Table 9

Test of Hypothesis 2: Do analysts incorporate ASC 606 changes in their earnings forecasts?

PSM-matched sampleFull sample
(1)(2)
Dependent variable = AbsAFEAbsAFE
Treat−0.001* 
(−1.702) 
Post−0.001*0.001***
(−1.958)(3.402)
Treat × Post0.003*** 
(3.195) 
ASC606ImpactMagnitude −0.002
 (−0.335)
Post × ASC606ImpactMagnitude 0.018*
 (1.769)
LogMVE−0.002***−0.002***
(−8.647)(−17.571)
MarketToBook−0.000−0.000***
(−1.502)(−3.633)
LogAnalystFollowing−0.000−0.000
(−0.208)(−0.741)
Loss0.001*0.004***
(1.740)(13.770)
Constant0.023***0.020***
(7.459)(10.941)
Observations1,6819,611
R-squared0.1690.184
Industry FEYesYes

Note(s): This table shows the results of a test of Hypothesis 2 using OLS regressions. The dependent variable, AbsAFE, is the absolute value of the median analyst forecast error for the period of ASC 606 adoption. Column 1 includes a propensity-score matched sample, matched on the treatment effect, which is an indicator equal to one if ASC 606 had a material impact on the firm’s net income in the period of adoption. The matching is done for all covariates in the analysis. Column 2 does not use a PSM sample and instead uses a continuous treatment variable, ASC606ImpactMagnitude. Each regression includes a sample of treatment and control firms for five quarters: Q1 2017–Q1 2018. Post = 1 for Q1 2018, the period of adoption of ASC 606. Each specification includes SIC 2-digit industry fixed effects. Variables are defined in Appendix A. Robust t-statistics are in parenthesis, with statistical significance denoted as ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal