IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/xrs/sfbmaa/07-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation Biases, Error Measures, and the Conglomerate Discount

Author

Listed:
  • Dittmann, Ingolf

    (Erasmus School of Economics Rotterdam)

  • Maug, Ernst

    (Chair for Corporate Finance, University of Mannheim and Sonderforschungsbereich 504)

Abstract

We investigate biases of valuation methods and document that these depend largely on the choice of error measure (percentage vs. logarithmic errors) used to compare valuation procedures. We analyze four multiple valuation methods (averaging with the arithmetic mean, harmonic mean, median, and the geometric mean) and three present value approaches (dividend discount model, discounted cash flow model, residual income model). Percentage errors generate a positive bias for most multiples, and they imply that setting company values equal to their book values often becomes the best valuation method. Logarithmic errors avoid unwanted consequences and imply that the median and the geometric mean are unbiased while the arithmetic mean is biased upward as much as the harmonic mean is biased downward. The dividend discount model dominates the DCF-model only for percentage errors, while the opposite is true for logarithmic errors. The residual income model is optimal for both error measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Dittmann, Ingolf & Maug, Ernst, 2007. "Valuation Biases, Error Measures, and the Conglomerate Discount," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-37, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    • Handle: RePEc:xrs:sfbmaa:07-37
    Note: Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 504, at the University of Mannheim, is gratefully acknowledged.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=884337
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Lie & Heidi J. Lie, 2002. "Multiples Used to Estimate Corporate Value," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 44-54, March.
    2. Sanjeev Bhojraj & Charles M. C. Lee, 2002. "Who Is My Peer? A Valuation‐Based Approach to the Selection of Comparable Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 407-439, May.
    3. Martin, John D. & Sayrak, Akin, 2003. "Corporate diversification and shareholder value: a survey of recent literature," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 37-57, January.
    4. Stephen H. Penman & Theodore Sougiannis, 1998. "A Comparison of Dividend, Cash Flow, and Earnings Approaches to Equity Valuation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 343-383, September.
    5. James Claus & Jacob Thomas, 2001. "Equity Premia as Low as Three Percent? Evidence from Analysts' Earnings Forecasts for Domestic and International Stock Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(5), pages 1629-1666, October.
    6. Kaplan, Steven N & Ruback, Richard S, 1995. "The Valuation of Cash Flow Forecasts: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1059-1093, September.
    7. Volker Herrmann & Frank Richter, 2003. "Pricing With Performance-Controlled Multiples," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 55(3), pages 194-219, July.
    8. Alford, Aw, 1992. "The Effect Of The Set Of Comparable Firms On The Accuracy Of The Price Earnings Valuation Method," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 94-108.
    9. Gilson, Stuart C & Hotchkiss, Edith S & Ruback, Richard S, 2000. "Valuation of Bankrupt Firms," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 13(1), pages 43-74.
    10. Basu, Sudipta & Markov, Stanimir, 2004. "Loss function assumptions in rational expectations tests on financial analysts' earnings forecasts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 171-203, December.
    11. Dechow, Patricia M. & Hutton, Amy P. & Sloan, Richard G., 1999. "An empirical assessment of the residual income valuation model1," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1-3), pages 1-34, January.
    12. Francis, J & Olsson, P & Oswald, DR, 2000. "Comparing the accuracy and explainability of dividend, free cash flow, and abnormal earnings equity value estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 45-70.
    13. Servaes, Henri, 1996. "The Value of Diversification during the Conglomerate Merger Wave," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1201-1225, September.
    14. Jing Liu & Doron Nissim & Jacob Thomas, 2002. "Equity Valuation Using Multiples," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 135-172, March.
    15. Kim, Moonchul & Ritter, Jay R., 1999. "Valuing IPOs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 409-437, September.
    16. Karl Lins & Henri Servaes, 1999. "International Evidence on the Value of Corporate Diversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 2215-2239, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rudolph, Christin & Schwetzler, Bernhard, 2014. "Mountain or molehill? Downward biases in the conglomerate discount measure," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 420-431.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dittmann, Ingolf & Weiner, Christian, 2005. "Selecting comparables for the valuation of European firms," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-002, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    2. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2005-002 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2005-062 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Weiner, Christian, 2005. "The impact of industry classification schemes on financial research," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-062, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    5. Peter Roosenboom, 2007. "How Do Underwriters Value Initial Public Offerings? An Empirical Analysis of the French IPO Market," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1217-1243, December.
    6. Georgia Pazarzi, 2014. "Comparison of the Residual Income and the Pricing - Multiples Equity Valuation Models," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 88-114.
    7. Karel Janda, 2019. "Earnings Stability and Peer Company Selection for Multiple Based Indirect Valuation," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 69(1), pages 37-75, February.
    8. Marc Deloof & Wouter De Maeseneire & Koen Inghelbrecht, 2009. "How Do Investment Banks Value Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1‐2), pages 130-160, January.
    9. Emanuel Bagna & Enrico Cotta Ramusino, 2016. "Accounting-Based Valuation Using Market Multiples: The Case Of Cyclical Companies," DEM Working Papers Series 126, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    10. Marc Deloof & Wouter De Maeseneire & Koen Inghelbrecht, 2009. "How Do Investment Banks Value Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1‐2), pages 130-160, January.
    11. Roosenboom, Peter, 2012. "Valuing and pricing IPOs," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1653-1664.
    12. WS Nel, 2015. "An Optimal Peer Group Selection Strategy for Multiples-Based Modelling in the South African Equity Market," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 7(3), pages 30-46.
    13. Frank Asche & Bård Misund, 2016. "Who’s a major? A novel approach to peer group selection: Empirical evidence from oil and gas companies," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1264538-126, December.
    14. Marcel Ausloos, 2020. "Valuation Models Applied to Value-Based Management—Application to the Case of UK Companies with Problems," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Soenke Sievers & Christopher F. Mokwa & Georg Keienburg, 2012. "The Relevance of Financial versus Non-Financial Information for the Valuation of Venture Capital-Backed Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 467-511, September.
    16. Jens M�ller, 2014. "The Challenge of Assessing the Market Value of Private Companies Using a Standardised Combination Method for Tax Purposes - Lessons to be Learnt from Past Experience," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 117-141, May.
    17. Andrzej Rutkowski, 2008. "Multiples modification in assessment of M&A processes," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 18(3), pages 71-87.
    18. Yanfu Li, 2019. "Improving Analyst Target Price Performance Through Enhanced Valuation Techniques," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12.
    19. Soenke Sievers & Jan Klobucnik, 2011. "Valuing high technology growth firms," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 02-07, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    20. Aharon, David Y. & Gavious, Ilanit & Yosef, Rami, 2010. "Stock market bubble effects on mergers and acquisitions," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 456-470, November.
    21. Abdul Rasheed & Muhammad Khalid Sohail & Shahab-Ud Din & Muhammad Ijaz, 2018. "How Do Investment Banks Price Initial Public Offerings? An Empirical Analysis of Emerging Market," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-19, September.
    22. Wen-Shiung Lee, 2013. "Merger and acquisition evaluation and decision making model," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(15-16), pages 1473-1494, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:xrs:sfbmaa:07-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Carsten Schmidt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.