The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do Conference Calls Affect Analysts' Forecasts?
Open accessAbstract
In 1998, the SEC expressed concern that conference calls encourage selective disclosure by revealing new information to financial analysts privy to the call. This study investigates whether the regular use of earnings-related conference calls increases the amount of information available to financial analysts by examining the effect of conference calls on analysts' forecast error and dispersion. Results indicate that conference calls increase analysts' ability to forecast earnings accurately, suggesting that these calls increase the total information available about a firm. We also find some evidence that conference calls decrease dispersion among analysts. Given conference calls were generally restricted during our sample period, our evidence suggests that conference calls may have contributed to an information gap between analysts privy to the call and the remainder of the investment community. We also investigate whether conference calls differentially affect analysts' forecast errors depending on analysts' prior forecasting ability or brokerage-house affiliation. We find evidence suggesting that analysts with relatively weak prior forecasting performance benefit more from conference calls, suggesting that conference calls help “level the playing field” across analysts.
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
Cites
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
Cited by
The importance of the internal information environment for tax avoidance
Gallemore, J., & Labro, E. (2015) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.005 · Cited by 575
Motives for disclosure and non-disclosure: a framework and review of the evidence
Lundholm, R., & Van Winkle, M. (2006) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.2006.9730044 · Cited by 114
When FLUE Meets FLANG: Benchmarks and Large Pretrained Language Model for Financial Domain
Shah, R., Chawla, K., Eidnani, D., Shah, A., Du, W., Chava, S., Raman, N., Smiley, C., Chen, J., & Yang, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.148 · Cited by 74
Sawhney, R., Goyal, M., Goel, P., Mathur, P., & Shah, R. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.526 · Cited by 8
Beyond earnings quality: evaluating the quality of corporate disclosure practices
Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., Loh, W. T., & McVay, S. (2026) · Review of Accounting Studies · doi:10.1007/s11142-026-09971-2 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowen, R. M., Davis, A. K., & Matsumoto, D. A.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 285-316
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W3124135940
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.38
- 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: Do Conference Calls Affect Analysts' Forecasts? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr.2002.77.2.285
- The paper
- Bowen, R. M., Davis, A. K., & Matsumoto, D. A. (2002). Do Conference Calls Affect Analysts' Forecasts? The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2002.77.2.285
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.