PreprintCited by 220Financial Markets and Investment StrategiesFinancial Analysis and Corporate GovernanceAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance

Can Investors Profit from the Prophets? Consensus Analyst Recommendations and Stock Returns

Open access
Barber, Brad M., Lehavy, Reuven, McNichols, Maureen F., Trueman, Brett·1998·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

In this paper we document that an investment strategy based on the consensus (average) analyst recommendations of security analysts earns positive returns. For the period 1986-1996, a portfolio of stocks most highly recommended by analysts earned an annualized geometric mean return of 18.8 percent, while a portfolio of stocks least favorably recommended earned only 5.78 percent. (In comparison, an investment in a value-weighted market index earned an annualized geometric mean return of 14.5 percent.) Alternatively stated, purchasing stocks most highly recommended yielded a return of 102 basis points per month. The magnitude of this return is surprisingly large, and is far greater than the size effect (negative 16 basis points) and book-to-market effect (17 basis points) for the same period. Even after controlling for these two effects, as well as for price momentum, we show that the strategy of purchasing stocks most highly recommended and selling short those least favorably recommended yielded a return of 75 basis points per month. These results are robust to partitions by time period and overall market direction, and are most pronounced for small and medium-sized firms. The abnormal returns also persist when we allow a lapse of up to 15 days before acting on the investment recommendations. There is no extant theory of asset pricing that explains these results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.137400

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barber, B. M., Lehavy, R., McNichols, M. F., & Trueman, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Barber, Brad M.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122735314
Cited by
220
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 17
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Analysis and Corporate Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Keywords
financial analysts, stock returns, investment strategy, abnormal returns, short selling, size effect, book-to-market effect, price momentum, small and medium-sized enterprises, asset pricing anomalies

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