Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate if Bowman’s Paradox (negative association between risk and return) is caused by managerial myopia. It also attempts to disentangle whether results are more consistent with one or more potential explanations. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses univariate statistics and OLS regressions. Empirically examines the relationship between four risk and return proxies, across a wide ranging time period and utilizing a number of model specifications. Results hold after using three-way clustered errors and using a more robust rolling five year, fixed regression methodology measure. Findings Confirms the existence of the Paradox. Also documents that the association between risk and return is positive in “winner” firms and negative in “loser” firms. Upon further analysis, the earlier negative risk-return relationship is found to entirely be due to the volatility of the (short term) income statement component of the performance terms. Results imply that executives of winner (loser) firms are less (more) likely to manage earnings or engage in other value destroying activities. Research limitations/implications The study is confined by the typical archival study limitations; including potential endogeneity, selection biases and generalizability of the results. Practical implications Anecdotal evidence indicates that the business community makes extensive use of these performance measures. These performance measures are also pervasive in academic research. Given the importance of controlling for both managerial and firm performance, a good performance proxy is quintessential. Originality/value Although over 30 years have passed since Bowman (1980) first observed the negative correlation, to date, no consensus explanation exists. Findings suggest that Bowman’s Paradox, is potentially a manifestation of managerial myopia. Thus, this result contributes to several existing research streams.

PurposeUsing various proxies for the firms' return on equity (ROE) and retention ratios (b) the authors calculate 36 sustainable growth rates, on a rolling basis, for a comprehensive set of firms over a 52-year period. The authors then assess the ability of these different sustainable growth rates to predict the actual, out-of-sample, five-year growth rates of the firms' earnings.Design/methodology/approachThe authors compare the forecast to determine which method of estimating ROE and b produce the lowest mean-squared-errors and then determine the estimation method that works best for firms with different characteristics and for firms in different industries.FindingsOverall, using the median ROE of all firms in the market and the 5-year average of the specific firm's retention ratio produces the lowest, statistically significant, forecast errors. Variations are documented based on firm characteristics, including dividend payout, level of ROE and industry.Practical implicationsThe findings can guide practitioners in using the best earnings forecasting method.Originality/valueFinancial textbooks seem universally to suggest that one method of estimating the growth rate of a firm's earnings is to calculate the “sustainable growth rate” by multiplying the firm's ROE by the firm's b. At the same time, multiple methods of proxying for both ROE and b have been suggested; therefore, it is an interesting and useful empirical question, which, heretofore, has not been addressed in the literature, as to which estimation of the sustainable growth rate best approximates the actual future growth of the firm's earnings. The findings can guide practitioners in using the best earnings forecasting method.

No abstract