MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404619793 · doi:10.1111/1756-2171.12482

Management forecasts: Biases, incentives, and spillover effects

2024· article· en· W4404619793 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald A. Dye, Sri S. Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe RAND Journal of Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpillover effectEarningsEarnings managementIncentiveBusinessEconomicsAccountingActuarial scienceFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Management earnings forecasts (MEF), a form of voluntary disclosure, are different from most other disclosures because MEF have spillover effects on managers' subsequent operating decisions and earnings reports. These effects arise from managers' attempts to reduce their forecast errors. Even though managers can separate their firms from less profitable firms by issuing forecasts the latter cannot match, there is no equilibrium where all managers issue forecasts. We show that managers who issue (resp., don't issue) MEF choose above (resp., below) first‐best operating actions. We identify which managers issue MEF and why allowing managers to misreport earnings may increase expected earnings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe RAND Journal of EconomicsSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207