The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Temporal Analysis of Earnings Surprises: Profits versus Losses
Open accessAbstract
I show that median earnings surprise has shifted rightward from small negative (miss analyst estimates by a small amount) to zero (meet analyst estimates exactly) to small positive (beat analyst estimates by a small amount) during the 16 years, 1984 to 1999. I show that a rightward temporal shift in median surprise from negative to positive describes earnings, but neither profits nor losses. Median profit surprise shifts within the positive quadrant, from zero to one cent per share. Median loss surprise shifts within the negative quadrant from extreme negative (about ‐33 cents per share) to zero. I show that the median surprise for profits exceeds that for losses in every year. I document significant positive temporal trends in both meet and beat analyst estimates for both profits and losses, but I find a greater frequency of profits that either meet or beat analyst estimates in every year. I find a significant positive temporal trend in positive profits that are “a little bit of good news,” and a significant negative temporal trend in managers who report losses that are an “extreme amount of bad news.” My results are robust to the four internal validity threats I consider—namely temporal changes in: (1) analyst forecast accuracy, (2) the mix of earnings of one sign preceded by earnings of another sign four quarters ago, (3) the timeliness of the most recent analyst forecast, and (4) the I/B/E/S definition of actual earnings. I find that managers of growth firms are relatively more likely than managers of value firms to report good news profits. I show that when they do report positive profit surprises, managers of growth firms are more likely to report “a little bit of good news” in every year.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
The Relation between Auditors' Fees for Nonaudit Services and Earnings Management
Frankel, R. M., Johnson, M. F., & Nelson, K. K. (2002) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2002.77.s-1.71 · Cited by 1,648
Internal control and management guidance
Feng, M., Li, C., & McVay, S. (2009) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.09.004 · Cited by 678
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0608 · Cited by 646
International Diversification and Analysts' Forecast Accuracy and Bias
Duru, A., & Reeb, D. M. (2002) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2002.77.2.415 · Cited by 438
Changes in Analysts' Information around Earnings Announcements
Barron, O. E., Byard, D., & Kim, O. (2002) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.2002.77.4.821 · Cited by 248
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, L. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 221-241
- ISSN
- 0021-8456 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-679X
- OpenAlex
- W1987881672
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 127.21
- 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: A Temporal Analysis of Earnings Surprises: Profits versus Losses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-679x.00010
- The paper
- Brown, L. D. (2001). A Temporal Analysis of Earnings Surprises: Profits versus Losses. Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.00010
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.