Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 235

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Are Financial Analysts' Forecasts of Corporate Profits Rational?

Open access
Keane, Michael P., Runkle, David E.·1998·Journal of Political Economy

Abstract

This paper develops generalized method‐of‐moments tests for the rationality of earnings per share forecasts made by individual stock analysts. We fail to reject the hypothesis of rationality as long as we take into account two complications: (1) the correlation in a given period of analysts' forecast errors in predicting earnings for firms in the same industry and (2) discretionary asset write‐downs, which affect earnings but are intentionally ignored by analysts when they make earnings forecasts. Our results challenge earlier work by De Bondt and Thaler and by Abarbanell and Bernard that found irrationality in analysts' forecasts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/250029

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 235

Metadata

Authors
Keane, M. P., & Runkle, D. E.
Venue
Journal of Political Economy
Published
1998-08
Volume
106
Issue
4
Pages
768-805
ISSN
  • 0022-3808 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-534X
OpenAlex
W2133350325
Cited by
235
References
0
FWCI
35.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Financial Analysts' Forecasts of Corporate Profits Rational? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/250029
The paper
Keane, M. P., & Runkle, D. E. (1998). Are Financial Analysts' Forecasts of Corporate Profits Rational? Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/250029

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.