Further evidence on analyst and investor misweighting of prior period cash flows and accruals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We empirically investigate three questions: (i) whether analysts and investors mis-estimate the persistence of operating cash flows, (ii) if so, is the cash flow effect distinct from the accrual effect in the sense that one effect holds after controlling for the other, and (iii) if these are distinct effects, which effect is stronger in magnitude? We find that prior period operating cash flows have a significant positive effect on forecast errors and stock returns consistent with analysts and investors underestimating the persistence of operating cash flows. Further, we find that not only is the operating cash flow effect distinct from the accrual (more specifically the working capital accrual) effect but it is also considerably larger in magnitude. To our knowledge, this is the first study that documents the relative magnitude of prior period cash flow and working capital accrual effects on forecast errors and stock returns. Our findings have several implications for future research and practice. First, the consistency of results across the two sets of users (analysts and investors) suggests that analyst-forecast inefficiencies are less likely to be driven by their incentives to promote stocks and more likely to be a manifestation of a broader phenomenon that has not been thoroughly investigated in prior studies. Second, for practitioners, our results suggest that a trading strategy based on prior period working capital accruals and cash flows would earn higher abnormal returns than a trading strategy based on accruals alone.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it