{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014814814814814815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.885350318471337, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Forecast Bias Affect Financial Analysts’ Market Influence?

Prior studies find that analysts tend to bias their forecasts upward in poor information environments and downward in rich information environments, consistent with attempts to curry favor with management. We find that investors anticipate this behavior by reducing their response to upward forecasts in poor information environments and downward forecasts in rich information environments. Using Hugon and Muslu’s measure of analyst conservatism as an ex ante indicator of individual analysts’ forecast bias tendencies, we show that the stronger return response they find to conservative analysts’ forecast revisions is restricted to poor information environments, where optimistic analyst bias is prevalent. Our results suggest that analysts pay a price in market influence when their forecasts reinforce analysts’ typical forecast bias for the firm’s information environment. Conversely, analysts whose forecasts conflict with the typical bias for the firm are rewarded with larger than average return responses.