To Blame or Not to Blame: Analysts' Reactions to External Explanations for Poor Financial Performance
39 Pages Posted: 20 Jun 2004
Date Written: May 10, 2004
Abstract
Managers often provide self-serving disclosures that blame poor financial performance on temporary, external factors. Results of an experiment conducted with 124 financial analysts suggest that when analysts perceive such disclosures as plausible, they provide higher earnings forecasts and stock valuations than if the explanation had not been provided. However, we also show that these disclosures can backfire if analysts find them implausible. Specifically, implausible external explanations for poor performance lead analysts to provide lower earnings forecasts and assess a higher cost of capital than if the explanation had not been provided.
Keywords: Voluntary disclosure, management explanations, financial analysts' earnings forecasts, management reputation, financial reporting credibility
JEL Classification: G29, M41, M45
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Experimental Research in Financial Accounting
By Robert Libby, Robert J. Bloomfield, ...
-
Comprehensive Income Disclosures and Analysts' Valuation Judgments
By D. Eric Hirst and Patrick E. Hopkins
-
Fair Values, Comprehensive Income Reporting, and Bank Analysts' Risk and Valuation Judgments
By D. Eric Hirst, Patrick E. Hopkins, ...
-
Purchase, Pooling, and Equity Analysts' Valuation Judgments
By Patrick E. Hopkins, Richard W. Houston, ...
-
Directional Preferences, Information Processing, and Investors' Forecasts of Earnings
-
The 'Incomplete Revelation Hypothesis' and Financial Reporting
-
Using Psychology Theories in Archival Financial Accounting Research
By Lisa Koonce and Molly Mercer
-
Cheap Talk, Fraud and Adverse Selection in Financial Markets: Some Experimental Evidence
By Robert Forsythe, Russell J. Lundholm, ...