Why Analyst Estimates Are Often Useless

Updated: May 6, 2024


When performing stock analysis and/or stock valuations, investors often turn to analyst estimates to determine, or at the very least, help inform their expectations for a company's future performance. These estimates are particularly influential around earnings seasons, as consensus expectations can significantly impact short-term stock prices if they fall short or exceed projections. However, despite their prominence on Wall Street and perceived expertise, analyst estimates are often useless due to potential conflicts of interest, behavioral biases, and the questionable accuracy and track record of these forecasts.

This article begins by explaining the role of buy-side and sell-side stock analysts and how to access their reports. It then discusses conflicts of interest, how analyst coverage influences firm behavior and estimate accuracy, and the behavioral biases that affect analyst judgments. Additionally, the article examines additional studies on the accuracy/reliability of earnings estimates, concluding by discussing the scenarios in which analyst estimates may be useful for the average retail investor.

Stock Analysts Explained

Stock analysts are highly educated professionals who dedicate their careers to analyzing financial data, market trends, and company performance to provide insights and recommendations to investors, businesses, and other stakeholders. These experts typically hold advanced degrees in business-related fields, such as finance, accounting, or economics, and may have earned prestigious professional designations like Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) or Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

In addition to their broad financial knowledge, some stock analysts specialize in specific sectors based on their unique areas of expertise. For example, analysts focusing on the healthcare industry may have medical degrees or PhDs, allowing them to provide in-depth analysis of pharmaceutical companies, biomedical research firms, and other health-related businesses. Similarly, analysts specializing in the technology sector may have backgrounds in computer science or engineering, enabling them to offer expert opinions on software companies, semiconductor manufacturers, and other tech-related enterprises.

Buy-Side vs. Sell-Side Analysts

Stock analysts can be broadly categorized into two main groups: buy-side analysts and sell-side analysts. The primary distinction between these two types of analysts lies in the nature of their employers and the clients they serve:

  • Buy-Side Analysts: Work for financial institutions that directly invest money on behalf of their clients, such as mutual funds, hedge funds, or pension funds. They conduct research and provide recommendations to inform their employers' investment decisions. Their research is typically kept internal and used exclusively by fund managers and other decision-makers within their organization.
  • Sell-Side Analysts: Employed by brokerage firms, investment banks, or other financial institutions that provide research and investment recommendations to their clients, including institutional and individual investors. They often specialize in specific sectors or industries and produce detailed research reports with analysis, earnings estimates, and investment recommendations. These reports are distributed to the firm's clients and can help generate business for the firm.

Here's a comprehensive table comparing buy-side and sell-side analysts:

Note that when companies report earnings and reference how they performed relative to analyst estimates, they are generally referring to the consensus estimates derived from sell-side analysts. This information is gathered by financial data providers (e.g., Thomson One Analytics) and shared with their subscribers, with earnings per share (EPS) being the most widely followed.

How to Access Stock Analyst Reports

Investors can access stock analyst reports from various sources, depending on whether they are seeking buy-side or sell-side research. Sell-side reports are more widely available to the general public (albeit potentially subject to more conflicts of interest and biases), while buy-side reports are typically reserved for the clients of the investment firms that produce them (meaning harder for individual investors to access).

How to Access Buy-Side Analyst Reports
  • Investment Firms: Buy-side research is generally only available to clients of the investment firm that produced the report. If you are a client of a mutual fund, hedge fund, or other investment firm, you may be able to request access to their analyst reports.
  • Institutional Investor Surveys: Some organizations, such as Institutional Investor, conduct surveys to rank the best buy-side analysts in various sectors and regions. While these surveys do not provide access to the actual reports, they can help identify the most respected buy-side analysts in a particular field.
  • Networking and Conferences: Investors may be able to gain insights from buy-side analysts by attending industry conferences or networking events where these analysts share their views and opinions on specific companies or sectors.
How to Access Sell-Side Analyst Reports
  • Brokerage Firms: If you have an account with a brokerage firm, you may have access to their in-house research reports. Many large brokerage firms, such as Charles Schwab, Fidelity, and Goldman Sachs, provide clients with access to their analyst reports through their online platforms or by request.
  • Financial News Websites: Websites like Yahoo Finance, Seeking Alpha, and MarketWatch often publish excerpts or summaries of sell-side analyst reports. These websites may also provide links to the full reports when available.
  • Research Aggregators: Platforms like Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, and FactSet aggregate analyst reports from multiple sell-side firms. However, access to these platforms typically requires a paid subscription and is mainly used by institutional investors and financial professionals.
  • Company Investor Relations Websites: Some companies provide links to analyst reports on their investor relations websites. However, these reports are usually limited to those produced by analysts at firms that have a business relationship with the company.

Conflicts of Interest and How to Identify Them

One of the most significant concerns surrounding stock analysts, particularly sell-side analysts, is the potential for conflicts of interest. These conflicts can arise in various forms and can lead to biased research reports and investment recommendations.

In this section, we'll discuss why conflicts of interest lead to overly optimistic analyst estimates, the significance of the Global Analyst Research Settlement in 2003 (meant to prevent potential conflicts of interest), real-world examples of conflicts of interest following this settlement, and how investors can identify these potential conflicts when reading equity research reports.

Conflicts of Interest and Overly Optimistic Analyst Estimates

Conflicts of interest play a major role in why analysts tend to give overly optimistic estimates and recommendations. This is primarily due to:

  1. Analyst Relationship With Investment Banks: Analysts employed by firms with investment banking divisions may face pressure to issue favorable reports on companies that are current or potential clients of their employer. For example, if an analyst's firm is underwriting a public offering for a company, there may be an incentive to provide positive coverage to ensure the success of the offering. This conflict can compromise the objectivity of the analyst's research and recommendations.
  2. Analyst Compensation: Analyst compensation can also create conflicts of interest. Some analysts may be compensated based on the performance of their recommendations or the amount of business their research generates for their firm. This can incentivize analysts to issue more bullish recommendations or to avoid making negative calls on companies, even when warranted by the underlying fundamentals.

In a CBS News article, Tobias Levkovich, chief U.S. equity strategist for Citigroup (in 2010), discussed factors that contribute to analyst optimism, particularly their need to maintain good relations with the companies they cover. Given their close ties and significant impact on stock prices, analysts often hesitate to deliver negative news due to potential backlash from stockholders. This caution can lead to an excess of "buy" recommendations, skewing overall ratings.

Levkovich explains:

"There's a tendency to be a little more timid about bad news. If you stick your neck out and break bad news, you get a backlash from owners of the stock."

- Tobias Levkovich

Levkovich further notes that analysts may conform to consensus estimates to avoid standing out, even if their own assessments differ:

"Analysts may be inclined to stick with the consensus to avoid standing out, even when their judgment suggests otherwise. He refers to this as the 'lemming factor,' where analysts are reluctant to deviate from the group opinion, especially when sentiment toward a stock becomes extreme."

- Tobias Levkovich

These insights, further supported by later evidence provided in this article, highlight the social and psychological pressures analysts face, fostering potentially overly optimistic forecasts and a reluctance to communicate negative news. This is important for retail investors to keep in mind, considering the potential biases and conflicts of interest that could impact analyst recommendations and forecasts.

Global Analyst Research Settlement

During the early 2000s, particularly around the dot-com bubble, analysts from some of the largest investment firms were scrutinized for issuing overly positive research reports on companies that were also their investment banking clients. This led to legal actions and a major settlement in 2003, when 10 of the largest U.S. investment banks agreed to new rules under the Global Analyst Research Settlement to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and ensure the independence of their research departments.

While the Global Research Analyst Settlement instituted reforms to promote analyst independence and limit the influence of investment banking on research, it did not completely eliminate all potential conflicts of interest.

Examples of conflicts of interest that still occur post-settlement include:

  • Compensation Structures: Analysts' compensation may be indirectly linked to the overall profitability of the firm, including investment banking revenue.
  • Relationships With Company Management: Analysts may maintain positive relationships with company management to ensure continued access to information, leading to a reluctance to issue negative reports.
  • Pressure to Generate Trading Commissions: Analysts may face pressure to generate trading commissions by issuing reports that encourage clients to buy or sell securities.
  • Ownership of Covered Securities: Analysts owning securities in the companies they cover, potentially biasing their research and recommendations.
  • Revolving Door: The "revolving door" between investment firms and covered companies, where analysts may seek to maintain positive relationships in anticipation of future employment opportunities.

Thus, while regulations have helped mitigate conflicts of interest, they have not been entirely eliminated, as demonstrated in the following section. Ultimately, investors should remain aware of these potential conflicts and carefully evaluate the sources, track record, and motivations behind analyst research and recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Examples

The Global Research Analyst Settlement of 2003 aimed to address conflicts of interest among analysts by instituting reforms to promote independence and limit the influence of investment banking on research. However, despite these efforts, conflicts of interest still persist in the industry, potentially compromising the objectivity and reliability of analyst recommendations.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals (2015)

In 2015, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company, saw its stock prices soar to all-time highs on August 5th, with ~80% of the 23 analysts covering the stock maintaining bullish ratings, as illustrated in the Bloomberg chart below:

| Stablebread
Source: Bloomberg

However, just a couple months later, in October 2015, Citron Research released allegations of accounting fraud and misconduct, causing the stock to plummet by 55% from its peak in August.

Following the misconduct allegations, only three analysts reduced their ratings, while eleven lowered their price targets, and the rest maintained their unchanged ratings. This reluctance to revise ratings and targets in light of the company’s troubles raises concerns about the analysts' objectivity and independence.

Moreover, the case of Valeant Pharmaceuticals illustrates the general tendency of analysts to remain overly optimistic. It also serves as a reminder that analyst estimates are merely predictions made by humans who, like average retail investors, rely on publicly available information.

Tesla and Morgan Stanley (2016)

In 2016, Morgan Stanley's auto analyst raised his price target for Tesla from $280 to $465, just days after the company announced a stock offering that Morgan Stanley underwrote.

The timing of this adjustment, made without any fundamental changes to Tesla's business, raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and questioned the independence of Morgan Stanley's research, particularly since the higher price target could benefit the firm's investment banking clients.

How to Identify Potential Conflicts of Interest

To identify potential conflicts of interest, investors should carefully review the disclosures/fine print provided in analyst reports. These disclosures should include information about the analyst's compensation structure, the firm's ownership of the covered company's securities, and any investment banking relationships between the firm and the company.

Some potential red flags investors should be on the lookout for in analyst reports include:

  • Disclosures indicating significant investment banking relationships between the analyst's firm and the covered company.
  • Analysts or their family members having a financial interest or ownership stake in the companies they cover.
  • Compensation structures that link analyst pay to the performance of their recommendations or the generation of investment banking business.
  • Analysts consistently issuing buy recommendations with few or no sell ratings.
  • A history of overly optimistic forecasts or price targets that diverge significantly from actual results.

By examining these disclosures and being aware of potential warning signs, investors can better assess the objectivity and reliability of analyst research. If a report contains several of these red flags, it may be wise to view the analyst's opinion with caution.

Influence on Analyst Coverage on Firm Behavior and Estimate Accuracy

Analyst coverage can influence how a company operates and the accuracy of its financial estimates. Research indicates that the more analysts follow a company, the greater the pressure on managers to meet financial targets, potentially leading to earnings manipulation.

This section discusses two key aspects of this relationship: (1) the pressure to meet expectations and the implications for earnings manipulation, and (2) how guiding analysts' forecasts can affect the accuracy of these estimates.

Pressure to Meet Expectations and Earnings Manipulation

Research by Shawn Huang, an Associate Professor of Accountancy, and his colleagues at the University of Missouri-Columbia and the University of Cincinnati, highlights how increased analyst coverage can impact the accuracy and usefulness of analyst estimates (Huang, 2017).

Their findings suggest that as the number of analysts following a company increases, managers face greater pressure to manipulate quarterly earnings to meet or exceed analyst forecasts.

Huang's team analyzed over 52,000 quarterly earnings reports from more than 4,100 firms between 1996 and 2011. They discovered that greater analyst coverage increased the likelihood of firms meeting or exceeding forecasts, rather than constraining managers' ability to manipulate earnings. This pressure to meet analyst expectations may lead managers to manipulate earnings or guide forecasts downward, resulting in less reliable financial reporting and, consequently, less accurate analyst estimates.

Furthermore, Huang's team found that among companies with the same level of earnings surprises, those with greater analyst coverage experienced more significant negative stock market reactions to surprises than those followed by fewer analysts. This finding suggests that the market places significant weight on analyst estimates, even though they may not always be accurate or useful.

Guiding Analysts' Forecasts and the Impact on Estimate Accuracy

In addition to the pressure to meet expectations, Huang's research reveals that managers often guide analysts' forecasts downward to make it easier for their companies to meet or beat the consensus estimate. The team found that in 25% of cases, managers issued guidance to analysts, and companies were more likely to provide downward guidance when more analysts covered the firm. Moreover, firms that met forecasts used downward guidance much more frequently than those that exceeded forecasts.

This practice of guiding analysts' forecasts downward can lead to less accurate estimates, as analysts may rely too heavily on management's guidance rather than conducting independent research and analysis. As a result, the usefulness of analyst estimates in predicting a company's actual performance may be diminished.

To further support the pressure view, Huang's team examined cases where brokerage houses closed or merged, resulting in fewer analysts covering a stock. They discovered that as the number of analysts following a stock decreased, so did the odds of the company meeting expectations. This finding reinforces the idea that the pressure to meet expectations is directly related to the number of analysts covering a company and that this pressure can influence the accuracy and reliability of analyst estimates.

Behavioral Biases Affecting Analyst Judgements

The accuracy and reliability of analyst estimates can be significantly influenced by behavioral biases, such as decision fatigue, first impression bias, and recency bias. These biases can lead to less accurate predictions and a reliance on simplified decision-making processes, ultimately affecting the usefulness of analyst estimates for investors.

Decision Fatigue and Heuristic Forecasting

David Hirshleifer and his collaborators (Levi et al., 2020) have investigated the impact of decision fatigue on stock market analysts' forecasting behavior. Decision fatigue refers to the decline in decision quality after making many decisions in a short period. The researchers found that as analysts issue more forecasts in a single day, the accuracy of their predictions decreases, even after accounting for the time of day.

The figure below depicts how, over the course of a day, forecast accuracy diminishes as the number of forecasts issued by the analyst increases:

Furthermore, as analysts issue more forecasts, they are more likely to rely on mental shortcuts, such as:

  • Herding: Copying the consensus forecast of other analysts.
  • Self-Herding: Reissuing their own previous forecast without updating it.
  • Rounding: Providing forecasts in round numbers instead of precise figures.

In short, these mental shortcuts can lead to less accurate predictions when analysts face a high volume of forecasting tasks.

First Impression Bias and Long-Lasting Effects

Hirshleifer and his colleagues have also explored the impact of first impression bias on analyst forecasts. First impression bias is the tendency for people to place more importance on initial experiences when forming opinions. The researchers analyzed a sample of over 1.6 million firm-analyst observations from 1984 to 2017. They measured analysts' first impressions of a firm using the company's stock performance in the year before the analyst issued their first forecast.

The study found that analysts' first impressions have a long-lasting influence on their future forecasts, price targets, and recommendations. Positive first impressions lead to more favorable future forecasts and recommendations, while negative first impressions result in the opposite. Surprisingly, these effects can last for up to 36 months after the analyst starts covering the stock.

U-Shaped Relationship Between Impressions and Time

In the same study, Hirshleifer and his colleagues also investigated how analysts weigh first impressions compared to more recent impressions.

While previous research suggests that people often place greater weight on recent events, the researchers found a U-shaped relationship between impressions and time. This means that analysts place greater importance on their most recent experiences and their earliest experiences with a firm, compared to those in between.

This finding highlights the complex way in which analysts form and update their opinions about the companies they cover. It suggests that both the initial impression and the most recent experiences play a significant role in shaping an analyst's forecasts and recommendations, while the intermediate experiences have less impact.

Evaluating the Track Record of Analyst Estimates

Analyst estimates play an important role in shaping investor expectations and influencing stock prices. However, a closer examination of their track record reveals significant inconsistencies and limitations, particularly when it comes to forecasting earnings per share (EPS).

This section will discuss research on the historical accuracy of analyst estimates, the factors contributing to their inaccuracies, and the potential implications for investors.

McKinsey & Company: Analyst EPS Forecasts Are Basically Useless

In a LinkedIn post published by Werner Rehm, a Partner in Corporate Finance at McKinsey & Company, the accuracy of analyst EPS estimates for the S&P 500 was examined over time. The research utilized a "worm chart" to visually represent the systematic overestimation of corporate earnings by analysts, as shown in the visual below:

The study found that this trend of overestimation persists across various market conditions, including periods of growth, stagnation, and crisis. Several potential factors contributing to this overestimation were identified, such as:

  • Insufficient or misleading guidance from corporations.
  • The impact of non-operating items on EPS.
  • Inherent limitations in analysts' forecasting abilities.

Regardless of the underlying reasons, the consistent overestimation of EPS highlighted in the McKinsey study suggests that investors should approach these forecasts with caution and skepticism.

While EPS estimates have proven problematic, the McKinsey study found that analyst forecasts for metrics more closely tied to business fundamentals, such as revenue and EBITDA, have shown greater accuracy in certain contexts.

During periods of economic growth (2005-2007) and stable market conditions (2011-2018), analysts demonstrated the ability to refine their estimates over time and provide relatively accurate revenue and EBITDA forecasts, as the visuals below illustrate:

However, during challenging economic times, such as the global financial crisis (2008-2009) and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), analyst estimates underwent significant downward revisions. Nevertheless, the speed of these revisions suggests that analysts can adapt to changing circumstances when focusing on more fundamental metrics.

The McKinsey study emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on EPS as an indicator of a company's true performance, due to its susceptibility to non-operating items and accounting decisions. Instead, investors may benefit from focusing on a more comprehensive set of metrics, including revenue growth and its drivers, as well as "clean" operating margins that exclude one-time items and non-operating expenses.

Bloomberg: Underestimating Analysts

In an August 3, 2016 column, Bloomberg journalist Nir Kaissar examined the accuracy of analyst earnings estimates for the S&P 500 and its sectors. The analysis compared the most recent 12-month operating earnings for each S&P 500 sector with:

  1. Analysts' estimates.
  2. Prior-year earnings.
  3. Seven-year trailing average earnings.

The findings revealed that analysts' estimates were the worst predictors of S&P 500 earnings from 1996 to 2016, with the prior-year earnings and seven-year trailing average earnings often better predicting actual earnings, as the graphic below demonstrates:

Source: Bloomberg

While acknowledging that this analysis represents a single snapshot in time, Kaissar points out that these results, combined with a 20-year history of inaccurate S&P 500 earnings predictions from analysts, raise questions about (1) whether there is a simpler and more accurate way of estimating earnings, and (2) why analysts are off-target so frequently.

Columbia Business School: Analyzing the Analysts

The research paper "Analyzing the Analysts" by Professors Paul Glasserman and Costis Maglaras of Columbia Business School investigates the reliability of analyst earnings forecasts, focusing on the magnitude and direction of forecast errors. The study examines whether there is a systematic bias in analyst forecasts, particularly during the bull market of the 1990s when analysts were accused of being overly optimistic.

The study analyzes annual earnings forecasts for eleven companies from 1980 to 2000, using the percentage forecast error as the key metric.

Percentage Forecast Error = (Forecast EPS - Actual EPS) / Share Price

A positive forecast error indicates an overestimate, while a negative forecast error indicates an underestimate.

The key findings suggest a slight tendency towards analyst optimism, with nine out of the eleven companies having positive mean forecast errors. However, the large standard deviations of the forecast errors make it difficult to determine which sample means are significantly different from zero.

The table below summarizes the mean forecast errors, standard deviations, sample sizes, standard errors, and t-statistics for each company and the overall sample (with the non-positive mean forecast errors outlined):

| Stablebread
Source: Analyzing the Analysts, pg. 4

The study discusses potential reasons for analyst optimism, including:

  • Incentives to generate trading commissions.
  • Curry favor with companies for greater access.
  • Support the investment banking arms of their employers.

Notably, these potential reasons align with our earlier findings on analysts being overly optimistic with their estimates. The paper also highlights the interplay between analyst forecasts and how firms manage their earnings, as companies may go to great lengths to avoid falling short of analyst targets.

The research raises important questions about the reliability of analyst earnings forecasts and the potential biases that may influence their projections. However, while there is evidence of slight optimism, the high variability in forecast errors makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions.

Ultimately, this study emphasizes the importance of approaching analyst earnings forecasts with caution and understanding the various incentives and biases that may impact their reliability.

When Analysts Estimates Can Be Useful

While analyst estimates are often shown to be inaccurate and subject to various biases, there are certain situations in which they can provide valuable insights for investors.

Following Axes

One such situation arises when a highly respected analyst, known as an "ax" in Wall Street jargon, makes a significant change in their recommendation or price target for a particular stock, signaling a potential shift in the stock's trajectory.

As Tobias Levkovich noted in the same CBS Article discussed earlier:

"There's lots of noise on Wall Street. One of the signals investors should pay attention to is when the ax on a stock is making a meaningful change. If you find analysts willing to put buys on stocks when others aren't, it's meaningful."

- Tobias Levkovich

Axes are analysts who have established a reputation for being early and correct in their calls on specific stocks. They often receive high ratings in peer surveys published by financial news organizations and are prominently featured in compilations of stock rating changes on market websites like TipRanks. Axes may have better access to information or express unique opinions more freely, enabling them to spot emerging trends or provide fresh ideas not widely available elsewhere.

However, it's important for investors to remember that even the most respected analysts can be wrong, and their estimates and recommendations should be viewed as just an opinion piece.

Following Specialized Analysts

Analyst estimates may also be more useful in certain sectors or industries where analysts have developed specific expertise and a deep understanding of key drivers and trends.

For instance, an analyst specializing in the healthcare sector may offer valuable insights into the potential impact of regulatory changes or new drug approvals on specific companies.

Following Consensus Estimates

The consensus estimate, which represents the average of all analyst predictions, can serve as a useful benchmark for evaluating a company's performance. Consistently beating or missing the consensus estimate may suggest that the market's expectations are not aligned with the company's actual performance.

However, investors should exercise caution regarding consensus estimates. A McKinsey study in 2013 found that over 40% of companies fail to meet their earnings estimates (regardless of the time period tested), as the exhibit below demonstrates:

If the consensus estimate was not met, it also had a minimal impact on share prices. In fact, a 1% miss resulted in a 0.2% decrease over the following five days.

This same study also found the following:

  • Lack of Correlation with Valuation: Consistently meeting or beating consensus estimates does not necessarily lead to higher valuations when accounting for factors such as growth and operating performance.
  • Focus on Earnings Quality: How earnings are achieved is more important than simply meeting or missing the consensus, as investors consider a wide range of factors, such as revenue growth, margins, and long-term performance outlook.
  • Short-Term Thinking Pitfalls: An excessive focus on meeting consensus estimates can lead to short-sighted decision-making that undermines long-term business health, such as offering steep discounts, sacrificing value-creating investments, or engaging in inappropriate earnings management practices.

For investors, these findings (as well as prior discussed research on the pressure to meet estimates) suggest that making investment decisions based on how they've performed recently versus consensus estimates may not be as important as many assume.

Regardless, it's still wise to monitor consensus estimates and evaluate how the company has performed relative to these estimates over time, as this can provide insights into the company's market expectations and operational consistency.

Identifying Overlooked Red Flags

Lastly, analyst reports can also help investors identify potential red flags or risk factors that may have been overlooked. If an analyst raises valid concerns about a company’s accounting practices, debt levels, or competitive pressures, it could prompt investors to conduct further research and reevaluate their investment thesis.

The Bottom Line

Analyst estimates are predictions made by stock analysts about a company's future earnings, revenue, and other financial metrics. Based on industry trends, historical data, economic conditions, and other company-specific factors, these projections help investors assess a company's potential market performance. Moreover, these estimates can significantly impact stock prices, as companies that beat or miss consensus analyst expectations may see substantial moves in their share prices following earnings announcements.

However, despite receiving widespread attention from investors and the media, the accuracy and reliability of these forecasts are questionable. This is due to the many challenges analysts face in making precise predictions, as summarized below:

  • Conflicts of Interest: Stock analysts, whether buy-side or sell-side, encounter potential conflicts of interest arising from investment banking relationships, compensation structures, and pressure to maintain access to company management. Despite regulatory efforts to mitigate these conflicts, issues persist, such as analysts' compensation being indirectly linked to the overall profitability of their firm, the influence of investment banking relationships on their objectivity, and the pressure to generate trading commissions.
  • Pressure to Meet Estimates: Research has shown that the pressure companies face to meet or beat forecasts can significantly impact the accuracy and usefulness of analyst estimates. As the number of analysts covering a company increases, managers may feel compelled to manipulate earnings or guide forecasts downward to avoid negative surprises, leading to less reliable financial reporting and less accurate analyst estimates.
  • Behavioral Biases: Behavioral biases can lead to less accurate predictions and a reliance on simplified decision-making processes. For instance, studies have found that analyst forecast accuracy decreases as the number of forecasts they issue in a single day increases, and that analysts tend to place greater importance on their most recent and earliest experiences with a firm, relative to intermediate experiences.
  • Historical Inaccuracies: The historical inaccuracies of analyst estimates, particularly when it comes to forecasting earnings per share (EPS), have been consistently documented. Analysts have demonstrated a tendency to overestimate corporate earnings across various market conditions, and research has shown that simple benchmarks, such as prior-year earnings or long-term averages, often outperform analyst forecasts.

For the average retail investor, analyst estimates can serve as a useful resource for learning more about a company. However, they should not be the primary source of information. Instead, investors are advised to conduct their own research and draw their own conclusions first. They can then consult analyst reports to check for any overlooked details or perspectives.

By recognizing the limitations and potential inaccuracies of analyst estimates, investors can make more informed decisions. This approach not only enhances their understanding but also safeguards against the undue influence of potentially skewed forecasts.

Disclaimer: Because the information presented here is based on my own personal opinion, knowledge, and experience, it should not be considered professional finance, investment, or tax advice. The ideas and strategies that I provide should never be used without first assessing your own personal/financial situation, or without consulting a financial and/or tax professional.

Share this article

Featured Tool

Unlock smarter investing with StableBread's Automated Stock Analysis Spreadsheet. Effortlessly analyze company fundamentals, financial statements, and valuations. No manual data collection required.

Learn More

Subscribe to the Email List!

Receive updates on articles, website tools, spreadsheets, and everything value-investing related.
userchevron-up-circlechevron-down-circle linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram