DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF POST-EARNINGS-ANNOUNCEMENT DRIFT ON VARYING DEGREES OF EARNINGS SURPRISE MAGNITUDE TOM SCHNEIDER ( ) Abstract
|
|
- Barnaby Ray
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF POST-EARNINGS-ANNOUNCEMENT DRIFT ON VARYING DEGREES OF EARNINGS SURPRISE MAGNITUDE TOM SCHNEIDER ( ) Abstract In this paper I explore signal detection theory (SDT) as an explanatory factor for the observed S-curve reaction of abnormal market return to earnings surprise. I hypothesize that post-earnings-announcement drift (PEAD) will be greater for firms with greater absolute magnitudes of earnings surprise if SDT is a factor. I replicate the work of Kinney, Burgstahler and Martin [2002] and extend the time frame of their observations to include a period for PEAD. I find no evidence of greater degrees of PEAD based on earnings surprise and that the S-curve persists over the extended observation period. Thus, I conclude STD is not an explanatory factor for the observed market response. Many thanks to Pat O Brien and Ranjini Sivakumar for their advice and input over the summer and to Sean Spears for his help in data collection.
2 I - Introduction Two studies, Freeman and Tse [1992] (hereinafter FT) and Kinney, Burgstahler and Martin [2002] (hereinafter KBM), have found that the scatter plot of the market s reaction to earnings surprises, as measured by abnormal stock return, follows an S-curve centred on the origin. Neither study gives a definitive reason for this result, although they do look to earnings persistence and forecast precision as possible reasons. In this paper, I explore the possibility that surprise magnitude is a stand-alone contributing factor in the S-curve reaction to earnings surprise. I look to signal detection theory (SDT) as a basis for hypothesizing that surprises of greater magnitude will have relatively smaller abnormal market returns around the announcement date. To determine whether this could be true, I look for cross-sectional differences in post-earnings-announcement drift (PEAD) between portfolios that are created based on surprise magnitude. If increasing magnitude moderates the market response, market efficiency dictates this should correct itself over time and be observable in PEAD. The hypothesis is that portfolios created with larger surprise magnitude firms will show greater drift than portfolios created with smaller surprise magnitude firms. If this can be observed, it would support the possibility that surprise magnitude is a stand-alone factor in determining the market s reaction to earnings surprise. In the next section of this paper, I discuss FT and KBM, in section III I discuss SDT and how it might apply to earnings surprise. In section IV, I develop the hypothesis to be tested, in section V I present the research design, in section VI the sampling process, in 2
3 section VII the results, in section VIII a regression analysis and in the final section I present my overall conclusions. II - Background In FT, the authors focus on demonstrating a cross-sectional difference in the response to earnings surprises and that this difference can be attributed to the magnitude of earnings surprise. The result is evident in the better fit of a non-linear S-curve function as opposed to a linear function in modeling abnormal return in relation to earnings surprise. They imply that the S-curve in their data is a function of the earnings persistence of the sample firms earnings. That is, forecast error will increase as earnings persistence is decreased. Thus, the upper and lower tails of the S-curve would be expected to have a higher number of firms with transitory earnings. In the second paper, KBM demonstrate that analysts forecast dispersion is an explanatory factor for the S-curve. If they limit the range of their data to include firms with a higher number of analysts and lower forecast dispersion, the S-curve flattens out to a more linear form. They note that analyst dispersion could be a proxy for other determinants of the surprise/return relation, such as earnings persistence, the precision of the signal that earnings provides about firm value, or both. 1 Thus, these two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive as analysts forecast accuracy could be positively correlated with more persistent earnings. Both studies note that the non-linear form in response to earnings surprises should be taken into account when studying the Earnings Response Coefficients. The Earnings 1 KBM [2002], p
4 Response Coefficient (ERC) measures the market response to accounting earnings 2. Easton and Zmijewski [1989] find that ERCs vary cross-sectionally and in a predictable manner. They identify revision parameters as one of the two key factors affecting the ERC (the other key factor being the expected rate of return). The revision parameters they identify are essentially a measure of earnings persistence, based on either a timeseries model (such as Foster s [1977] seasonal first-order autoregressive time series process) or a regression of analysts most recent revision of next quarter s earnings on analysts most recent forecast error. They demonstrate that this revision parameter (or persistence) will vary across firms. If during a specific period these parameters do not change but earnings do in relation to expectations, the change in stock price will be the change in earnings times the ERC. If the revision parameters change, the reaction to changes in earnings would not be linear. They also note that variations in time-series approach can result in different ERCs. Thus the possible form of the reaction to earnings surprise is infinite. In an efficient market, the information imparted in earnings news should be capitalized in a manner that reflects the present value of this information. If FT are correct in their hypothesis that earnings persistence is recognized in the market, then investors are able to differentiate between firms and apply the appropriate ERC to earnings surprises. Teets and Wasley [1996] deal directly with calculating cross-sectional and firm specific ERCs and demonstrate that cross-sectional ERCs are, on average, lower than firm specific ERCs due to over-weighting of the higher magnitude surprises. Thus, if they are to be applied accurately they must be calculated on a firm specific basis. Mendenhall [2002] 2 For a review of ERCs, see Kothari s [2001] review of Capital market research in accounting. 4
5 and Ball and Bartov [1996] provide empirical evidence that investors do indeed do this. Ball and Bartov also find that even though investors can differentiate between firms, they underestimate the firm specific ERC by one half of its true value. They identify this as the key cause of post earnings announcement drift. Part of my motivation to follow the post earnings announcement drift of various surprise magnitudes is to try and determine whether the firm-specific ERCs are consistently underestimated across all surprise magnitudes. As mentioned earlier, KBM hypothesize that analysts forecast dispersion could be a proxy for persistence and/or precision. The literature discussed here has shown that cross-sectional differences in persistence can create the observed S-curve. The issue of precision was examined by Subramanyam (1996). Subramanyam develops a market model in which uncertainty about the precision of the signal in earnings forecast errors is a sufficient condition to create a non-linear relationship between returns and surprise. The form of this non-linearity would depend on the relation between expected precision and surprise. Subramanyam s model tries to reconcile the two conflicting factors that are: the revaluation of a stock price given a surprise, and the negative relation between absolute returns and absolute surprise. He demonstrates that the only requirement to create an S-curve in the response to earnings surprise is the relaxation of the assumption of constant precision across all surprises. This argument is well supported by the results that come from KBM and FT. 5
6 Thus, there are currently two suggested contributing factors to the S-curve persistence and precision. I wish to explore one more. Nothing to date addresses the relative magnitude of the surprise as a stand-alone factor for at least part of the observed reaction to earnings surprises. Thus, I am interested in exploring whether, ceteris paribus, the relative magnitude of an earnings surprise is a sufficient condition to cause a non-linear market response. Signal Detection Theory (SDT), as described by Green and Swets [1964], provides a theory that supports the concept that investors reaction to earnings surprise would decrease as its absolute magnitude increases. If this were true, it would create an S-curve in response to earnings surprise magnitude. It would also create a source of market inefficiency. I propose that this inefficiency would correct itself over time and would be observable in the form of PEAD. III - Signal Detection Theory Investors must make buy-sell decisions based on a stream of information that is a combination of public announcements and private information. These decisions are made against a background of noise. The final signal to an investor to buy is made in a haze of macro and micro-economic information. Green and Swets developed Signal Detection Theory (SDT) in the 1960s building on probability theory and statistical decision theory. It is specifically based on the ability of observers to detect a signal and differentiate it from noise. It is structured as an outcome matrix of the four possible situations when signals are, or are not, detected against a background of noise. The four possible outcomes are: A signal is detected as noise (a miss type II error) A signal is detected as a signal (a hit) 6
7 Noise is detected as noise (correct identification) Noise is detected as a signal (a false alarm type I error) Karim and Siegel (1998) apply SDT to the detection of fraud during the audit process. They discuss the aspect of increased false alarms if increased vigilance is required in detecting fraud. They question the ability of auditing techniques in place at that time to successfully detect fraud without raising an inordinate amount of false alarms. Raising the bar on fraud detection is a trade-off of efficiency versus effectiveness. In an optimal decision strategy, any given information will be interpreted perfectly. However, this is not always possible against a significant and often confusing background of noise. In a capital markets context, if a particular investor wants to increase the number of hits, the number of false alarms will also go up. Conversely, if the false alarm rate is to go down, the rate of hits will also go down. A conscious or unconscious decision must be made as to what the tolerated false alarm rate will be. A precise ex ante rate cannot be calculated; however, an ex ante rate will be established based on expectations and an investor s willingness to accept the cost of a false alarm. The key measure in SDT is the likelihood ratio (L), the probability of the information being a signal, divided by the probability of the information being noise. Given the cost of a false alarm, the decision maker must make a decision as to what level of L is appropriate. In the case of earnings surprise, I make the assumption that as earnings surprise magnitude increases, the cost of a false alarm increases correspondingly. That is, if the 7
8 same ERC is applied as surprise magnitude increases, the cost of being wrong will increase. Thus, as the absolute magnitude of an earnings surprise increases, investors will apply a larger L to the underlying information in the surprise and want to lower the ERC to reflect this. If the relative magnitude of the surprise is small, a lower L will apply and investors will be willing to capitalize the change in earnings with a larger ERC. This type of reaction to surprise magnitude would create a market reaction function that is more steeply sloped as earnings surprise approaches zero and would flatten out as surprise magnitude increases. For example, let s assume two surprise magnitudes, 1 percent and 3 percent of share price and an ERC for persistent earnings of 5. The resulting change in price would be 5 percent and 15 percent respectively. However, if only 60 percent of the surprise is persistent, investors will lose more by applying the ERC to the greater magnitude surprise. In the case of the greater magnitude surprise, the error will cost investors 6 percent of the ex ante share price (5x3x0.4). In the case of the lower magnitude surprise, the error will cost investors 2 percent of the ex ante share price (5x1x0.4). This increased cost in applying a consistent ERC across increasing magnitudes of earnings surprise creates a higher cost of false alarm as absolute surprise magnitude increases. SDT suggests that investors would apply a higher likelihood ratio as the absolute surprise magnitude increases to compensate for the increased cost of a false alarm. This would imply a systematic under-estimation of the appropriate firm specific ERC as the absolute magnitude of earnings surprise increases. The resulting market reaction would be concave for positive surprises and convex for negative surprises. This form would occur 8
9 if the underlying information in the earnings surprises were the same across surprise magnitudes. Thus, barring other factors, such as persistence and precision, SDT implies an S-shaped curve when measuring abnormal returns versus earnings surprises magnitude. If SDT does apply as described here, it would create inefficiency in the market. Assuming that the market is efficient over time, it would correct this inefficiency. Thus, there would be an observable correction as more private and public information about the underlying characteristics of the earnings surprises filters into the market. The result should be varying degrees of post-earnings-announcement drift with varying degrees of surprise magnitude. IV - Hypothesis Development To test for the possibility that earnings surprise magnitude is a sufficient condition to create the non-linear S-curve, I will explore PEAD in relation to various relative magnitudes of earnings surprise. If, ceteris paribus, the market response to varying degrees of surprise magnitude creates systematic differences in the ERC based solely on surprise magnitude and not the underlying value parameters (i.e. earnings persistence and discount rate), then mispricing will occur. Market efficiency dictates that this mispricing should be corrected over time. Thus, I hypothesize that this will be reflected in PEAD. The hypothesis is as follows: 9
10 H 1 : Firms with earnings surprises of greater relative magnitude experience higher degrees of post-earnings-announcement drift. The returns window used by KBM is from trading day 20 to +1 relative to day 0, the day of the announcement. The window used by FT starts two days after the previous quarter s earnings announcement and ends one day after the current period s announcement. Bernard and Thomas [1990] find that the majority of PEAD occurs within the first 3 months of earnings announcements. Thus, I examine the effect of extending the window used by KBM over the three months following the earnings announcement to look for a relative difference in abnormal market returns between firms that have different magnitudes of earnings surprise. My methodology follows that of KBM to provide comparability of their S-curve. Since I want to follow the abnormal return over the three months after the announcement date I use an extended observation window including 60 trading days after day 0. Findings that flatten out the observed S-curve in the KBM would mean that at least some of the observed variation in market response to different magnitudes of earnings surprises is the result of the surprise magnitude itself. It would imply that the market increases its underestimation of the appropriate ERC that should be applied to earnings surprises as the absolute magnitude increases. Thus, SDT would not be rejected as a causal factor in the non-linear S-curve reaction to earnings surprises. 10
11 V - Research Design KBM get their data from First Call, Compustat and CRSP, for the period from January 1 st, 1992 to December 31 st, I will replicate their sample for comparability. KBM measure earnings surprise as actual reported EPS minus the most recent First Call consensus forecast prior to the announcement date, scaled by year-end share price. KBM calculate the returns associated with each earnings announcement as the raw return minus the value-weighted market return accumulated over a 22-day window extending from 20 days in advance to one day after the earnings announcement. I will replicate this return calculation, and will examine an extended window of 60 days after the earnings announcement 3. The 60-day time frame after the announcement is meant to capture the three calendar months after the announcement date and the majority of the PEAD as per Bernard and Thomas [1990]. Thus, including the replication, the observation windows will be 22 and 81 days, all observations starting 20 days before the earnings announcement. 3 I also replicate all of the analysis using windows including the 20 and 40 days after the earnings announcement. The qualitative results and conclusions are consistent with those found using the extended window of 60 days after the announcement. 11
12 VI - Sample The purpose of the sample is to capture year-end annual earnings announcement dates and measure the response to earnings surprise in relation to that date. All firm-years with a fiscal year end between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1997 with reported actual earnings per share (EPS) were selected from the First Call Historical Database (FCHD). This resulted in a total of 32,441 observations. To eliminate earnings re-statements, I only use the first announcement for each firm-year. The sample is further reduced if required data fields to calculate earnings surprise and abnormal return are not available. The required data fields are mean consensus forecast from the FCHD, daily returns data from CRSP, and fiscal year-end stock price from Compustat. A significant number of fiscal year-end announcements on the FCHD have announcements on days well ahead of actual fiscal period end. As described in the FCHD Users guide, The Actuals table contains the actual per share numbers reported by the companies following a fiscal period end. 4 To avoid this anomaly, any observations with reported announcement dates ahead of the fiscal period were eliminated. As per KBM, the sample is then limited to observations with ES (earnings surprise scaled by price) within +/ The sample selection process is described in Table 1. KBM s limited sample resulted in 19,383 observation or 88% of the unrestricted sample. In applying the same restriction to my sample, 87% of the observations are retained (16,831 observations). 4 First Call Historical Database User Guide, page 9. 12
13 Table 1 - Sample Selection Process Step Process Remaining Observations 1 Select all EPS announcements reported on the actuals table 32,441 in the FCHD 2 Eliminate observations that are not related to the first 30,937 announcement (eliminates most re-statements) 3 Eliminate observations for which no CUSIP is found in the 26,285 summary table of the FCHD 4 Eliminate observations where the values are not available 25,314 and the default value is in the mean forecast cell 5 Eliminate observations where CUSIP cannot be found on the 22,889 CRSP database 6 Eliminate observations where null observation has been 21,992 picked up by CRSP (-99) 7 Eliminate observations where CUSIP cannot be found on 21,154 Compustat 8 Eliminate observations for which the null default is in the 20,998 Compustat data item 199 cell (year end stock price) 9 A number of fiscal year end announcements on the FCHD 19,707 have announcements on days well ahead of actual fiscal period end. All observations with announcement dates in advance of the fiscal period end were eliminated. 10 Eliminate any announcements that are more than 120 days 19,301 after the fiscal period end. 11 Calculate raw ES and scaled ES 19, Sort step 11 by ES and limit sample to +/-.02 (using 9 decimal places) 16,831 (87% of step 11) The univariate descriptive statistics of this sample, along with those for KBM, are presented in Table 2. The sample shows most of the characteristics of KBM. The size measures are similar, with the means greater than the 75 th percentile for all four measures. The number of observations increases over the sample period, approximately doubling. This is consistent with KBM. The decrease in negative and increase in positive earnings surprises over the period is also consistent with KBM. They point out that this may be consistent with increased earnings management over the period. 13
14 However, they also show a shift to zero earnings surprise from negative earnings surprise, whereas my sample has a relatively constant percentage of observations falling in the zero earnings surprise category. In general, my sample has more positive earnings surprises, more zero earnings surprises and fewer negative earnings surprises than KBM This may be a result of the different number of observations being used in the restricted sample (16,831 versus 19,383) and may reflect some non-random characteristics of the firm-years eliminated in the sampling process. Median forecast age decreases by 4 days over the 6 years of the sample period, whereas KBM forecast age decreases by 17 days (I calculate forecast age by calendar year and assume that KBM do the same, although they do not define this). The change in KBM can be attributed to one year over year change. Between 1995 and 1996 their median forecast age declines from 35 days to 13 days and holds at the same age for This further indicates potential differences in the two data sets. To calculate the scaled earnings surprise, the different methodology for handling stock splits of First Call and Compustat must be reconciled. To adjust for the stock splits that are reflected on the FCHD, I multiply all the reported EPS on the FCHD and the related mean forecasts by stock split factors reported on the FCHD split table. This is different from KBM, who adjust the Compustat year-end stock price for stock splits. However, the resulting earnings surprise is the same. 14
15 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Observations with Earnings Surprise (ES) scaled by price within +/ Panel A: Size Measures Percentiles n Mean Standard Deviation KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM Revenues Assets Book Value (12.2) Market Value Panel B: Descriptive Statistics Year All Years KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM ES (n) 1,717 2,041 2,251 2,739 2,530 3,136 2,997 3,347 3,513 4,061 3,823 4,059 16,831 19,383 Mean (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Median Percent firms by surprise Year All Years KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM Negative 41.9% 45.3% 39.7% 44.0% 34.8% 39.4% 34.1% 40.4% 33.4% 38.3% 32.1% 35.6% 35.1% 39.8% None 17.4% 11.9% 16.6% 12.2% 16.3% 12.1% 18.0% 12.6% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 16.1% 17.2% 14.1% Positive 40.7% 42.8% 43.7% 43.7% 48.9% 48.5% 47.9% 47.0% 49.4% 44.4% 50.6% 48.3% 47.7% 46.1%
16 Mean 22-day window return by surprise All Years KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM Negative (0.0014) (0.0053) (0.0014) (0.0164) (0.0121) (0.0219) (0.0166) (0.0178) (0.0210) (0.0248) (0.0152) (0.0159) (0.0119) None (0.0050) (0.0025) (0.0085) (0.0065) (0.0130) Positive All (0.0016) (0.0002) Mean 81-day window return by surprise All Years Negative (0.0001) (0.0103) (0.0308) (0.0019) (0.0565) (0.0519) (0.0284) None (0.0437) (0.0257) Positive (0.0135) All (0.0002) (0.0331) All Years Forecast Age (n) KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM 1,717 2,041 2,251 2,739 2,530 3,136 2,997 3,347 3,513 4,061 3,823 4,059 16,831 19,383 Mean Median No. of Analysts All Years KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM KBM Mean Median
17 a: Observations come from an intersection of First Call, Compustat and CRSP databases. All firms with reported actual EPS on the First Call Historical Database serve as the starting point for the sample. Accounting and Stock Return data comes from Compustat and CRSP over the relevant period. Observations without data in the required field, announcements more than 120 days after the fiscal period end dates and second EPS announcements (I.e. restatements) on First Call are eliminated from the sample. The result is 19,301 observations. As per KBM, observations included in this table are included for ES +/ ES is defined as the annual per share earnings surprise divided by fiscal year-end price per share. This scaling includes 16,831 observations from the unrestricted sample of 19,301 (87%). Earnings Surprise is the actual reported EPS by First Call less the most recent average analysts forecast. Price per share is Compustat data item 199 (fiscal year-end price). b: As per KBM, size measures are defined as: Revenues Compustat data item 12, Assets Compustat data item 6, Book Value Compustat data item 199 (fiscal year-end price) times Compustat data item 54 (common shares used to calculate primary EPS). c: As per KBM,. variables are defined as follows: ES is the annual per share earnings surprise divided by fiscal year-end price per share. Earnings surprise is the actual EPS reported by First Call less the average forecast as of the last First Call update before the announcement of earnings for the year. Price per share is Compustat data item 199 (fiscal year-end price). Percent firms, by surprise is the percentage of firms with negative, none, or positive surprise, where surprise is negative for firms if the forecast mean exceeds actual earnings, positive for firms if actual earnings exceed the forecast mean, and none if actual earnings and the forecast mean are equal. Mean 22, 41, 61 and 81-day window returns, by surprise is the average cumulative 22, 41, 61 and 81-day return, adjusted for the value-weighted market index, for the period 20 days before and ending 1,20,40 and 60 days after the First Call Historical database earnings announcement date. Forecast age is not defined by KBM, I calculate forecast age as number of calendar days between the announcement date and the most recent update of the mean forecast (both as reported on the FCHD). No. of Analysts is the reported number of forecasts on the FCHD as of the day of the most recent update. d: As per KBM, Years are defined as fiscal year-ends from January 1 to December 31 of the referenced year. 17
18 VII - Results As per KBM, the firm-years with zero earnings surprise are broken out into one portfolio. Then portfolios of 500 firm-years are created from the 500 smallest negative earnings surprises, the next 500 smallest earnings surprise and so on. The same process is done with the positive earnings surprises. The zero earnings surprise portfolio is made up of a portfolio of 2,893 firm year observations. Thus, for each portfolio of similar earnings surprises, there are two distributions of abnormal earnings one for each of the returns windows. Figure 1 presents the mean, median, 33.3 percentile and 66.7 percentile of the 22-day returns window. Figure 1-22-day Window Return Abnormal Stock Return Mean Median ES Scaled by Price
19 Figure 1 shows the same qualitative results as KBM. The results are relatively symmetric around zero with a steeper slope closer to the origin and a flattening out as the absolute magnitude of the earnings surprise increases. Thus, although some of the descriptive statistics in the samples differ, the overall resulting S-curve is similar. Figure 2 presents the mean, median, 33.3 percentile and 66.7 percentile of the 81-day returns window. Table 2 presents a comparison of the mean and median abnormal returns of the 22-day and 81-day returns windows and Figure 3 presents the mean comparisons in graph form. Figure 2-81-day Return Abnormal Stock Return Mean Median ES Scaled by Price 19
20 Table 2: 22-day vs. 81-day Returns by Portfolio Mean Median Mean ES 22-day 81-day 22-day 81-day
21 Figure 3-22-day vs. 81 day window (mean) 0.08 Abnormal Stock Return day 81-day ES scaled by price Figure 2 shows that the S-curve is still evident three months after the earnings announcement. Thus, based on Figure 2, the hypothesis that PEAD occurs at a greater rate for firms with earnings surprises of greater absolute magnitude can be rejected and STD can be discounted as a contributing factor to the S-curve. Overall, the portfolios do show PEAD in the three months after the announcement date. The exceptions to this are the portfolios just over zero (mean and median) and the third largest negative surprise portfolio (mean only). Three of the four smallest positive surprise portfolios show decline between the 22-day window and the 81-day window 21
22 based on mean and all four based on median 5. In general, the negative quadrant shows a flattening out of the response to earnings surprise. In the positive quadrant, larger earnings surprises do show larger drift, particularly considering the negative drift of the small positive surprises. VIII - Regression Analysis To further match with the KBM study, cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) as a function of earnings surprise are explored. Given the observed S-curve, it would be expected that a regression of CAR on smaller and smaller +/- return windows would yield larger slope coefficients on ES. This result is found by KBM and is generally the case in Tables 3 and 4 (presented below). However, the smallest window seems to be affected by the decline of the observations with small positive surprises. Table 3 presents the regression including the zero surprise portfolio and Table 4 presents the regression without the zero surprise portfolio included. KBM s results are presented in both cases for comparison. Table 3: Results of CAR on Earnings Surprise Scaled by Price Panel A: 22-Day Window +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p-value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted As a follow-up to the exploration of the characteristics of the returns portfolios, I explore firm size characteristics across the portfolios (not presented). The results show that the portfolios with the largest average size statistics are closest to the zero earnings surprise. 22
23 Panel B: KBM 22-Day Window for comparison +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p-value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted Panel C: 81-Day Window +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p-value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted Table 4: Results of CAR on Earnings Surprise Scaled by Price (No Zeroes) Panel A: 22-Day Window (No Zeroes) +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p- value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Not including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted 16, , , , , , ,
24 Panel B: KBM 22-Day Window for comparison (No Zeroes) +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p- value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Not including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted Panel C: 84-Day Window (No Zeroes) +/- Range of ES n ßo t o p-value ß1 t 1 p- value adjusted R 2 All Observations (Not including zero earnings surprise) Unrestricted 16, , , , , , , If the hypothesis regarding PEAD on varying degrees of ES is not to be rejected, the slope coefficients for the 81-day returns window should show a flatter trend line than that for 22-day returns as the range of earnings surprise is decreased. A comparison of the slope coefficients from Table 3 that are significant at greater than the 0.05 level is presented in Table 5 and presented graphically in Figure 4. The same is done for Table 4 in Table 6 and Figure 7. 24
25 Table 5 - Comparison of slope coefficients across return windows* (with zeroes) n 22-day 81-day Unrestricted 19, , , , , , , * Significant at the 5% or greater level ß1 ß1 Slope coefficient of CAR on ES (with zeroes) day 81-day Unrestricted
26 Table 6 - Comparison of slope coefficients across return windows* ß1 ß1 n 22-day 81-day Unrestricted 16, , , , , , , * Significant at the 5% or greater level Figure 5 - Slope coefficient of CAR on ES (no zeroes) day 81-day Unrestricted As can be seen in figure 4 and particularly in figure 5, there is no flattening of the increase in slopes when the returns window is extended to 81-day. Thus, this regression analysis does not provide any evidence to support the hypothesis. 26
27 IX - Conclusions The evidence presented in this paper rejects the hypothesis that post-earningsannouncement drift occurs at a greater rate for stocks with earnings surprises of a larger relative magnitude than those with earnings surprises of a smaller relative magnitude. Thus, my conclusion is that SDT does not play a role in the observed S-curve reaction of abnormal stock returns to scaled earnings surprise. Although further pursuing SDT as a factor in the market would not be worthwhile, further study of the relative degrees of PEAD of portfolios based on ES is of interest. The decline of the portfolios just above and below zero raises some questions as to why this occurred in my sample. Thus, looking at the specific underlying characteristics of these portfolios and the specific firms that make them up might help to explain this. 27
28 References Ball, R., and E. Bartov. How Naïve is the Stock Market s use of Earnings Information? Journal of Accounting and Economics. 21 (1996): Bernard, V.L., and J.K. Thomas. Evidence that Stock Prices Do Not Fully Reflect the Implications of Current Earnings for Future Earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 13 (1990): Easton, Peter D., and Mark E. Zmijewski. Cross-Sectional Variation in the Stock Market Response to Accounting Earnings Announcements. Journal of Accounting and Economics. Amsterdam: Jul Vol. 11, Iss. 2,3: Foster, G. Quarterly Accounting Data: Time-Series Properties and Predictive Ability Results. The Accounting Review.Vol.52, No. 1 (Jan., 1977): Freeman, R.N., and S.Y. Tse. A Non-Linear Model of Security Price Response to Unexpected Earnings. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn 1992): Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A. (1964). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Mar., 1979), Karim, Khondkar E., and Philip H. Siegel. A signal detection theory approach to analyzing the efficiency and effectiveness of auditing to detect management fraud. Managerial Auditing Journal. 13 (6): Kinney, W., D. Burgstahler, and R. Martin. Earnings Surprise Materiality as Measured by Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting Research (December 2002): Kothari, S.P., and R.G. Sloan. Information in Prices About Future Earnings: Implications for Earnings Response Coefficients. Journal of Accounting and Economics, (June/September 1992): Kothari, S.P. Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 31 (2001) Mendenhall, R. How Naïve is the Market s Use of Firm-Specific Earnings Information? Journal of Accounting Research (June 2002): Subramanyam, K.R. Uncertain Precision and Price Reactions to Information. The Accounting Review (April 1996):
29 Teets, W.R., and C.E. Wasley. Estimated earnings response coefficients: Pooled versus firm specific models. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol 21, 1996):
Earnings Precision and the Relations Between Earnings and Returns*
Earnings Precision and the Relations Between Earnings and Returns* David Burgstahler Julius A. Roller Professor of Accounting University of Washington Elizabeth Chuk University of Southern California December
More informationPost-Earnings-Announcement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises and Earnings Persistence
Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises and Earnings Persistence Joshua Livnat Department of Accounting Stern School of Business Administration New York University 311 Tisch Hall
More informationEarnings Precision and the Relations Between Earnings and Returns
Earnings Precision and the Relations Between Earnings and Returns Presented by Dr David Burgstahler Julius A Roller Professor of Accounting University of Washington #2017/18-11 The views and opinions expressed
More informationEarnings Surprise Materiality as Measured by Stock Returns
Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 40 No. 5 December 2002 Printed in U.S.A. Earnings Surprise Materiality as Measured by Stock Returns WILLIAM KINNEY, DAVID BURGSTAHLER, AND ROGER MARTIN Received 3 January
More informationDo Investors Fully Understand the Implications of the Persistence of Revenue and Expense Surprises for Future Prices?
Do Investors Fully Understand the Implications of the Persistence of Revenue and Expense Surprises for Future Prices? Narasimhan Jegadeesh Dean s Distinguished Professor Goizueta Business School Emory
More informationWhat Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium?
What Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium? Hae mi Choi Loyola University Chicago This study investigates what drives the earnings announcement premium. Prior studies have offered various explanations
More informationSeasonal Analysis of Abnormal Returns after Quarterly Earnings Announcements
Seasonal Analysis of Abnormal Returns after Quarterly Earnings Announcements Dr. Iqbal Associate Professor and Dean, College of Business Administration The Kingdom University P.O. Box 40434, Manama, Bahrain
More informationWho, if Anyone, Reacts to Accrual Information? Robert H. Battalio, Notre Dame Alina Lerman, NYU Joshua Livnat, NYU Richard R. Mendenhall, Notre Dame
Who, if Anyone, Reacts to Accrual Information? Robert H. Battalio, Notre Dame Alina Lerman, NYU Joshua Livnat, NYU Richard R. Mendenhall, Notre Dame 1 Overview Objectives: Can accruals add information
More informationTHE OPTION MARKET S ANTICIPATION OF INFORMATION CONTENT IN EARNINGS ANNOUNCEMENTS
THE OPTION MARKET S ANTICIPATION OF INFORMATION CONTENT IN EARNINGS ANNOUNCEMENTS - New York University Robert Jennings - Indiana University October 23, 2010 Research question How does information content
More informationOnline Appendix to. The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts
Online Appendix to The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts This online appendix tabulates and discusses the results of robustness checks and supplementary analyses mentioned in the paper. A1. Estimating
More informationA Multifactor Explanation of Post-Earnings Announcement Drift
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS VOL. 38, NO. 2, JUNE 2003 COPYRIGHT 2003, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WA 98195 A Multifactor Explanation of Post-Earnings
More informationDiscussion of Information Uncertainty and Post-Earnings-Announcement-Drift
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34(3) & (4), 434 438, April/May 2007, 0306-686X doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.2007.02031.x Discussion of Information Uncertainty and Post-Earnings-Announcement-Drift
More informationPost-Earnings-Announcement Drift (PEAD): The Role of Revenue Surprises
Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift (PEAD): The Role of Revenue Surprises Joshua Livnat Department of Accounting Stern School of Business Administration New York University 311 Tisch Hall 40 W. 4th St. New
More informationEvidence That Management Earnings Forecasts Do Not Fully Incorporate Information in Prior Forecast Errors
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(7) & (8), 822 837, September/October 2009, 0306-686X doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02152.x Evidence That Management Earnings Forecasts Do Not Fully Incorporate
More informationThe High-Volume Return Premium and Post-Earnings Announcement Drift*
First Draft: November, 2007 This Draft: April 18, 2008 The High-Volume Return Premium and Post-Earnings Announcement Drift* Alina Lerman** New York University alerman@stern.nyu.edu Joshua Livnat New York
More informationResearch Methods in Accounting
01130591 Research Methods in Accounting Capital Markets Research in Accounting Dr Polwat Lerskullawat: fbuspwl@ku.ac.th Dr Suthawan Prukumpai: fbusswp@ku.ac.th Assoc Prof Tipparat Laohavichien: fbustrl@ku.ac.th
More informationDiscussion Reactions to Dividend Changes Conditional on Earnings Quality
Discussion Reactions to Dividend Changes Conditional on Earnings Quality DORON NISSIM* Corporate disclosures are an important source of information for investors. Many studies have documented strong price
More informationInvestor Uncertainty and the Earnings-Return Relation
Investor Uncertainty and the Earnings-Return Relation Dissertation Proposal Defended: December 3, 2004 Kenneth J. Reichelt Ph.D. Candidate School of Accountancy University of Missouri Columbia Columbia,
More informationInvestment Opportunity Set Dependence of Dividend Yield and Price Earnings Ratio
Volume 27 Number 3 2001 65 Investment Opportunity Set Dependence of Dividend Yield and Price Earnings Ratio by Ahmed Riahi-Belkaoui and Ronald D. Picur, University of Illinois at Chicago Abstract This
More informationYale ICF Working Paper No March 2003
Yale ICF Working Paper No. 03-07 March 2003 CONSERVATISM AND CROSS-SECTIONAL VARIATION IN THE POST-EARNINGS- ANNOUNCEMENT-DRAFT Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy Yale School of Management This paper can be downloaded
More informationMARKET REACTION TO & ANTICIPATION OF ACCOUNTING NUMBERS
MARKET REACTION TO & ANTICIPATION OF ACCOUNTING NUMBERS One way in which accounting numbers can be assessed is to see how they relate to stock returns. Accounting numbers which update the market s beliefs
More informationInternal versus external equity funding sources and earnings response coefficients
Title Internal versus external equity funding sources and earnings response coefficients Author(s) Park, CW; Pincus, M Citation Review Of Quantitative Finance And Accounting, 2001, v. 16 n. 1, p. 33-52
More informationConflict in Whispers and Analyst Forecasts: Which One Should Be Your Guide?
Abstract Conflict in Whispers and Analyst Forecasts: Which One Should Be Your Guide? Janis K. Zaima and Maretno Agus Harjoto * San Jose State University This study examines the market reaction to conflicts
More informationThe Separate Valuation Relevance of Earnings, Book Value and their Components in Profit and Loss Making Firms: UK Evidence
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Separate Valuation Relevance of Earnings, Book Value and their Components in Profit and Loss Making Firms: UK Evidence S Akbar The University of Liverpool 2007 Online
More informationThe Economic Consequences of (not) Issuing Preliminary Earnings Announcement
The Economic Consequences of (not) Issuing Preliminary Earnings Announcement Eli Amir London Business School London NW1 4SA eamir@london.edu And Joshua Livnat Stern School of Business New York University
More informationProblem Set on Earnings Announcements (219B, Spring 2007)
Problem Set on Earnings Announcements (219B, Spring 2007) Stefano DellaVigna April 24, 2007 1 Introduction This problem set introduces you to earnings announcement data and the response of stocks to the
More informationPost-Earnings Announcement Drift: The Role of Earnings Volatility
Journal of Finance and Accounting 2015; 3(3): 35-41 Published online March 27, 2015 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/jfa) doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20150303.11 ISSN: 2330-7331 (Print); ISSN: 2330-7323
More informationShareholder-Level Capitalization of Dividend Taxes: Additional Evidence from Earnings Announcement Period Returns
Shareholder-Level Capitalization of Dividend Taxes: Additional Evidence from Earnings Announcement Period Returns John D. Schatzberg * University of New Mexico Craig G. White University of New Mexico Robert
More informationFactors in the returns on stock : inspiration from Fama and French asset pricing model
Lingnan Journal of Banking, Finance and Economics Volume 5 2014/2015 Academic Year Issue Article 1 January 2015 Factors in the returns on stock : inspiration from Fama and French asset pricing model Yuanzhen
More informationConverting TSX 300 Index to S&P/TSX Composite Index: Effects on the Index s Capitalization and Performance
International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 8, No. 6; 2016 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Converting TSX 300 Index to S&P/TSX Composite Index:
More informationDiploma in Business Administration Part 2. Quantitative Methods. Examiner s Suggested Answers
Cumulative frequency Diploma in Business Administration Part Quantitative Methods Examiner s Suggested Answers Question 1 Cumulative Frequency Curve 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 5 1 15 5 3 35 4 45 Weeks 1 (b) x f
More informationTHE ROLE OF EARNINGS VOLATILITY SOURCES IN FORECASTING
International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom Vol. III, Issue 5, May 2015 http://ijecm.co.uk/ ISSN 2348 0386 THE ROLE OF EARNINGS VOLATILITY SOURCES IN FORECASTING Ben Mhamed
More informationPremium Timing with Valuation Ratios
RESEARCH Premium Timing with Valuation Ratios March 2016 Wei Dai, PhD Research The predictability of expected stock returns is an old topic and an important one. While investors may increase expected returns
More informationDo Auditors Use The Information Reflected In Book-Tax Differences? Discussion
Do Auditors Use The Information Reflected In Book-Tax Differences? Discussion David Weber and Michael Willenborg, University of Connecticut Hanlon and Krishnan (2006), hereinafter HK, address an interesting
More informationDoes Meeting Expectations Matter? Evidence from Analyst Forecast Revisions and Share Prices
Does Meeting Expectations Matter? Evidence from Analyst Forecast Revisions and Share Prices Ron Kasznik Graduate School of Business Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-9740 Fax: (650) 725-6152
More informationPersonal Dividend and Capital Gains Taxes: Further Examination of the Signaling Bang for the Buck. May 2004
Personal Dividend and Capital Gains Taxes: Further Examination of the Signaling Bang for the Buck May 2004 Personal Dividend and Capital Gains Taxes: Further Examination of the Signaling Bang for the Buck
More informationANOMALIES AND NEWS JOEY ENGELBERG (UCSD) R. DAVID MCLEAN (GEORGETOWN) JEFFREY PONTIFF (BOSTON COLLEGE)
ANOMALIES AND NEWS JOEY ENGELBERG (UCSD) R. DAVID MCLEAN (GEORGETOWN) JEFFREY PONTIFF (BOSTON COLLEGE) 3 RD ANNUAL NEWS & FINANCE CONFERENCE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MARCH 8, 2018 Background and Motivation
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS. Value Line and I/B/E/S earnings forecasts
International Journal of Forecasting xx (2004) xxx xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast Value Line and I/B/E/S earnings forecasts Sundaresh Ramnath a,1, Steve Rock b,2, Philip Shane b, * a McDonough
More informationManager Comparison Report June 28, Report Created on: July 25, 2013
Manager Comparison Report June 28, 213 Report Created on: July 25, 213 Page 1 of 14 Performance Evaluation Manager Performance Growth of $1 Cumulative Performance & Monthly s 3748 3578 348 3238 368 2898
More informationThe Implications of Using Stock-Split Adjusted I/B/E/S Data in Empirical Research
The Implications of Using Stock-Split Adjusted I/B/E/S Data in Empirical Research Jeff L. Payne Gatton College of Business and Economics University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40507, USA and Wayne B. Thomas
More informationOnline Appendix Results using Quarterly Earnings and Long-Term Growth Forecasts
Online Appendix Results using Quarterly Earnings and Long-Term Growth Forecasts We replicate Tables 1-4 of the paper relating quarterly earnings forecasts (QEFs) and long-term growth forecasts (LTGFs)
More informationBusiness Cycles and the Relation between Security Returns and Earnings
Review of Accounting Studies, 4, 93 117 (1999) c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Business Cycles and the Relation between Security Returns and Earnings MARILYN
More informationJournal of Applied Business Research Volume 20, Number 4
Management Compensation And Project Life Charles I. Harter, (E-mail: charles.harter@ndsu.nodak.edu), North Dakota State University T. Harikumar, New Mexico State University Abstract The goal of this paper
More informationThe cross section of expected stock returns
The cross section of expected stock returns Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER This version: March 2013 First draft: October 2010 Tel: 603-646-8650; email: jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu. I am grateful
More informationAggregate Earnings Surprises, & Behavioral Finance
Stock Returns, Aggregate Earnings Surprises, & Behavioral Finance Kothari, Lewellen & Warner, JFE, 2006 FIN532 : Discussion Plan 1. Introduction 2. Sample Selection & Data Description 3. Part 1: Relation
More informationAn Analysis of Anomalies Split To Examine Efficiency in the Saudi Arabia Stock Market
An Analysis of Anomalies Split To Examine Efficiency in the Saudi Arabia Stock Market Mohammed A. Hokroh MBA (Finance), University of Leicester, Business System Analyst Phone: +966 0568570987 E-mail: Mohammed.Hokroh@Gmail.com
More informationBBR - Brazilian Business Review E-ISSN: X FUCAPE Business School Brasil
BBR - Brazilian Business Review E-ISSN: 1807-734X bbronline@bbronline.com.br FUCAPE Business School Brasil Coppe Pimentel, Renê; Braga de Aguiar, Andson Persistence of quarterly earnings: an empirical
More informationAnalysis of Stock Price Behaviour around Bonus Issue:
BHAVAN S INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of BUSINESS Vol:3, 1 (2009) 18-31 ISSN 0974-0082 Analysis of Stock Price Behaviour around Bonus Issue: A Test of Semi-Strong Efficiency of Indian Capital Market Charles Lasrado
More informationComplete Dividend Signal
Complete Dividend Signal Ravi Lonkani 1 ravi@ba.cmu.ac.th Sirikiat Ratchusanti 2 sirikiat@ba.cmu.ac.th Key words: dividend signal, dividend surprise, event study 1, 2 Department of Banking and Finance
More informationMargaret Kim of School of Accountancy
Distinguished Lecture Series School of Accountancy W. P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University Margaret Kim of School of Accountancy W.P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University will
More informationThe Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. The Mary Jean and Frank P. Smeal College of Business Administration
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School The Mary Jean and Frank P. Smeal College of Business Administration IS THE VALUE RELEVCE OF EARNINGS REALLY DECREASING OVER TIME A Thesis in Business
More informationDo individual investors drive post-earnings announcement drift? Direct evidence from personal trades
Do individual investors drive post-earnings announcement drift? Direct evidence from personal trades David Hirshleifer* James N. Myers** Linda A. Myers** Siew Hong Teoh* *Fisher College of Business, Ohio
More informationExchange Rate Exposure and Firm-Specific Factors: Evidence from Turkey
Journal of Economic and Social Research 7(2), 35-46 Exchange Rate Exposure and Firm-Specific Factors: Evidence from Turkey Mehmet Nihat Solakoglu * Abstract: This study examines the relationship between
More informationDividend Changes and Future Profitability
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LVI, NO. 6 DEC. 2001 Dividend Changes and Future Profitability DORON NISSIM and AMIR ZIV* ABSTRACT We investigate the relation between dividend changes and future profitability,
More informationEarnings Response Coefficient as a Measure of Market Expectations: Evidence from Tunis Stock Exchange
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues ISSN: 2146-4138 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2015, 5(2), 377-389. Earnings Response
More informationStock Splits Information or Liquidity?
Stock Splits Information or Liquidity? Alon Kalay University of Chicago Booth School of Business Mathias Kronlund University of Chicago Booth School of Business Original version: November 4, 2007 Current
More informationStock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information?
Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information? Yongsik Kim * Abstract This paper provides empirical evidence that analysts generate firm-specific
More informationMULTI FACTOR PRICING MODEL: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CAPM
MULTI FACTOR PRICING MODEL: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CAPM Samit Majumdar Virginia Commonwealth University majumdars@vcu.edu Frank W. Bacon Longwood University baconfw@longwood.edu ABSTRACT: This study
More informationSENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN CAPITAL BUDGETING USING CRYSTAL BALL. Petter Gokstad 1
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN CAPITAL BUDGETING USING CRYSTAL BALL Petter Gokstad 1 Graduate Assistant, Department of Finance, University of North Dakota Box 7096 Grand Forks, ND 58202-7096, USA Nancy Beneda
More informationVas Ist Das. The Turn of the Year Effect: Is the January Effect Real and Still Present?
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2015 Vas Ist Das. The Turn of the Year Effect: Is the January Effect Real and Still Present? Michael I.
More informationA Study of Relationship between Accruals and Managerial Operating Decisions over Firm Life Cycle among Listed Firms in Tehran Stock Exchange
A Study of Relationship between Accruals and Managerial Operating Decisions over Firm Life Cycle among Listed Firms in Tehran Stock Exchange Vahideh Jouyban Young Researchers Club, Borujerd Branch, Islamic
More informationDo Bulls and Bears Listen to Whispers?
Do Bulls and Bears Listen to Whispers? Janis K. Zaima * and Maretno Agus Harjoto ** San Jose State University *, ** and Pepperdine University ** Abstract A post-earnings announcement drift associated with
More informationEffect of Earnings Growth Strategy on Earnings Response Coefficient and Earnings Sustainability
European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 2015; www.european-science.com Vol.4, No.1 Special Issue on New Dimensions in Economics, Accounting and Management ISSN 1805-3602 Effect of Earnings
More informationInternet Appendix: High Frequency Trading and Extreme Price Movements
Internet Appendix: High Frequency Trading and Extreme Price Movements This appendix includes two parts. First, it reports the results from the sample of EPMs defined as the 99.9 th percentile of raw returns.
More informationMeeting and Beating Analysts Forecasts and Takeover Likelihood
Meeting and Beating Analysts Forecasts and Takeover Likelihood Abstract Prior research suggests that meeting or beating analysts earnings expectations has implications for both equity and debt markets:
More informationThe Consistency between Analysts Earnings Forecast Errors and Recommendations
The Consistency between Analysts Earnings Forecast Errors and Recommendations by Lei Wang Applied Economics Bachelor, United International College (2013) and Yao Liu Bachelor of Business Administration,
More informationThe relationship between share repurchase announcement and share price behaviour
The relationship between share repurchase announcement and share price behaviour Name: P.G.J. van Erp Submission date: 18/12/2014 Supervisor: B. Melenberg Second reader: F. Castiglionesi Master Thesis
More informationInternational Journal of Academic Research ISSN: ; Vol.3, Issue-12(5), December, 2016 Impact Factor: 4.535;
Mohamed Hassan Abd-ElAzzem Accounting Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Hala Abd-Elnaby Abd-ElFattah Accounting Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Heba Hazem Elsherif (Corresponding Author)
More informationCEO Cash Compensation and Earnings Quality
CEO Cash Compensation and Earnings Quality Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Chen, Zhimin Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright is held by the author. Digital access to this material
More informationEarnings Announcements, Analyst Forecasts, and Trading Volume *
Seoul Journal of Business Volume 19, Number 2 (December 2013) Earnings Announcements, Analyst Forecasts, and Trading Volume * Minsup Song **1) Sogang Business School Sogang University Abstract Empirical
More informationInteractions between Analyst and Management Earnings Forecasts: The Roles of Financial and Non-Financial Information
Interactions between Analyst and Management Earnings Forecasts: The Roles of Financial and Non-Financial Information Lawrence D. Brown Seymour Wolfbein Distinguished Professor Department of Accounting
More informationEmpirical Methods for Corporate Finance. Regression Discontinuity Design
Empirical Methods for Corporate Finance Regression Discontinuity Design Basic Idea of RDD Observations (e.g. firms, individuals, ) are treated based on cutoff rules that are known ex ante For instance,
More informationFTS Real Time Project: Forecasting Quarterly Earnings and Post Earnings Announcement Drift (PEAD)
FTS Real Time Project: Forecasting Quarterly Earnings and Post Earnings Announcement Drift (PEAD) Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future -Niels Bohr (Danish Physicist) and others
More informationDATA SUMMARIZATION AND VISUALIZATION
APPENDIX DATA SUMMARIZATION AND VISUALIZATION PART 1 SUMMARIZATION 1: BUILDING BLOCKS OF DATA ANALYSIS 294 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 VISUALIZATION: GRAPHS AND TABLES FOR SUMMARIZING AND ORGANIZING DATA 296
More informationEmpirical Evidence. r Mt r ft e i. now do second-pass regression (cross-sectional with N 100): r i r f γ 0 γ 1 b i u i
Empirical Evidence (Text reference: Chapter 10) Tests of single factor CAPM/APT Roll s critique Tests of multifactor CAPM/APT The debate over anomalies Time varying volatility The equity premium puzzle
More informationA Replication Study of Ball and Brown (1968): Comparative Analysis of China and the US *
DOI 10.7603/s40570-014-0007-1 66 2014 年 6 月第 16 卷第 2 期 中国会计与财务研究 C h i n a A c c o u n t i n g a n d F i n a n c e R e v i e w Volume 16, Number 2 June 2014 A Replication Study of Ball and Brown (1968):
More informationA Synthesis of Accrual Quality and Abnormal Accrual Models: An Empirical Implementation
A Synthesis of Accrual Quality and Abnormal Accrual Models: An Empirical Implementation Jinhan Pae a* a Korea University Abstract Dechow and Dichev s (2002) accrual quality model suggests that the Jones
More informationVery preliminary. Comments welcome. Value-relevant properties of smoothed earnings. December, 2002
Very preliminary. Comments welcome. Value-relevant properties of smoothed earnings December, 2002 by Jacob K. Thomas (JKT1@columbia.edu) and Huai Zhang (huaiz@uic.edu) Columbia Business School, New York,
More informationSources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As
Sources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Jian Liu ** University of Exeter This draft: August 2016 Abstract We examine
More informationValue Line and I/B/E/S Earnings Forecasts
Value Line and I/B/E/S Earnings Forecasts Sundaresh Ramnath McDonough School of Business Georgetown University Ramnath@msb.edu Steven Rock Leeds School of Business The University of Colorado at Boulder
More informationEarnings Response Coefficients and Default Risk: Case of Korean Firms
Earnings Response Coefficients and Default Risk: Case of Korean Firms Yohan An Department of Finance and Accounting, Tongmyoung University, Busan, South Korea Correspondence: Dr. Yohan An, Assistant Professor,
More informationDoes Calendar Time Portfolio Approach Really Lack Power?
International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 9, No. 9; 2014 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Does Calendar Time Portfolio Approach Really
More informationDoes R&D Influence Revisions in Earnings Forecasts as it does with Forecast Errors?: Evidence from the UK. Seraina C.
Does R&D Influence Revisions in Earnings Forecasts as it does with Forecast Errors?: Evidence from the UK Seraina C. Anagnostopoulou Athens University of Economics and Business Department of Accounting
More informationCHAPTER 7 FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET EFFICIENCY
CHAPTER 7 FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET EFFICIENCY Chapter Overview This chapter has two major parts: the introduction to the principles of market efficiency and a review of the empirical evidence on efficiency
More informationACCRUALS MANAGEMENT, INVESTOR SOPHISTICATION, AND EQUITY VALUATION: EVIDENCE FROM 10-Q FILINGS
ACCRUALS MANAGEMENT, INVESTOR SOPHISTICATION, AND EQUITY VALUATION: EVIDENCE FROM 10-Q FILINGS Steven Balsam Fox School of Business and Management Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 Eli Bartov and
More informationLong Run Stock Returns after Corporate Events Revisited. Hendrik Bessembinder. W.P. Carey School of Business. Arizona State University.
Long Run Stock Returns after Corporate Events Revisited Hendrik Bessembinder W.P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University Feng Zhang David Eccles School of Business University of Utah May 2017
More informationDISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University
DISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University ABSTRACT The literature in the area of index changes finds evidence
More informationInvestigating the relationship between accrual anomaly and external financing anomaly in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)
Research article Investigating the relationship between accrual anomaly and external financing anomaly in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) Hamid Mahmoodabadi * Assistant Professor of Accounting Department of
More informationDeviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Abstract The tradeoff theory of corporate cash holdings predicts that
More informationAssessing the reliability of regression-based estimates of risk
Assessing the reliability of regression-based estimates of risk 17 June 2013 Stephen Gray and Jason Hall, SFG Consulting Contents 1. PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT... 1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 3. INTRODUCTION...
More informationVALCON Morningstar v. Duff & Phelps
VALCON 2010 Size Premia: Morningstar v. Duff & Phelps Roger J. Grabowski, ASA Duff & Phelps, LLC Co-author with Shannon Pratt of Cost of Capital: Applications and Examples, 3 rd ed. (Wiley 2008) and 4th
More informationProperties of implied cost of capital using analysts forecasts
Article Properties of implied cost of capital using analysts forecasts Australian Journal of Management 36(2) 125 149 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalspermissions.nav
More informationInterrelationship between Profitability, Financial Leverage and Capital Structure of Textile Industry in India Dr. Ruchi Malhotra
Interrelationship between Profitability, Financial Leverage and Capital Structure of Textile Industry in India Dr. Ruchi Malhotra Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, Sri Guru Granth Sahib World
More informationHow Markets React to Different Types of Mergers
How Markets React to Different Types of Mergers By Pranit Chowhan Bachelor of Business Administration, University of Mumbai, 2014 And Vishal Bane Bachelor of Commerce, University of Mumbai, 2006 PROJECT
More informationCore CFO and Future Performance. Abstract
Core CFO and Future Performance Rodrigo S. Verdi Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50 Memorial Drive E52-403A Cambridge, MA 02142 rverdi@mit.edu Abstract This paper investigates
More informationInvestor Trading and Book-Tax Differences
Investor Trading and Book-Tax Differences Benjamin C. Ayers University of Georgia (706) 542-3772 Bayers@terry.uga.edu Stacie K. Laplante University of Georgia (706) 542-3620 Slaplante@terry.uga.edu Oliver
More informationThe relationship between output and unemployment in France and United Kingdom
The relationship between output and unemployment in France and United Kingdom Gaétan Stephan 1 University of Rennes 1, CREM April 2012 (Preliminary draft) Abstract We model the relation between output
More informationFinancial Statement Comparability and Investor Responsiveness to Earnings News
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota UST Research Online Accounting Faculty Publications Accounting 2017 Financial Statement Comparability and Investor Responsiveness to Earnings News Matthew Stallings
More informationForecasting Analysts Forecast Errors. Jing Liu * and. Wei Su Mailing Address:
Forecasting Analysts Forecast Errors By Jing Liu * jiliu@anderson.ucla.edu and Wei Su wsu@anderson.ucla.edu Mailing Address: 110 Westwood Plaza, Suite D403 Anderson School of Management University of California,
More informationAn Examination of the Predictive Abilities of Economic Derivative Markets. Jennifer McCabe
An Examination of the Predictive Abilities of Economic Derivative Markets Jennifer McCabe The Leonard N. Stern School of Business Glucksman Institute for Research in Securities Markets Faculty Advisor:
More information