A Comparative Analysis of Accounting-Based Valuation Models

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kung-Cheng Ho ◽  
Shih-Cheng Lee ◽  
Chien-Ting Lin ◽  
Min-Teh Yu
Keyword(s):  
Stock Prices ◽  
The Other ◽  
Residual Income ◽  
Switching Regression ◽  
Book Value ◽  
Earnings Growth ◽  
Valuation Model ◽  
Pricing Errors ◽  
Residual Income Valuation ◽  
Average Probability

We empirically compare the reliability of the dividend (DIV) model, the residual income valuation (CT, GLS) model, and the abnormal earnings growth (OJ) model. We find that valuation estimates from the OJ model are generally more reliable than those from the other three models, because the residual income valuation model anchored by book value gets off to a poor start when compared with the OJ model led by capitalized next-year earnings. We adopt a 34-year sample covering from 1985 to 2013 to compare the reliability of valuation estimates via their means of absolute pricing errors ( MAPE) and corresponding t statistics. We further use the switching regression of Barrios and Blanco to show that the average probability of OJ valuation estimates is greater in explaining stock prices than the DIV, CT, and GLS models. In addition, our finding that the OJ model yields more reliable estimates is robust to analysts-based and model-based earnings measures.

Implementing Residual Income Valuation With Linear Information Dynamics

1999 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
James N. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Firm Value ◽  
Residual Income ◽  
Accounting System ◽  
Information Dynamics ◽  
No Arbitrage ◽  
Book Value ◽  
Residual Income Valuation ◽  
Accounting Numbers ◽  
Linear Information

Residual income (RI) valuation is a method of estimating firm value based on expected future accounting numbers. This study documents the necessity of using linear information models (LIMs) of the time series of accounting numbers in valuation. I find that recent studies that make ad hoc modifications to the LIMs contain internal inconsistencies and violate the no arbitrage assumption. I outline a method for modifying the LIMs while preserving internal consistency. I also find that when estimated as a time series, the LIMs of Ohlson (1995), and Feltham and Ohlson (1995) provide value estimates no better than book value alone. By comparing the implied price coefficients to coefficients from a price level regression, I find that the models imply inefficient weightings on the accounting numbers. Furthermore, the median conservatism parameter of Feltham and Ohlson (1995) is significantly negative, contrary to the model's prediction, for even the most conservative firms. To explain these failures, I estimate a LIM from a more carefully modeled accounting system that provides two parameters of conservatism (the income parameter and the book value parameter). However, this model also fails to capture the true stochastic relationship among accounting variables. More complex models tend to provide noisier estimates of firm value than more parsimonious models.

Fundamental Valuation in Seven Asian Countries: Role of Earnings, Book Value, and Dividends

2020 ◽  
pp. 0148558X2094690
Author(s):  
Kriengkrai Boonlert-U-Thai ◽  
Shahrokh M. Saudagaran ◽  
Pradyot K. Sen
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Stock Prices ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Book Value ◽  
International Firms ◽  
Financial Reporting Standards ◽  
Valuation Model ◽  
Prior Use ◽  
Other Information

We examine the role of earnings, book value, and dividends in examining the valuation of firms in select Asian countries. Besides the usual variables of earnings and book value, inclusion of dividends is motivated by prior use of the variable in the literature, as well as an adaptation of the Ohlson 2001 empirical specification of the valuation model. In our specification, absent credible analysts’ forecasts, as is typical in these markets, dividends together with earnings play the role of “other information” in explaining stock prices. In a large sample of Asian firms from seven Asian countries that lack an active analyst community, we document two key results. First, the model with earnings, book value, and dividends outperforms the earnings capitalization, book value, and a model with earnings and book value together, the traditional benchmarks used in the literature. This is in contrast to Ashbaugh and Olsson, 2002 who find that earnings capitalization is the best model for the international firms. Second, the ability of the model to explain stock valuations does not vary materially over time, thus indicating reasonable consistency across different accounting regimes in these countries that may include International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adaptation at different paces. Our finding highlights the information role of earnings and dividends when other channels of information are blocked.

scholarly journals Relevância da informação contábil em empresas dos Brics e EUA

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Sonia Raifur Kos ◽  
Jorge Eduardo Scarpin ◽  
Pedro João Kabucussa
Keyword(s):  
Residual Income ◽  
Earnings Growth ◽  
Residual Income Valuation

A busca por informações contábeis relevantes tem sido intensa pelos órgãos normalizadores nos últimos anos, os quais têm buscado estabelecer normas que tornem a informação contábil relevante e possa ser utilizada de forma segura no processo decisório, principalmente considerando as decisões relacionadas ao mercado de capitais. Nessa linha, James Ohlson propôs modelos de avaliação de empresas baseados em números contábeis. O objetivo deste estudo é verificar as diferenças na Relevância da Informação Contábil no mercado de capitais dos países Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul (BRICS) e Estados Unidos da América (EUA), a partir dos dados disponíveis nas Bolsa de Valores destes países, por meio dos modelos Residual Income Valuation (RIV) e Abnormal Earnings Growth (AEG) propostos por Ohlson (1995; 2005). Por meio da Regressão com Dados em Painel, concluiu-se que as variáveis de cada país apresentam comportamento diferente no tocante a influência das mesmas no mercado de capitais, pois além de apresentarem coeficientes distintos, houve extensa variação do R2, sendo 0,02 no Brasil, para o modelo AEG e 0,79 na China para o modelo RIV. Quanto à verificação de qual modelo (RIV ou AEG) melhor se adapta à realidade de cada país, observou-se que no Brasil e África do Sul o modelo AEG apresentou maior ajuste, já na Rússia e China o modelo RIV foi mais adequado, tanto para variáveis defasadas pelo Preço em t-1, quanto para as não defasadas, pois conta com R2 mais expressivo e valor mais baixo para Critério de Informação de Akaike. Para os EUA e Índia, para variáveis não defasadas, o AEG é o melhor modelo para Índia e RIV para os EUA. Já com variáveis defasadas, o resultado se inverte.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document