Korea's #1-ranked stock analyst has a stated 0 percent accuracy score
Among 74 ranked analysts on a Korean brokerage-research leaderboard, 27 — more than a third, including the top-ranked name — carry a 0 percent accuracy figure. Rank score and accuracy correlate only loosely (r=0.72).
AI-assisted, human-reviewed sourcing. Figures are pulled programmatically from the official sources listed at the end of this article and checked by an editor before publication.
analystsequity researchkoreaconsensus
Hankyung Consensus publishes a monthly leaderboard ranking 74 Korean stock analysts by a proprietary “score.” Alongside each rank, the platform also publishes an “accuracy” figure for that analyst. The analyst ranked #1 by score — Kang Min-gu of IBK Investment & Securities — has an accuracy figure of 0 percent.
He is not alone. Of the 74 ranked analysts, 27 — more than a third — carry a 0 percent accuracy score, including seven of the top 20 by rank.
Rank and accuracy move together, loosely
| Analysts ranked | 74 |
| 0% accuracy | 27 (36.5%) |
| 100% accuracy | 7 (9.5%) |
| Median accuracy | 25% |
| Mean accuracy | 31.7% |
| Correlation, score vs. accuracy (r) | 0.72 |
A correlation of 0.72 is a real, positive relationship — analysts who score higher on the platform’s ranking do tend to have higher accuracy figures, on average. It is not a 1-to-1 relationship: among the top 10 by rank, accuracy figures range from 0 to 100 percent, meaning a top-10 rank is compatible with either extreme on this platform’s own accuracy measure.
What “accuracy” and “score” mean here — and what we do not know
We are reporting figures a Korean financial-media platform publishes about its own analyst ranking; we did not calculate either the score or the accuracy figure ourselves, and the platform does not publish a reproducible formula for either one. The ranking window is one month. A one-month window plausibly means some analysts issued very few rated calls in that span — and an accuracy figure of 0 or 100 percent built from one or two calls is a much weaker signal than the same figure built from twenty. We do not have each analyst’s underlying call count, so we cannot tell you which 0 percent figures rest on a thin sample and which do not.
Method
We took a same-day snapshot of Hankyung Consensus’s published analyst leaderboard (rank, firm, score, and accuracy fields as the platform presents them) and computed the Pearson correlation between its own score and accuracy columns across all 74 listed analysts. We did not adjust, re-rank, or recompute either figure. Not investment advice.
Data & Verification Notes
- Data as of
- Sources
- Hankyung Consensus (Korea Economic Daily) — Analyst ranking leaderboard, 1-month window
- SeoulMarkets — Daily snapshot of the published leaderboard (collect-seoulmarkets-hankyung-analysts.mjs)
- Cross-checks
- Rank, score and accuracy figures are exactly as published by Hankyung Consensus for its own 1-month ranking window; we did not recompute them from underlying calls
- Correlation (Pearson r) computed between the platform's own "score" field and its own "accuracy" field across all 74 ranked analysts
- "Zero percent accuracy" means the platform's own accuracy field reads 0 for that analyst in this window, not that every call that analyst made was wrong in some larger sense we verified independently
- Excluded figures
- The exact formula behind either "score" or "accuracy" — the platform does not publish its methodology in a form we could reproduce, so we report the published figures without reverse-engineering the calculation
- Sample size behind each analyst's accuracy figure — a 1-month window likely means some analysts made very few calls, and a 0% or 100% reading from one or two calls is a different claim than the same figure from twenty
- Whether any individual analyst is good or bad at their job — this is a snapshot of one platform's own scoring, not our judgment
The full dataset behind these figures — every listed company, every row — is available to license. SeoulMarkets data for licence →
Not investment advice. SMarkets publishes data journalism for general information only. Nothing here is investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security — any investment you make is at your own risk and responsibility. Figures are derived from official public data sources and may be revised by the issuing agency. Verify independently before acting.
← More Equities