Equity Valuation Employing the Ideal versus Ad Hoc Terminal Value Expressions
比较了股利贴现、折现现金流和剩余收益三种估值模型在使用基于价格的终值表达式时是否等价，发现基于价格的模型优于非价格模型，且剩余收益模型的优越性在公平比较下不成立。
Recently, Penman and Sougiannis (1998) and Francis, Olsson and Oswald (1999) compared the bias and accuracy of the dividend discount model (DDM), discounted cash flow model (DCF), and Edwards-Bell-Ohlson residual income model (RIM) in explaining the relation between value estimates and observed stock prices. Both studies report that, with non price-based terminal values, RIM outperforms DCF and DDM. Our primary research objective is to explore whether, over a five-year valuation horizon, DDM, DCF and RIM are empirically equivalent when Penman's (1998) theoretically terminal value expressions are employed in each model. Using Value Line terminal stock price forecasts at the horizon to proxy for such values, we find empirical support for the prediction of equivalence between these three price-based valuation models. Our secondary research objective is to demonstrate that, within each class of the DCF and RIM valuation models, the model that employs Value Line forecasted price in the terminal value expression will generate the lowest pricing errors, compared to models that employ non price-based terminal value under an arbitrary growth assumption. Results indicate that, for both DCF and RIM, price-based valuation models outperform the corresponding non price-based models by a wide margin. We also revisit the issue of the apparent superiority of RIM, and find that this result does not hold in a level playing field where an approximation of ideal terminal values is employed. In fact, the price-based RIM model is marginally outperformed by the price-based DCF and DDM models, in terms of pricing errors as well as its ability to explain current market price.