Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Event studies of market efficiency measure earnings surprises using the consensus error ( CE ), given as actual earnings minus the average professional forecast. If a subset of forecasts can be biased, the ideal but difficult to estimate parameter‐dependent alternative to CE is a nonlinear filter of individual errors that adjusts for bias. We show that CE is a poor parameter‐free approximation of this ideal measure. The fraction of misses on the same side ( FOM ), which discards the magnitude of misses, offers a far better approximation. FOM performs particularly well against CE in predicting the returns of U.S. stocks, where bias is potentially large.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiang et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: