Accounting researchers (and potentially others) generally select rather simple, lower-order, time-series models to develop proxies for earnings persistence. However, measures of persistence produced by such models are not related to characteristics of the firm's economic environment that are expected to influence earnings persistence. Using a sample of 162 calendar year-end New York Stock Exchange firms, we document the cross-sectional relations between a set of relatively constant, firm-specific, economic characteristics that are theoretical determinants of persistence and measures of earnings persistence derived from both lower-order and higher-order Autoregressive, Integrated, Moving-Average (ARIMA) models. When lower-order ARIMA models are used to generate measures of earnings persistence, the cross-sectional regression models measuring the association between persistence and economic determinants of persistence yield very low adjusted R2s. In sharp contrast, when differenced, higher-order ARIMA models are used to measure earnings persistence, adjusted R2s are in the 10–12 percent range. Moreover, independent variables such as capital intensity, barriers-to-entry, and product-type are all significant in the directions suggested by economic theory. Our results are consistent with Lipe and Kormendi (1994) who argue that higher-order ARIMA models do a better job of capturing the valuerelevance of current period earnings than lower-order models.

No abstract

Financial analysts provide information to support investment analysis and decisions for an ever increasing number of firms. As part of their services they also produce earnings forecasts for covered firms. While there has been much research investigating the determinants of financial analyst earnings forecast superiority for large, widely-followed firms, little research has focused on smaller firms. Until recently, these smaller firms have been largely ignored. This study focuses exclusively on small firms and provides evidence of differing behavior for such firms compared to results previously reported for large firms. Errors in quarterly earnings per share forecasts of small firms obtained from a univariate time-series model are also examined.Regression results indicate that time-series model parameters possess information content with respect to forecast accuracy for analyst-covered firms only.These results are obtained after controlling for f m size, model adequacy, and industry, quarter, and year effects. This suggests that analysts are more likely to cover small firms for which they are able to decipher information correlated with that impounded in the "shocks" in the quarterly earnings time series as captured by the time-series model parameters.

No abstract

We present new empirical evidence on the contextual nature of the predictive power of five statistically-based quarterly earnings expectation models evaluated on a holdout period spanning the twelve quarters from 2000–2002. In marked contrast to extant time-series work, the random walk with drift (RWD) model provides significantly more accurate pooled, one-step-ahead quarterly earnings predictions for a sample of high-technology firms (n=202). In similar predictive comparisons, the Griffin-Watts (GW) ARIMA model provides significantly more accurate quarterly earnings predictions for a sample of regulated firms (n=218). Finally, the RWD and GW ARIMA models jointly dominate the other expectation models (i.e., seasonal random walk with drift, the Brown-Rozeff (BR) and Foster (F) ARIMA models) for a default sample of firms (n=796). We provide supplementary analyses that document the: (1) increased frequency of the number of loss quarters experienced by our sample firms in the holdout period (2000–2002) vis-à-vis the identification period (1990–1999); (2) reduced levels of earnings persistence for our sample firms relative to earnings persistence factors computed by Baginski et al. ( 2003 ) during earlier time periods (1970s–1980s); (3) relative impact on the predictive ability of the five expectation models conditioned upon the extent of analyst coverage of sample firms (i.e., no coverage, moderate coverage, and extensive coverage); and (4) sensitivity of predictive performance across subsets of regulated firms with the BR ARIMA model providing the most accurate predictions for utilities (n=87) while the RWD model is superior for financial institutions (n=131). Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007