Confucius confusion: analyst forecast dispersion and business cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Financial analysts have been found to be overconfident. The purpose of this paper is to study the ramifications of that overconfidence on the dispersion of earnings estimates as a predictor of the US business cycle. Design/methodology/approach Whether aggregate analyst forecast dispersion contains information about turning points in business cycles, especially downturns, is examined by utilizing the analyst earnings forecast dispersion metric. The primary analysis derives from logit regression and Markov switching models. The analysis controls for sentiment (consumer confidence), output (industrial production), and financial indicators (stock returns and turnover). Analyst data come from Institutional Brokers Estimate System, while the economic data are available at the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Economic Data site. Findings A rise in the dispersion of analyst forecasts is a significant predictor of turning points in the US business cycle. Financial analyst uncertainty of earnings estimate contains crucial information about the risks of US business cycle turning points. The results are consistent with some analysts becoming overconfident during the expansion period and misjudging the precision of their information, thus over or under weighting various sources of information. This causes the disagreement among analysts measured as dispersion. Originality/value This is the first study to show that analyst forecast dispersion contributions valuable information to predictions of economic downturns. In addition, that dispersion can be attributed to analyst overconfidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".