Linear Information Dynamics,Dividend Irrelevance,Corporate Valuation and the Clean Surplus Relationship

This paper adopts the linear information dynamics framework pioneered in Ohlson (1979) and Garman and Ohlson (1980) (and subsequently used in, in particular, Ohlson, 1989, 1995 and Feltham and Ohlson, 1995) for thinking about desirable properties of earnings numbers in the context of the market valuation of firms, where such valuations are fundamentally based on expected future dividends. The first purpose of this paper is to consider the valuation-relevance of clean surplus earnings when there are two distinct components of clean surplus earnings whose evolutions are governed, along with book value and dividends, by a system of linear information dynamics, and dividend irrelevancy holds. The system of linear information dynamics assumed ensures that corporate value is a linear combination of the two components of clean surplus earnings, book value and dividends. One question becomes—under what circumstances are clean surplus earnings (combined with book value and dividends) sufficient for corporate valuation without a knowledge of the breakdown of clean surplus earnings into its separate components? This paper develops the conditions defining these circumstances. At the other extreme, another question can be asked—under what circumstances is one component of clean surplus earnings irrelevant to corporate valuation? This paper identifies some conditions that identify these latter circumstances. The second purpose of the paper is to identify implications of these results for both the traditional arguments about the desirability of measuring earnings on a clean surplus basis and also the more contemporary issues surrounding FRS3. A third purpose is to discuss the implications of the overall analysis for the empirical testing of the relationship between market prices and earnings numbers, and for empirically-justified definitions of maintainable earnings.     

An empirical assessment of the residual income valuation model

This paper provides an empirical assessment of the residual income valuation model proposed in Ohlson (Ohlson, J.A., 1995. Earnings, book values and dividends in security valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 661–687). We point out that existing empirical research relying on Ohlson's model is similar to past research relying explicitly on the dividend-discounting model. We establish that the key original empirical implications of Ohlson's model stem from the information dynamics that link current information to future residual income. Our empirical results generally support Ohlson's information dynamics. However, we find that our empirical implementation of Ohlson's model provides only minor improvements over existing attempts to implement the dividend-discounting model by capitalizing short-term earnings' forecasts in perpetuity.     

Discussion of “Forward Versus Trailing Earnings in Equity Valuation”

The focus of this discussion is on the empirical implications of Yee (2004, this issue). Yee's key contribution is the introduction of belief dependency into the model developed in Ohlson (1995), Feltham and Ohlson (1995, 1996), and Ohlson and Zhang (1998). Yee's primary conclusion is that accruals that do not incorporate beliefs about unobservable information lead to contemporaneous accounting data that are not sufficient for valuation but often belief-free accruals can lead to forward earnings that may be valuation sufficient. Yee (2004) provides an alternative theoretical model of the relation between firm value, trailing earnings, and forward earnings. This model may be used (1) to re-interpret the results of numerous empirical studies of the relation between market metrics, trailing earnings, and forward earnings, and (2) as the basis for framing further hypotheses and empirical studies.     

Dynamic risk, accounting-based valuation and firm fundamentals

This study extends the accounting-based valuation framework of Ohlson (Contemp Acc Res 11(2):661–687, 1995) and Feltham and Ohlson (Acc Rev 74(2):165–183, 1999) to incorporate dynamic expectations about the level of systematic risk in the economy. Our model explains recent empirical findings documenting a strong negative association between changes in economy-wide risk and future stock returns. Importantly, the model also generates costs of capital that are solely a linear function of accounting variables and other firm fundamentals, including the book-to-market ratio, the earnings-to-price ratio, the forward earnings-to-price ratio, size and the dividend yield. This result provides a theoretical rationale for the inclusion of these popular variables in cost of capital (expected return) computations by the accounting and finance literatures and obviates the need to estimate costs of capital from unobservable (future) covariances. The model also generates an accounting return decomposition in the spirit of Vuolteenaho (J Finance 57(1):233–264, 2002). Empirically, we find that costs of capital generated by our model are significantly associated with future returns both in and out of sample in contrast to standard benchmark models. We further obtain significantly lower valuation errors in out-of-sample tests than traditional models that ignore dynamic risk expectations.     

Accounting Earnings Processes,Inter-temporal Incentives and Their Implications for Valuation

Accounting measures such as levels and changes in residual earnings are widely used for performance evaluation and executive compensation (Healy, 1985). Quite often, these compensation contracts are of the linear form. In a multiperiod agency setting with hidden actions, where the agent's effort influences the random evolution of a general model of residual earnings, we show that linear compensation contracts based on weighted sum of the levels and changes of residual earnings are indeed optimal. We characterize the contract explicitly and show that the weights are determined by the earnings persistence parameter. Residual earnings are known to be important for valuation too (Ohlson, 1995; Easton and Harris, 1991). In our setting, we demonstrate that residual earnings are also sufficient for valuation. This implies that residual earnings can be used to align incentive goals with valuation objectives. In essence, our paper provides the theoretical underpinnings for linear contracts based on residual earnings and their implications for valuation.     

Analysing the market–book value relation in large Australian and US firms: implications for fundamental analysis and the market–book ratio

This study compares the market–book relation of Australian and US firms using firm‐level dynamic analysis of using annual data for a long‐run period in error correction modelling. This paper contributes to a recent call for alternative ways of estimating Ohlson‐type linear valuation models (Ohlson and Kim, 2015). Log transformations of the data are used in this study to improve the statistical properties of the models. This study contributes to the findings on linear valuation model estimation for long‐run firms. Based on the returns model estimation, we find evidence of a higher level of co‐integration between market and book values for Australian firms.     

Differences in the valuation of earnings and book value: Regulation effects or industry effects?

This paper uses a valuation framework on a sample of firms from four European countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, and United Kingdom) to examine how income, accruals, and book value of equity are perceived by the respective capital markets. Our model includes adjustments for industry effects and taking into account the linear information dynamics of the accounting variables posited in the Ohlson model. Consistent with previous researchers, we find that both earnings and book value of equity have valuation implications and that there is significant dispersion in the country-specific and industry-specific valuation multiples. However, when using accounting variables to forecast market values we find that industry-specific valuation multiples reduce forecasting error more than country-specific ones.     

Information dynamics, dividend displacement, conservatism, and earnings measurement: a development of the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework

This paper extends the Ohlson (Contemp Account Res 11, 661–687, 1995) equity valuation framework by demonstrating that dividend displacement continues to hold when dividends have a positive forecast coefficient in the linear abnormal earnings dynamic. The analysis demonstrates that such a predictive role for dividends implies a positive association between cum div book value of equity and the present value of expected abnormal earnings, consistent with both dividend displacement and accounting conservatism. While a signaling role for dividends is ruled out, a link between dividends, expected performance, and equity value is, however, demonstrated. The paper also considers a linear information model where an undefined variable replaces realized abnormal comprehensive earnings as an indicator of future performance. The role of this variable as a predictor of future abnormal comprehensive earnings is highlighted and the special case where it corresponds to recurring abnormal earnings is considered. This latter case provides useful implications for implementation of asset revaluations.     

Payout Policy Relevance and Accounting‐based Valuation

DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) (D&D) argue ‘payout policy is not irrelevant and investment is not the sole determinant of value, even in frictionless markets’. Consistent with this view, we argue that the concept of a perfect capital market in Miller and Modigliani (1961) (M&M) and Fama and Miller (1972) can be extended to allow for managerial moral hazard if managers are assumed not to participate in securities trading. An updated version of the M&M valuation model is presented and the possibility of managerial free cash flow (FCF) retention through operating expense manipulation and sub‐optimal investment policies is discussed. Our analysis supports D&D's argument that payout policy is relevant and indicates that value relevance of payout depends on the quality of earnings measurement and the optimality of investment policy. Following this, we develop a framework for analyzing valuation and informational roles of payout in accounting‐based valuation models and apply this framework to the Ohlson (1995) and Feltham and Ohlson (1996) models. This analysis shows how these models permit payout valuation relevance due to managerial FCF retention but not payout informational relevance. Finally, we consider how the Feltham and Ohlson (1996) model can be extended to incorporate time variation in expected profitability of capital investment caused by time variation in managerial FCF retention activities and show that this explicitly affects payout value relevance. We conclude that the development of models where payout plays an explicit valuation role due to issues of moral hazard is an important direction for future research.     

CONSERVATIVE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, EQUITY VALUATION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES

Previous theoretical research on voluntary disclosures has commonly viewed accounting information as a simple signalling device, for example indicating «good news» or «bad news». In this paper, voluntary disclosures are considered to provide complementary information in fundamental valuation analysis, as broadly outlined in Ohlson (1989), Brief & Lawson (1992) and Bernard (1993). The research questions are concerned with the importance of voluntary disclosures in a valuation framework of this kind and the expected content and context of such disclosures. The results imply that voluntary disclosures for typical operating companies are expected to be concerned with the prediction of net income for the next period, the long-run future development of the book return on owners» equity, and the accounting cost matching bias of owners» equity. The cost matching bias is caused by conservative valuation principles, and a specific linkage between the book return and the cost matching bias of owners» equity is recognized in the analysis.     

Empirical Tests of the Feltham–Ohlson (1995) Model

This paper tests the Feltham–Ohlson (1995) model by transforming the undefined “other information” variables into expectational variables, as suggested by Liu and Ohlson [Liu and Ohlson (2000). Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 15, 321–331]. The signs of the estimated coefficients conform to the model’s predictions using panel data techniques, non-parametric estimation, reverse regressions and portfolio regressions. The tests reject the Ohlson model in favor of Feltham–Ohlson. Nevertheless, the estimated leverage coefficient takes a value of three instead of one for most variations of the model. Also, the 1-year-ahead price predictions of the Feltham–Ohlson model are no more accurate than those of the Ohlson model or a naive earnings valuation model.     

When Capital Follows Profitability: Non-linear Residual Income Dynamics

Economic reasoning suggests that capital follows profitability. This study introduces into residual income valuation capital follows profitability investment dynamics whereby capital investments are guided by the profitability of underlying investment opportunities. These investment dynamics predict convex versus linear relations between future and current residual income, with slope and convexity dependent on investment opportunity. We test these predictions against the linear information dynamics (LID) proposed by Ohlson (1995) and Feltham and Ohlson (1996), with supportive results. These findings point the way to further development of links between firm value and the economics of value creation.     

Discussion of “On Accounting-Based Valuation Formulae” and “Expected EPS and EPS Growthas Determinants of Value”

This discussion evaluates the abnormal earnings growth valuation (AEG) Model of Ohlson and Juettner-Nauroth and, in similar vein to the Ohlson review paper at this conference, compares the Model to the residual income valuation (RIV) Model that has been the centerpiece of accounting-based valuation in recent years. The discussion begins with a statement of what one looks for in a practical valuation model. The innovations of the AEG Model, well stated by Ohlson, are acknowledged. A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative approaches provides some qualification, however, and draws out the utility of a residual income valuation approach.This revised version was published online in August 2005 with a corrected cover date.     

Towards an understanding of profitability analysis within the residual income valuation framework

This paper argues that there is a mis-match between formal theoretical accounting valuation models, and practical approaches to profitability analysis and valuation. In particular, none of the linear information models published to date exhibit an obvious role for profitability analysis. For example, in the standard Ohlson model, earnings and book value apparently summarise all the value relevant information available from the firm's financial statements and there is no apparent need for any further investigation of the accounting numbers beyond these specific line items. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to investigate potential analytical links between formal valuation models and practical profitability analysis. Specifically, we attempt to show how key features of practical profitability analysis might be incorporated into formal valuation models. In this respect there are two particular aspects of valuation practice to which the formal models published to date have paid no attention. First, in practice we often see explicit reference made to the demand side (sales), and supply side (costs) of the business. Second, we often see attempts to benchmark the financial ratios of one firm against the corresponding ratios of firms in the same industry. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to explain why such practices make sense in the context of an attempt to model the principal determinants of firm value within a residual income valuation framework.     

Corporate Social Performance,Competitive Advantage,Earnings Persistence and Firm Value

In this paper, using a generalised valuation framework inspired by Ohlson, we show that corporate social performance (CSP) is value relevant and that, in particular, it appears to be associated with a higher coefficient on earnings. This could be attributable to either a lower cost of equity for these firms, or greater earnings persistence. We show that, once industry membership is controlled for, any cost of capital effect is minimal. Regression tests based on realised earnings confirm that the valuation effect is attributable mainly to greater earnings persistence in firms with higher levels of CSP. These outcomes are consistent with higher CSP conferring a competitive advantage on firms.     

An Ohlson valuation framework for valuing corporate governance: The case of Taiwan

We examine the relation between a firm's market value, financial performance, and corporate governance as a cointegrated system in the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework. Using a comprehensive set of 29 governance measures in 4 categories for Taiwanese firms, we find that governance related to ownership structure and divergence between cash flow rights and control rights are important for a firm's market valuation. In particular, information about shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of controlling family, and voting rights are influential for firm value. Controlling for book value and residual incomes in the model, these governance measures track much of the remaining firm valuation that is unrelated to a firm's financial performance. Our findings provide some insight into the intrinsic value of corporate governance and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

Endogenous Parameter Time Series Estimation of the Ohlson Model: Linear and Nonlinear Analyses

This paper tests the empirical validity of the Ohlson (1995) model on a firm-level time series basis. The coefficients of the earnings dynamic and valuation equations are first estimated by OLS. Next, recognizing the nonlinear relationships among the parameters, each equation is estimated by nonlinear Least Squares. Lastly, the model is estimated as a restricted system by nonlinear Least Squares and nonlinear SUR. In all cases, parameters are endogenously estimated. Irrespective of the estimation method, the Ohlson model often yields inconsistent or insignificant parameter estimates. Nevertheless, point estimates of equity risk premia are similar to those obtained from alternative methodologies.     

The Sophisticated and the Simple: the Profitability of Contrarian Strategies

A variety of variables have been used to form contrarian portfolios, ranging from relatively simple measures, like book‐to‐market, cash flow‐to‐price, earnings‐to‐price and past returns, to more sophisticated measures based on the Ohlson model and residual income model (RIM). This paper investigates whether: (i) contrarian strategies based on RIM perform better or worse than those based on the Ohlson model; (ii) contrarian strategies based on more sophisticated valuation models (e.g. Ohlson and RIM) perform much better than the relatively simpler ranking variables that have been used so extensively in the finance literature. Given that the RIM and Ohlson models require greater information inputs and technical know‐how, and make different implicit assumptions on future abnormal earnings, it is important to ascertain if they offer significantly greater contrarian profits to outweigh the increased costs that they entail. Indeed, our surprising finding is that simple cash flow‐to‐price measures appear to do almost as well as the more sophisticated alternatives. One would have expected the sophisticated models to significantly outperform the simple cash flow to price model for the reasons given by Penman (2007) .     

Do sustainability disclosure mechanisms reduce market myopia? Evidence from European sustainability companies

Market myopia is a behavioural bias that causes investors to overvalue short-term earnings and undervalue long-term profits. This anomaly should not be compatible with sustainability disclosure mechanisms, the set of tools which firms use for reporting on their sustainable practices, and which contribute towards long-term performance improvements. Our aim is to study whether market myopia, as a symptom of market inefficiency, decreases with the implementation of sustainability disclosure mechanisms. We test for the presence of market myopia in a sample of firms listed on the S&P Europe 350 Index. For this purpose, we propose to use an adaptation of the valuation model for residual income under linear information dynamics developed by Felthan and Ohlson. Using the rating provided by RobecoSAM Sustainability Yearbook, we find market myopia to be less prevalent in companies classified as high sustainability reporters. An association is also found between persistent enforcement of sustainability disclosure mechanisms and a reduction of the market myopia effect.     

Earnings Components,Accounting Bias and Equity Valuation

In this paper we address three issues in accounting-based equity valuation: (i) How are valuation parameters related to earnings persistence and accounting conservatism when earnings components aggregate, or “add up”, in valuation? (ii) What does aggregation of earnings components in valuation imply for abnormal earnings dynamics? and (iii) When is an earnings component “irrelevant” and “core”?earnings the relevant construct for valuation? Assuming linear valuation, no-arbitrage, dividend irrelevance and clean surplus accounting, we show that when earnings components aggregate, valuation expressions and abnormal earnings dynamics are generalizations of the Ohlson (1995) model, incorporating simple adjustments for accounting conservatism. When “core” earnings are the relevant earnings construct, valuation expressions closely resemble the aggregation case, but core (abnormal) earnings replaces clean surplus (abnormal) earnings. We demonstrate that an earnings component can be irrelevant in valuation even when it is predictable.