Reporting errors in the I/B/E/S earnings forecast database: J. Doe vs. J. Doe

- This article pinpoints a lack of consistency in the identification of analysts by I/B/E/S.
- A number of analysts are identified by several different codes.
- A number of analysts are erroneously attributed forecasts that were issued by namesakes.
- At least 2288 analyst codes are corrupted by such reporting errors.
- There are potential implications for empirical studies that rely on tracking analysts.

This paper provides evidence of systematic errors in the way I/B/E/S reports analyst earnings forecasts. Analysis of the I/B/E/S earnings forecast database over the 1982-2014 period pinpointed a lack of consistency in the identification of financial analysts, a number of whom are consequently (1) identified by several different codes, and (2) erroneously attributed forecasts that were issued by namesakes. The present empirical investigation reveals that over 10% of the analyst codes in the database are subject to such reporting errors. These reporting errors impact the evaluation of analysts' characteristics, and may bias empirical studies that rely on tracking analysts.