: Easton and Monahan and Botosan and Plumlee Redux. Working paper, University of Notre Dame/INSEAD.

  • Easton, P., & Sommers, G. (2007). Effect of analysts’ optimism on estimates of the expected rate of return implied by earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 45, 983–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgers, P., & Lo, M. (1994). Reductions in analysts’ annual earnings forecast errors using information in prior earnings and security returns. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, J. (1999). Expected return, realized return, and asset pricing tests. Journal of Finance, 54, 1199–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & French, K. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47, 427–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & French, K. (1997). Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 153–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & MacBeth, J. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 71, 607–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., Khurana, I., & Pereira, R. (2005). Disclosure incentives and effects on cost of equity around the world. The Accounting Review, 80, 1125–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2004). Costs of equity and earnings attributes. The Accounting Review, 79, 967–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, R., & Lee, C. (1998). Accounting valuation, market expectation, and cross-sectional returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25, 283–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R., Huberts, L., & Levinson, M. (1993). Returns to e/p strategies, higgledy-piggledy growth, analysts’ forecast errors, and omitted risk factors. Journal of Portfolio Management, 19, 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, S., & Klepper, S. (1980). “Administrative pricing” or competition coupled with errors of measurement? International Economic Review, 21, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, W., Lee, C., & Swaminathan, B. (2001). Towards an implied cost of equity. Journal of Accounting Research, 39, 135–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Analyst forecast revisions and market price discovery. The Accounting Review, 78, 193–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gode, D., & Mohanram, P. (2001). What affects the implied cost of equity? Working paper, New York University.

  • Gode, D., & Mohanram, P. (2003). Inferring the cost of equity using the Ohlson–Juettner model. Review of Accounting Studies, 8, 399–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, W., Kothari, S., & Shu, S. (2005). Properties of the implied cost of equity using analyst forecasts. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2006). International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? Journal of Accounting Research, 44(3), 485–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hribar, P., & Jenkins, N. (2004). The effect of accounting restatements on earnings revisions and the estimated cost of equity. Review of Accounting Studies, 9, 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2009). On the relation between expected returns and implied cost of equity. Review of Accounting Studies, 14, 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., Liu, J., & Su, W. (2008). On the relation between predictable market returns and predictable analyst forecast errors. Review of Accounting Studies, 13, 266–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N., Kim, J., Krische, S., & Lee, C. (2004). Analyzing the analysts: When do recommendations add value? Journal of Finance, 59, 1083–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance, 48, 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R. (1996). Expectations and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance, 51, 1715–1742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. (2009). Discussion of “On the relation between expected returns and implied cost of equity”. Review of Accounting Studies, 14, 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larocque, S. (2013). Analysts’ earnings forecast errors and cost of equity capital estimates. Review of Accounting Studies, 18, 135–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lys, T., & Sohn, S. (1990). The association between revisions of financial analysts’ earnings forecasts and security-price changes. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 13, 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendenhall, R. (1991). Evidence on the possible underweighting of earnings-related information. Journal of Accounting Research, 29, 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanram, P., & Rajgopal, S. (2009). Is PIN priced risk? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 47, 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nekrasov, A., & Ogneva, M. (2011). Using earnings forecasts to simultaneously estimate firm-specific cost of equity and long-term growth. Review of Accounting Studies, 16, 414–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, P. (1988). Analyst forecasts as earnings expectations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 10, 53–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanlon, J., & Steele, A. (2000). Estimating the equity risk premium using accounting fundamentals. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 27, 1051–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, J. (1995). Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 661–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, J., & Juettner-Nauroth, B. (2005). Expected EPS and EPS growth as determinants of value. Review of Accounting Studies, 10, 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S., Teoh, S., & Wysocki, P. (2004). The walkdown to beatable analyst forecasts: The role of equity issuance and inside trading incentives. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 885–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, R. (1996). Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? The Accounting Review, 71, 289–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stickel, S. (1991). Common stock returns surrounding earnings forecast revisions: more puzzling evidence. The Accounting Review, 66, 402–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuolteenaho, T. (2002). What drives firm-level stock returns? Journal of Finance, 57, 233–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. (2004). Discussion of “The role of information precision in determining the cost of equity capital”. Review of Accounting Studies, 9, 261–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor Peter Easton, two anonymous referees, Jim Ohlson, Steve Monahan and the seminar participants at the Columbia-NYU Joint Seminar, Indian School of Business Accounting Conference, Ohio State University, and Washington University –St. Louis for their useful comments. We would like to thank Maria Ogneva for providing us with the code to estimate the measurement error variables used in the paper. Partha Mohanram would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada for their generous financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CGA Ontario Professor of Financial Accounting, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3E6, Canada

    Partha Mohanram

  2. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Dan Gode

Authors
  1. Partha Mohanram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Gode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Partha Mohanram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mohanram, P., Gode, D. Removing predictable analyst forecast errors to improve implied cost of equity estimates. Rev Account Stud 18, 443–478 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-012-9219-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-012-9219-2

Keywords

  • Implied cost of capital
  • Implied cost of equity
  • Analyst forecasts
  • Realized returns
  • Expected returns
  • Predictable errors

JEL Classification

  • M41
  • G12
  • G31
  • G32