Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 506

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Evaluation of Accounting-Based Measures of Expected Returns

Easton, Peter D., Monahan, Steven J.·2005·The Accounting Review

Abstract

We develop an empirical method that allows us to evaluate the reliability of an expected return proxy via its association with realized returns even if realized returns are biased and noisy measures of expected returns. We use our approach to examine seven accounting-based proxies that are imputed from prices and contemporaneous analysts' earnings forecasts. Our results suggest that, for the entire crosssection of firms, these proxies are unreliable. None of them has a positive association with realized returns, even after controlling for the bias and noise in realized returns attributable to contemporaneous information surprises. Moreover, the simplest proxy, which is based on the least reasonable assumptions, contains no more measurement error than the remaining proxies. These results remain even after we attempt to purge the proxies of their measurement error via the use of instrumental variables and grouping. We provide additional evidence, however, that demonstrates that some proxies are reliable when the consensus long-term growth forecasts are low and/or when analysts' forecast accuracy is high.

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 · 10.2308/accr.2005.80.2.501

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.1016/0304-405X(81)90018-0 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barth M., 1991, The Accounting Review, 66, 433
  3. 10.2307/2674693 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1111/0022-1082.00161 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Botosan C., 1997, The Accounting Review, 72, 323
  6. Plumlee, 2002, Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 21, 10.1111/1475-679X.00037 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2005, The Accounting Review, 80, 21, 10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.21 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Campbell J., 1991, The Economic Journal, 101, 157, 10.2307/2233809 · doi:10.2307/2233809
  9. - A. Lo, and A. McKinley. 1997. The Econometrics of Financial Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Chen F., 2004, Accounting and Business Research (December), 34, 323, 10.1080/00014788.2004.9729975 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/0022-1082.00384 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 506

Metadata

Authors
Easton, P. D., & Monahan, S. J.
Venue
The Accounting Review
Published
2005-04-01
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
501-538
ISSN
  • 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7967
OpenAlex
W2167212344
Cited by
506
References
2
FWCI
32.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: An Evaluation of Accounting-Based Measures of Expected Returns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr.2005.80.2.501
The paper
Easton, P. D., & Monahan, S. J. (2005). An Evaluation of Accounting-Based Measures of Expected Returns. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.2.501

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.