利用倍数解决股票估值难题:收益预测在倍数下如何优于剩余收益模型

Ja Ryong Kim
{"title":"利用倍数解决股票估值难题:收益预测在倍数下如何优于剩余收益模型","authors":"Ja Ryong Kim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2538209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since Liu, Nissim and Thomas (LNT, 2002), researchers have been perplexed by how simple earnings forecasts using multiples, apparently outperform the theory-based residual income model in terms of pricing error. This paper explains mathematically how LNT (2002) find this curious result and demonstrates that, in terms of pricing error, the majority of residual income models in fact outperform earnings forecasts using multiples. The explanation for the LNT (2002) result is in their selection of comparators: they choose residual income models that perform the worst among residual income models, and compare them with the best performing multiples. In terms of future return generation, this paper reports that the majority of residual income models again outperform earnings forecasts using multiples, further supporting the superiority of theory-based valuation models to rule-of-thumb based models in price estimation and future return generation. The paper resolves a decade-old puzzle in equity valuation and demonstrates that theory-based valuation models are empirically superior to rule-of-thumb based valuation models.","PeriodicalId":274826,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA)","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing Puzzle About Equity Valuation Using Multiples: How Earnings Forecasts Outperform Residual Income Model in Multiples\",\"authors\":\"Ja Ryong Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2538209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since Liu, Nissim and Thomas (LNT, 2002), researchers have been perplexed by how simple earnings forecasts using multiples, apparently outperform the theory-based residual income model in terms of pricing error. This paper explains mathematically how LNT (2002) find this curious result and demonstrates that, in terms of pricing error, the majority of residual income models in fact outperform earnings forecasts using multiples. The explanation for the LNT (2002) result is in their selection of comparators: they choose residual income models that perform the worst among residual income models, and compare them with the best performing multiples. In terms of future return generation, this paper reports that the majority of residual income models again outperform earnings forecasts using multiples, further supporting the superiority of theory-based valuation models to rule-of-thumb based models in price estimation and future return generation. The paper resolves a decade-old puzzle in equity valuation and demonstrates that theory-based valuation models are empirically superior to rule-of-thumb based valuation models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":274826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA)\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自Liu, Nissim和Thomas (LNT, 2002)以来,研究人员一直困惑于使用倍数的简单收益预测如何在定价误差方面明显优于基于理论的剩余收益模型。本文从数学上解释了LNT(2002)如何发现这一奇怪的结果,并证明,就定价误差而言,大多数剩余收入模型实际上优于使用倍数的收益预测。对LNT(2002)结果的解释在于他们对比较器的选择:他们在剩余收入模型中选择表现最差的剩余收入模型,并将其与表现最好的倍数进行比较。在未来收益生成方面,本文报告大多数剩余收益模型再次优于使用倍数的收益预测,进一步支持基于理论的估值模型在价格估计和未来收益生成方面优于基于经验的模型。本文解决了一个困扰股票估值十年之久的难题,并证明了基于理论的估值模型在经验上优于基于经验的估值模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing Puzzle About Equity Valuation Using Multiples: How Earnings Forecasts Outperform Residual Income Model in Multiples
Since Liu, Nissim and Thomas (LNT, 2002), researchers have been perplexed by how simple earnings forecasts using multiples, apparently outperform the theory-based residual income model in terms of pricing error. This paper explains mathematically how LNT (2002) find this curious result and demonstrates that, in terms of pricing error, the majority of residual income models in fact outperform earnings forecasts using multiples. The explanation for the LNT (2002) result is in their selection of comparators: they choose residual income models that perform the worst among residual income models, and compare them with the best performing multiples. In terms of future return generation, this paper reports that the majority of residual income models again outperform earnings forecasts using multiples, further supporting the superiority of theory-based valuation models to rule-of-thumb based models in price estimation and future return generation. The paper resolves a decade-old puzzle in equity valuation and demonstrates that theory-based valuation models are empirically superior to rule-of-thumb based valuation models.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信