The Journal of Finance publishes leading research across all the major fields of finance. It is one of the most widely cited journals in academic finance, and in all of economics. Each of the six issues per year reaches over 8,000 academics, finance professionals, libraries, and government and financial institutions around the world. The journal is the official publication of The American Finance Association, the premier academic organization devoted to the study and promotion of knowledge about financial economics.
AFA members can log in to view full-text articles below.
View past issues
Search the Journal of Finance:
Search results: 2.
Rationality and Analysts' Forecast Bias
Published: 12/17/2002 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00329
Terence Lim
This paper proposes and tests a quadratic‐loos utility function for modeling corporate earnings forecasting, where financial analysts trade off bias to improve management access and forecast accuracy. Optimal forecasts with minimum expected error are optimistically biased and exhibit predictable cross‐sectional variation related to analyst and company characteristics. Empirical evidence from individual analyst forecasts is consistent with the model's predictions. These results suggest that positive and predictable bias may be a rational property of optimal earnings forecasts. Prior studies using classical notions of unbiasedness may have prematurely dismissed analysts' forecasts as being irrational or inaccurate.
Bad News Travels Slowly: Size, Analyst Coverage, and the Profitability of Momentum Strategies
Published: 03/31/2007 | DOI: 10.1111/0022-1082.00206
Harrison Hong, Terence Lim, Jeremy C. Stein
Various theories have been proposed to explain momentum in stock returns. We test the gradual‐information‐diffusion model of Hong and Stein (1999) and establish three key results. First, once one moves past the very smallest stocks, the profitability of momentum strategies declines sharply with firm size. Second, holding size fixed, momentum strategies work better among stocks with low analyst coverage. Finally, the effect of analyst coverage is greater for stocks that are past losers than for past winners. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that firm‐specific information, especially negative information, diffuses only gradually across the investing public.