IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v22y2017i4d10.1007_s11142-017-9413-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The best of all possible worlds: unraveling target price optimism using analysts’ scenario-based valuations

Author

Listed:
  • Peter R. Joos

    (INSEAD Asia Campus)

  • Joseph D. Piotroski

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

We document that the relative placement of analysts’ target price within their subjective distribution of scenario-based valuations for the covered firm (i.e., tilt) is informative to investors. When analysts forecast price appreciation, tilt incrementally predicts ex post valuation errors and realized returns; the predictive value of tilt disappears when analysts forecast price declines. In additional analyses, we find that tilt appears to reflect an optimistic bias in target price forecasts as opposed to information about asymmetric state-contingent risk payoffs. Finally, we document that investors can use estimates of implied tilt based on observable firm characteristics to distinguish between investments with equally optimistic target price forecasts, yet lacking scenario-based information.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter R. Joos & Joseph D. Piotroski, 2017. "The best of all possible worlds: unraveling target price optimism using analysts’ scenario-based valuations," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1492-1540, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:22:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-017-9413-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-017-9413-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-017-9413-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-017-9413-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cen, Ling & Hilary, Gilles & Wei, K. C. John, 2013. "The Role of Anchoring Bias in the Equity Market: Evidence from Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts and Stock Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 47-76, February.
    2. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    3. Chen, Joseph & Hong, Harrison & Stein, Jeremy C., 2001. "Forecasting crashes: trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 345-381, September.
    4. Lin, Hsiou-wei & McNichols, Maureen F., 1998. "Underwriting relationships, analysts' earnings forecasts and investment recommendations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 101-127, February.
    5. Trueman, Brett, 1994. "Analyst Forecasts and Herding Behavior," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 97-124.
    6. Joos, Peter & Piotroski, Joseph D. & Srinivasan, Suraj, 2016. "Can analysts assess fundamental risk and valuation uncertainty? An empirical analysis of scenario-based value estimates," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 645-663.
    7. Efthimios Demirakos & Norman Strong & Martin Walker, 2010. "Does Valuation Model Choice Affect Target Price Accuracy?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 35-72.
    8. Daphne Lui & Stanimir Markov & Ane Tamayo, 2012. "Equity Analysts and the Market's Assessment of Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1287-1317, December.
    9. Daphne Lui & Stanimir Markov & Ane Tamayo, 2007. "What Makes a Stock Risky? Evidence from Sell‐Side Analysts' Risk Ratings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 629-665, June.
    10. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    11. Michael B. Clement & Senyo Y. Tse, 2005. "Financial Analyst Characteristics and Herding Behavior in Forecasting," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 307-341, February.
    12. Stefano Bonini & Laura Zanetti & Roberto Bianchini & Antonio Salvi, 2010. "Target Price Accuracy in Equity Research," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9‐10), pages 1177-1217, November.
    13. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    14. repec:bla:jfinan:v:58:y:2003:i:5:p:1933-1968 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Cristi A. Gleason & W. Bruce Johnson & Haidan Li, 2013. "Valuation Model Use and the Price Target Performance of Sell†Side Equity Analysts," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 80-115, March.
    16. Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2007. "Equilibrium Underdiversification and the Preference for Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1255-1288.
    17. Stephen H. Penman, 2010. "Financial Forecasting, Risk and Valuation: Accounting for the Future," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 46(2), pages 211-228, June.
    18. McNichols, M & O'Brien, PC, 1997. "Self-selection and analyst coverage," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35, pages 167-199.
    19. Asquith, Paul & Mikhail, Michael B. & Au, Andrea S., 2005. "Information content of equity analyst reports," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 245-282, February.
    20. Nicholas Barberis, 2013. "The Psychology of Tail Events: Progress and Challenges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 611-616, May.
    21. Brian Boyer & Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2010. "Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 169-202, January.
    22. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, June.
    23. John C. Easterwood & Stacey R. Nutt, 1999. "Inefficiency in Analysts' Earnings Forecasts: Systematic Misreaction or Systematic Optimism?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(5), pages 1777-1797, October.
    24. Paul Hribar & John McInnis, 2012. "Investor Sentiment and Analysts' Earnings Forecast Errors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 293-307, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin, Mei-Chen, 2023. "Analyst coverage and the idiosyncratic skewness effect in the Taiwan stock market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. Langlois, Hugues, 2020. "Measuring skewness premia," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 399-424.
    3. Ayadi, Mohamed A. & Cao, Xu & Lazrak, Skander & Wang, Yan, 2019. "Do idiosyncratic skewness and kurtosis really matter?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Cui, Xiangyu & Guan, Zheng, 2022. "On the pricing of expected idiosyncratic skewness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    5. Weber, Martin & Jacobs, Heiko & Regele, Tobias, 2015. "Expected Skewness and Momentum," CEPR Discussion Papers 10601, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Ramnath, Sundaresh & Rock, Steve & Shane, Philip, 2008. "The financial analyst forecasting literature: A taxonomy with suggestions for further research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 34-75.
    7. Peter Clarkson & Alexander Nekrasov & Andreas Simon & Irene Tutticci, 2020. "Target price forecasts: The roles of the 52‐week high price and recent investor sentiment," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(9-10), pages 1365-1399, October.
    8. Kim, Thomas, 2015. "Does individual-stock skewness/coskewness reflect portfolio risk?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 167-174.
    9. Birru, Justin & Wang, Baolian, 2016. "Nominal price illusion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 578-598.
    10. Engle, Robert & Mistry, Abhishek, 2014. "Priced risk and asymmetric volatility in the cross section of skewness," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 135-144.
    11. Roger, Tristan & Roger, Patrick & Schatt, Alain, 2018. "Behavioral bias in number processing: Evidence from analysts’ expectations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 315-331.
    12. Giuseppe arbia, 2014. "Least quartic Regression Criterion with Application to Finance," Papers 1403.4171, arXiv.org.
    13. Joos, Peter & Piotroski, Joseph D. & Srinivasan, Suraj, 2016. "Can analysts assess fundamental risk and valuation uncertainty? An empirical analysis of scenario-based value estimates," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 645-663.
    14. Jang, Jeewon & Kang, Jangkoo, 2017. "An intertemporal CAPM with higher-order moments," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 314-337.
    15. Shengzhong Huang & Hongping Tan & Xiongyuan Wang & Changqiu Yu, 2023. "Valuation uncertainty and analysts’ use of DCF models," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 827-861, June.
    16. Xu, Zhongxiang & Chevapatrakul, Thanaset & Li, Xiafei, 2019. "Return asymmetry and the cross section of stock returns," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 93-110.
    17. Agnes Cheng, C.S. & Xie, Jing & Zhong, Yuxiang, 2023. "Common institutional blockholders and tail risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Doina C. Chichernea & Haimanot Kassa & Steve L. Slezak, 2019. "Lottery preferences and the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 25(3), pages 655-683, June.
    19. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    20. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:22:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-017-9413-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.