15 views

Original Title: Bhojraj and Lee_Week7.pdf

Uploaded by Rohit Raj

Bhojraj and Lee_Week7.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

- data processing and analysis of data
- 5 QTM Assignment Cycle-6.doc
- m6l12
- Syllabus ISC Accounts 2009
- Venture Asessment
- Starting Pages for Technical & Fundamental Analysis
- Sap Fico Interview Questions
- Anand Dube Report v1
- SAP FI Interview Questions on FI
- EVA
- PR 4-2 Investment Proposal ENG
- Week Three CAFM
- Market Declines Lead to Reversal of ValuEngine.com Market/Sector Overviews
- Rodericrdtks Computer Support and Repair
- Ch 8.Palepu.jw.ca
- Silabus APLK
- VE_AAPL110119
- Investment Analysis Example Report
- Strategic Business Mgmt Sample Paper Final Version
- SWB47EquityWeekly23.11

You are on page 1of 33

Printed in U.S.A.

Approach to the Selection of

Comparable Firms

S A N J E E V B H O J R A J A N D C H A R L E S M . C . L E E

Received 4 January 2001; accepted 4 September 2001

ABSTRACT

market-based research and equity valuation. Guided by valuation theory, we

develop a warranted multiple for each firm, and identify peer firms as those

having the closest warranted multiple. We test this approach by examining

the efficacy of the selected comparable firms in predicting future (one- to

three-year-ahead) enterprise-value-to-sales and price-to-book ratios. Our tests

encompass the general universe of stocks as well as a sub-population of socalled new economy stocks. We conclude that comparable firms selected in

this manner offer sharp improvements over comparable firms selected on the

basis of other techniques.

1. Introduction

Accounting-based market multiples are easily the most common technique in equity valuation. These multiples are ubiquitous in the reports

and recommendations of sell-side financial analysts, and are widely used in

Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University. We thank Bhaskaran

Swaminathan, as well as workshop participants at the Australian Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, Indiana University, the 2001 Journal of Accounting Research Conference, the 2001 HKUST Summer Symposium, Syracuse University, and an anonymous referee,

for helpful comments. The data on analyst earnings forecasts are provided by I/B/E/S International Inc.

407

C , University of Chicago on behalf of the Institute of Professional Accounting, 2002

Copyright

408

investment bankers fairness opinions (e.g., DeAngelo [1990]). They also appear in valuations associated with initial public offerings (IPOs), leveraged

buyout transactions, seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), and other merger

and acquisition (M&A) activities.1 Even advocates of projected discounted

cash flow (DCF) valuation methods frequently resort to using market multiples when estimating terminal values.

Despite their widespread usage, little theory is available to guide the application of these multiples. With a few exceptions, the accounting and finance

literature contains little evidence on how or why certain individual multiples, or certain comparable firms, should be selected in specific contexts.

Some practitioners even suggest that the selection of comparable firms is

essentially an art form that should be left to professionals.2 Yet the degree

of subjectivity involved in their application is discomforting from a scientific

perspective. Moreover, the aura of mystique that surrounds this technique

limits its coverage in financial analysis courses, and ultimately threatens its

credibility as a serious alternative in equity valuation.

In this study, we re-examine the theoretical underpinnings for the use

of market multiples in equity valuation, and develop a systematic approach

for the selection of comparable firms. Our premise is that the popularity

of market-based valuation multiples stems from their function as a classic

satisficing device (Simon [1997]). In using multiples to value firms, analysts forfeit some of the benefits of a more complete, but more complex,

pro forma analysis. In exchange, they obtain a convenient valuation heuristic that produces satisfactory results without incurring extensive time and

effort costs. In fact, we believe it is possible to compensate for much of the

information these multiples fail to capture through the judicious selection

of comparable firms. Our aim is to develop a more systematic technique for

doing so, through an appeal to valuation theory.

Specifically, we argue that the choice of comparable firms should be a

function of the variables that drive cross-sectional variation in a given valuation multiple. For example, in the case of the enterprise-value-to-sales

multiple, comparable firms should be selected on the basis of variables that

drive cross-sectional differences in this ratio, including expected profitability, growth, and the cost-of-capital.3 In this spirit, we use variables nominated by valuation theory and recent advances in estimating the implied

cost-of-capital (i.e., Gebhardt, Lee, and Swaminathan [2001]) to develop a

1

For example, Kim and Ritter [1999] discuss the use of multiples in valuing IPOs. Kaplan

and Ruback [1995] examine alternative valuation approaches, including multiples, in highly

levered transactions.

2 For example, Golz [1986], Woodcock (1992), and McCarthy (1999).

3 We use the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (EVS) rather than the price-to-sales (PS) ratio

because the former is conceptually superior when firms are differentially levered (we thank the

referee for pointing this out). We also report results for the price-to-book (PB) ratio. We focus

on these two ratios because of their applicability to loss firm, which are particularly important

among the so-called new economy (tech, biotech, and telecommunication) stocks. However,

our approach is general, and can be applied to any of the widely used valuation multiples.

WHO IS MY PEER?

409

then identify a firms peers as those firms having the closest warranted

valuation multiple.

Our procedures result in two end products. First, we produce warranted

multiples for each firmthat is, a warranted enterprise-value-to-sales

(WEVS) and a warranted price-to-book (WPB) ratio. These warranted multiples are based on systematic variations in the observed multiples in crosssection over large samples. The warranted multiples themselves are useful

for valuation purposes, because they incorporate the effect of cross-sectional

variations in firm growth, profitability, and cost-of-capital. Second, by ranking firms according to their warranted multiples, we generate a list of peer

firms for each target firm. For investors and analysts who prefer to conduct equity valuation using market multiples, this approach suggests a more

objective method for identifying comparable firms.

For researchers, our approach suggests a new technique for selecting control firms, and for isolating a variable of particular interest. Recent methodology studies have demonstrated that characteristic-matched control samples

provide more reliable inferences in market-based research (e.g., Barber and

Lyon [1997], Lyon et al. [1999]). Our study extends this line of research by

presenting a more precise technique for matching sample firms based on

characteristics identified by valuation theory. Our approach is designed to

accommodate both profitable and loss firms, which have become pervasive

in the so called new economy. In short, the methodology developed in this

paper can be useful whenever the choice of control firms plays a prominent

role in the research design of a market-related study.

We test our approach by examining the efficacy of the selected comparable

firms in predicting future (one- to three-year-ahead) EVS and PB ratios.4 Our

tests encompass the general universe of stocks as well as a sub-population

of new economy stocks from the tech, biotech, and telecommunication

sectors. Our results show that comparable firms selected in this manner

offer sharp improvements over comparable firms selected on the basis of

other techniques, including industry and size matches. The improvement

is most pronounced among the so-called new economy stocks.

The main message from this study is that the choice of comparable firms

can be made more systematic and less subjective through the application of

valuation theory. In the case of the EVS multiple, our approach almost triples

the adjusted r-squares obtained from using simply industry or industry-size

matched selections. The PB multiple is more difficult to predict in general,

but our approach still more than doubles the adjusted r -square relative to

industry or industry-size matched selections. Interestingly, we find that using

the actual multiples from the best comparable firms is generally better than

using the warranted multiple itself. Moreover, the choice of comparable

4 We forecast future multiples because we do not regard the current stock price as necessarily

the best benchmark for assessing valuation accuracy. As discussed later, forecasting future

multiples is not equivalent to forecasting future prices or returns.

410

considerationthe best firms for the EVS ratio are not necessarily the best

firms for the PB ratio. While we illustrate our approach using these two ratios, this technique can be generalized to other common market multiples,

including: EBITDA/TEV, E/P, CF/P, and others.

In the next section, we further motivate our study and discuss its relation

to the existing literature. In section 3, we develop the theory that underpins

our analysis. In section 4, we discuss sample selection, research design and

estimation procedures. Section 5 reports our empirical results, and section 6

concludes with a discussion of the implications of our findings.

There are at least three situations in which comparable firms are useful.

First, in conducting fundamental analysis, we often need to make forecasts

of sales growth rates, profit margins, and asset efficiency ratios. In these

settings, we typically appeal to comparable firms from the same industry

as a source of reference. Second, in multiples-based valuation, the market

multiples of comparable firms are used to infer the market value of the target

firm. Third, in empirical research, academics seek out comparable firms as

a research design device for isolating a variable of particular interest. Our

paper is focused primarily on the second and third needs for comparable

firms.5

Given their widespread popularity among practitioners, market multiples

based valuation has been the subject of surprisingly few academic studies.

Three recent studies that provide some insights on this topic are Kim and

Ritter (KR; [1999]), Liu, Nissim, and Thomas (LNT; [1999]), and Baker and

Ruback (BR; [1999]). All three examine the relative accuracy of alternative

multiples in different settings. KR uses alternative multiples to value initial

public offers (IPOs), while LNT and BR investigate the more general context

of valuation accuracy relative to current stock prices. KR and LNT both find

that forward earnings perform much better than historical earnings. LNT

shows that in terms of accuracy relative to current prices, the performance

of forward earnings is followed by that of historical earnings measures, cash

flow measures, book value, and finally, sales. In addition, Baker and Ruback

[1999] discuss the advantages of using harmonic meansthat is, the inverse

of the average of inversed ratioswhen aggregating common market multiples. None of these studies address the choice of comparable firms beyond

noting the usefulness of industry groupings.

5 Our technique is not directly relevant to the first situation, because it does not match firms

on the basis of a single attribute (such as sales growth, or profit margin). Instead, our approach

matches firms on the basis of a set of variables suggested by valuation theory. Our paper also

does not address the trivial case whereby a firm is its own comparable. As we point out later, in

multiples-based valuation of public firms, a firms own lagged multiple is often the most useful

empirical proxy for its current multiple.

WHO IS MY PEER?

411

Closer to this study are three prior studies that either investigate the effect

of comparable firm selection on multiple-based valuation, or examine the

determinants cross-sectional variations in certain multiples. Boatsman and

Baskin [1981] compare the accuracy of value estimated based on earningsto-price (EP) multiples of firms from the same industry. They find that,

relative to randomly chosen firms, valuation errors are smaller when comparable firms are matched on the basis of historical earnings growth. Similarly,

Zarowin [1990] examines the cross-sectional determinants of EP ratios. He

shows forecasted growth in long-term earnings is a dominant source of variation in these ratios. Other factors, such as risk, historical earnings growth,

forecasted short-term growth, and differences in accounting methods, seem

to be less important.

Finally, Alford [1992] examines the relative valuation accuracy of EP multiples when comparable firms are selected on the basis of industry, size,

leverage, and earnings growth. He finds that valuation errors decline when

the industry definition used to select comparable firms is narrowed to twoor three-digit SIC codes, but that there is no further improvement when a

four-digit classification is used. He also finds that after controlling for industry membership, further controls for firm size, leverage, and earnings

growth do not reduce valuation errors.

Several stylized facts emerge from these studies. First, the choice of which

multiple to use affects accuracy results. In terms of accuracy relative to current prices, forecasted earnings perform relatively well (KR, LNT); the priceto-sales and price-to-book ratios perform relatively poorly (LNT). Second,

industry membership is important in selecting comparable firms (Alford

[1992], LNT, KR). The relation between historical growth rates and EP ratios is unclear, with studies reporting conflicting results (Zarowin [1999],

Alford [1992], Boatsman and Baskin [1981]), but forecasted growth rates

are important (Zarowin [1999]). Other measures, including risk-based metrics (leverage and size) do not seem to provide much additional explanatory

power for E /P ratios.

Our study is distinct from these prior studies in several respects. First, our

approach is more general, and relies more heavily on valuation theory. This

theory guides us in developing a regression model that estimates a warranted multiple for each firm. We then define a firms peers as those firms

with the closest warranted market multiple to the target firm, as identified

by our model. The advantage of a regression-based approach is that it allows

us to simultaneously control for the effect of various explanatory variables.

For example, some firms might have higher current profitability, but lower

future growth prospects, and higher cost-of-capital. This approach allows us

to consider the simultaneous effect of all these variables, and to place appropriate weights on each variable based on empirical relations established

in large samples.

Our empirical results illustrate the advantage of this approach. Contrary

to the mixed results in prior studies, we find that factors related to profitability, growth, and risk, are strongly and consistently correlated with the EVS

412

risk, play an important role in explaining cross-sectional variations of these

multiples. In fact, we find that variables related to firm-specific profitability,

forecasted growth and risk are more important than industry membership

and firm size in explaining a firms future EVS and PB ratios.

Second, we employ recent advances in the empirical estimation of cost-ofcapital (i.e., Gebhardt et al. [2001]) to help identify potential explanatory

variables for estimating our model of warranted market multiples. The risk

metrics examined in prior studies are relatively simple, and the results are

mixed. We follow the technique in Gebhardt et al. [2001] to secure additional explanatory variables that are associated with cross-sectional determinants of a firms implied cost-of-capital. Several of these factors turn out to

be important in explaining EVS and PB ratios.

Third, we do not assume that the current stock price of a firm is the

best estimate of firm value. Prior studies compare the valuation derived by

the multiples to a stocks current price to determine the valuation error. In

effect, these studies assume that the current stock price is the appropriate

normative benchmark by which to judge a multiples performance. Under

this assumption, it is impossible to derive an independent valuation using

multiples that is useful for identifying over- or under-valued stocks.

Our less stringent assumption of market efficiency is that a firms current

price is a noisy proxy for the true, but unobservable intrinsic value, defined

as the present value of expected dividends. Moreover, due to arbitrage,

price converges to value over time. As a result, price and various alternative

estimates of value based on accounting fundamentals will be co-integrated

over time.6 Under this assumption, we estimate a warranted multiple that

differs from the actual multiple implicit in the current price. Consistent

with this philosophy, we test the efficacy of alternative estimated multiples

by comparing their predictive power for a firms future multiples (e.g., its

one-, two-, or three-year-ahead EVS and PB ratios).7

Finally, our approach can be broadly applied to loss firms, including many

new economy stocks. Prior studies that examine comparable firms (e.g.,

Alford [1992], Boatsman and Baskin [1981], and Zarowin [1999]) focus

solely on the EP ratio. A limitation of these studies is that they do not pertain to loss firms. This limitation has become more acute in recent years,

as many technology, biotechnology, and telecommunication firms have reported negative earnings.

6 For a more formal statistical model of this co-integrated relationship between price and

alternative estimates of fundamental value, see, Lee, Myers, and Swaminathan [1999].

7 Note that forecasting future multiples is different from forecasting future prices or returns.

In the current context, forecasting future price involves two steps: forecasting future multiples,

and forecasting future fundamentals (e.g., sales or book value per share). Our main interest

is in the stability of the multiples relation, and not in forecasting fundamentals. An example

of fundamental analysis that focuses on forecasting future fundamentals is Ou and Penman

[1989].

WHO IS MY PEER?

413

This appendix reports descriptive statistics for a sample of 3,515 firms from

NYSE/AMEX/NASDAQ as of 5/29/2000. To be included, a firm must be

U.S. domiciled (i.e., not an ADR), have a market capitalization of over

$100 million, and fundamental data for the trailing 12 months (i.e., not

a recent IPO). Based on aggregate net income from the most recent four

quarters, we divide the sample into profitable firms (78% of sample) and

loss firms (22% of sample).

Panel A reports the percentage of these firms that have positive EBIT, Operating Income, EBITDA, Gross Margin, Sales, One-year-ahead forecasted

earnings (FY1), and book value. This panel shows that only 40% of the loss

firms have positive operating income, only 47% have positive EBITDA, and

only 34% have positive FY1 forecasts. In fact, only 87% of the loss firms have

positive gross margins. The only reliably positive accounting measures are

sales (100%) and book value (94%). Clearly, these loss firms are difficult to

value.

However, they are also difficult to ignore. Panel B reports the distribution of realized returns in the past six months (11/31/99 to 5/29/00) separately for the profit firms and loss firms. The returns for the loss firms

have higher mean (19.6% versus 7.8%), higher standard deviation (111.3%

versus 42.3%), and fatter tails. As a group, the loss firms appear to be a

high-stake game that constitutes a substantial proportion of the universe of

traded stocks in the United States.

Our study uses the two most reliably positive multiples (EVS and PB). Liu,

Nissim, and Thomas [1999] show that these two ratios are relatively poor

performers in terms of their valuation accuracy. We demonstrate that by

choosing an appropriate set of comparable firms, the accuracy of these ratios

can be improved sharply. In particular, we demonstrate the incremental

usefulness of the technique for a sub-population of new economy stocks

from the technology, telecom, and biotechnology sectors.

The valuation literature discusses two broad approaches to estimating

shareholder value. The first is direct valuation, in which firm value is estimated directly from its expected cash flows without appeal to the current

price of other firms. Most direct valuations are based on projected dividends

and/or earnings, and involve a present value computation of future cash

flow forecasts. Common examples are the dividend discount model (DDM),

the discounted cash flow (DCF) model, the residual income model (RIM),

or some other variant.8 The second is a relative valuation approach in

8 We do not discuss liquidation valuation, in which a firm is valued at the breakup value

of its assets. Commonly used in valuing real estate and distressed firms, this approach is not

appropriate for most going concerns.

414

which firm value estimates are obtained by examining the pricing of comparable assets. This approach involves applying an accounting-based market multiple (e.g., price-to-earnings, price-to-book, or price-to-sales ratios)

from the comparable firm(s) to our accounting number to secure a value

estimate.9

In relative valuation, an analyst applies the market multiple from a comparable firm to a target firms corresponding accounting number: Our

estimated price = (Their market multiple) X (Our accounting number).

In so doing, the analyst treats the accounting number in question as a summary statistic for the value of the firm. Assuming our firm in its current state

deserves the same market multiple as the comparable firm, this procedure

allows us to estimate what the market would pay for our firm.

Which firm(s) deserve the same multiple as our target firm? Valuation

theory helps to resolve this question. In fact, explicit expressions for most of

the most commonly used valuation multiples can be derived using little more

than the dividend discount model and a few additional assumptions. For

example, the residual income formula allows us to re-express the discounted

dividend model in terms of the price-to-book ratio:10

E t [(ROEt+i r e )Bt+i1 ]

Pt

=1 +

,

Bt

(1 + r e )i Bt

i=1

(1)

value at time t; E t [.] = expectation based on information available at time t;

r e = cost of equity capital; and ROEt+i = the after-tax return on book equity

for period t + i. This equation shows that a firms price-to-book ratio is a

function of its expected ROEs, its cost-of-capital, and its future growth rate in

book value. Firms that have similar price-to-book ratios should have present

values of future residual income (the infinite sum in the right-hand-side of

equation (1)) that are close to each other.

In the same spirit, it is not difficult to derive the enterprise-value-to-sales

ratio in terms of subsequent profit margins, growth rates, and the cost of

capital. In the case of a stable growth firm, the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio

can be expressed as:11

EV t

E t (PMxkx(1 + g))

,

(2)

=

(r g)

St

where EV t is total enterprise value (equity plus debt) at time t, St = total sales at time t; E t [.] = expectation based on information available at

9 A third approach, not discussed here, is contingent claim valuation based on option pricing

theory. Designed for pricing traded assets with finite lives, this approach encounters significant

measurement problems when applied to equity securities. See Schwartz and Moon [2000]

and Kellogg and Charnes [2000] for examples of how this approach can be applied to new

economy stocks.

10 See Feltham and Ohlson [1995] or Lee [1999] and the references therein for a discussion

of this model.

11 See Damodaran [1994; page 245] for a similar expression.

WHO IS MY PEER?

415

time t; PM is operating profit margin (earnings before interest); k is a constant payout ratio (dividends and debt servicing costs as a percentage of

earnings; alternatively, it is sometimes called one minus the plow-back rate);

r = weighted average cost of capital; and g is a constant earnings growth

rate.

In the more general case, we can model the firms growth in terms of

an initial period (say n years) of high growth, followed by a period of more

stable growth in perpetuity. Under this assumption, a firms enterprise-valueto-sales ratio can be expressed as:

EV t

(1 + g 1 )(1 ((1 + g 1 )n /(1 + r )n ))

= E t PMxkx

r g1

St

(1 + g 1 )n (1 + g 2 )

+

,

(3)

(1 + r )n (r g 2 )

where EV t is the total enterprise value (debt plus equity) at time t, St =

total sales at time t; E t [.] = expectation based on information available

at time t; PM is operating profit margin; k is a constant payout ratio; r =

cost of capital; g 1 is the initial earnings growth rate, which is applied for

n years; and g 2 is the constant growth rate applicable from period n + 1

onwards.

Equation (3) shows that a firms warranted enterprise-value-to-sales ratio

is a function of its expected operating profit margin (PM), payout ratio (k),

expected growth rates (g 1 and g 2 ), and cost of capital (r e ). If the market value

of equity and debt approximates the present value of expected cash flows,

these variables should explain a significant portion of the cross-sectional

variation in the EVS ratio. In the tests that follow, we employ a multiple

regression model to estimate the warranted EVS and PB ratios for each firm.

The explanatory variables we use in the model are empirical proxies for the

key elements in the right-hand side of equations (1) and (3).

4. Research Design

In this section, we estimate annual regressions that attempt to explain the

cross-sectional variation in the EVS and PB ratios. Our goal is to develop a reasonably parsimonious model that produces a warranted multiple (WEVS

or WPB) for each firm. These warranted multiples reflect the large sample

relation between a firms EVS (or PB) ratio and variables that should explain cross-sectional variations in the ratio. The estimated WEVS (or WPB)

becomes the basis of our comparable firm analysis.

4.1

We use all firms in the intersection of (a) the merged COMPUSTAT industrial and research files, and (b) the I/B/E/S historical database of analyst

earnings forecasts, excluding ADRs and REITs. We conduct our analysis

as of June 30th of each year for the period 19821998. To be included

416

in the analysis a firm must have at least one consensus forecast of longterm growth available during the 12 months ended June 30th. In the event

that more than one consensus forecast was made in any year, the most

recent forecast is used. We use accounting information for each firm as

of the most recent fiscal year end date, and stock prices as of the end of

June.

To facilitate estimation of a robust model, we drop firms with prices below

$3 per share and sales below $100 million. We eliminate firms with negative

book value (defined as common equity), and any firms with missing price or

accounting data needed for the estimation regression.12 We require that all

firms belong in an industry (based on two-digit SIC codes) with at least five

member firms. In addition we eliminate firms in the top and bottom one

percent of all firms ranked by EVS, PB, Rnoa, Lev, Adjpm, and Adjgro each

year (these variables are defined below). The number of remaining firms in

the sample range from 741 (in 1982) to 1,498 (in 1998).

For each firm, we secure nine explanatory variables. We are guided in

the choice of these variables by the valuation equations discussed earlier,

and several practical implementation principles. First, we wish to construct

a model that can be applied to private as well as public firms, we therefore

avoid using the market value of the target firm in any of the explanatory

variables. Second, in the spirit of the contextual fundamental analysis (e.g.,

see Beneish, Lee, and Tarpley [2000]), we anchor our estimation procedure

on specific industries. In other words, we use the mean industry market

multiples as a starting point, and adjust for key firm-specific characteristics.13

Finally, to the extent possible, we try to use similar variables for estimating

EVS and PB. Our goal is to generate relatively simple models that capture

the key theoretical constructs of growth, risk, and profitability. Specifically,

our model includes the following variables, which are also summarized and

described in more detail in Appendix B:

IndevsThe harmonic mean of the enterprise-value-to-sales multiple for

all the firms with the same two-digit SIC code. For example, for the 1982

regression, this variable is the harmonic mean industry EVS as of June 1,

1982. Enterprise value is defined as total market capitalization of equity,

plus book value of long-term debt. This variable controls for industrywide factors, such as profit margins and growth rates, and we expect

it to be positively correlated with current year firm-specific EVS and PB

ratios.

IndpbThe harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio for all firms in the

same industry. This variable controls for industry-wide factors that affect

the PB ratio. In addition, Gebhardt et al. [2001] show firms with higher PB

12 The two exceptions are research and development expense and long-term debt. Missing

data in these two fields are assigned a value of zero.

13 More specifically, we use the harmonic means of industry EVS and PB ratios, that is, the

inverse of the average of inversed ratios (see Baker and Ruback [1999]).

WHO IS MY PEER?

417

ratios have lower implied costs of capital. To the extent that industries with

lower implied costs-of-capital have higher market multiples, we expect this

variable to be positively correlated with EVS and PB ratios.

AdjpmThe industry-adjusted profit margin. We compute this variable

as the difference between the firms profit margin and the median industry

profit margin. In each case, the profit margin is defined as a firms operating

profit divided by its sales. Theory suggests this variable should be positively

correlated with current year EVS ratios.

LosspmThis variable is computed as Adjpm*Dum, where Dum is 1 if Adjpm

is less than or equal to zero, and 0 otherwise. Used in conjunction with

Adjpm, this variable captures the differential effect of profit margin on the

P/S ratio for loss firms. Prior studies (e.g., Hayn [1995]) show that prices

(and returns) are less responsive to losses than to profits. In univariate tests,

this variable should be positively correlated with EVS and PB. However, controlling for Adjpm, this variable should be negatively correlated with EVS and

PB ratios.

AdjgroIndustry-adjusted growth forecasts. This variable is computed as

the difference between a firms consensus earnings growth forecast (from

IBES) and the industry median of the same. Higher growth firms merit

higher EVS and PB ratios.

LevBook leverage. This variable is computed as the total long-term debt

scaled by the book value of common equity. In univariate tests, Gebhardt

et al. [2001] shows that firms with higher leverage have higher implied costsof-capital. However, controlling for market leverage, they find that book

leverage is not significant in explaining implied cost-of-capital. We include

this variable for completeness, in case it captures elements of cross-sectional

risk not captured by the other variables.

RnoaReturn on net operating asset. This variable is a firms operating

profit scaled by its net operating assets. Penman [2000] recommends this

variable as a measure of a firms core operation profitability. In our context,

having already controlled for profit margins, this variable also serves as a

control for a firms asset turnover. We expect it to be positively correlated

with the EVS and PB ratios.

RoeReturn on equity. This variable is net income before extraordinary

items scaled by the end of period common equity. Conceptually, this variable

should provide a better profitability proxy in the case of the PB ratio. We

use this variable in place of Rnoa as an alternative measure of profitability

when conducting the PB regression.

RdTotal research and development expenditures divided by sales. Firms

with higher R&D expenditures tend to have understated current profitability relative to future profitability. To the extent that this variable captures

profitability growth beyond the consensus earnings forecast growth rate, we

expect it to be positively correlated with the EVS and PB ratios.

In addition to these nine explanatory variables, we also tested three

other variablesa dividend payout measure (actual dividends scaled by

418

deviation of the forecasted growth rate. The first two variables add little to the explanatory power of the model. The standard deviation measure (suggested by Gebhardt et al. [2001] as a determinant of the cost-ofcapital) contributed marginally, but was missing for a significant number

of observations. Moreover, this measure would be unavailable for private

firms. For these reasons, we excluded all three variables from our final

model.

To recap, our research design involves estimating a series of annual

cross-sectional regressions of either the EVS or PB ratio on eight explanatory

variables. The estimated coefficients from last years regressions are used,

in conjunction with each firms current year information, to generate a

prediction of the firms current and future ratio. We refer to this prediction

as a firms warranted multiple (WEVS or WPB). This warranted multiple

becomes the basis for our identification of comparable firms in subsequent

tests.

4.2

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

nine explanatory variables. The overall average EVS of 1.20 (median of

0.94) and average PB of 2.26 (median of 1.84) are comparable to prior

studies (e.g., LNT, BB), although our sample size is considerably larger due

to the inclusion of loss firms. This table also reveals some trends in the

key variables over time. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Frankel and

Lee [1999]) we observe an increase over time in the accounting-based

multiples (EVS, PB, Indps, and Indpb) and total R&D expenditures (Rd).

This non-stationarity in the estimated coefficients could be attributable

to systematic changes in the composition of firms over time. For example, the increased importance of the R&D variable could reflect the rising prominence of technology firms in the sample. The accounting-based

rates of return (Rnoa and Roe) and book leverage (Lev) are relatively stable

over time. As expected, the industry-adjusted variables (Adjpm, Losspm, and

Adjgro) have mean and median measures close to zero. Overall, this table indicates that the key input variables for our analysis make economical

sense.

Table 2 presents the average annual pairwise correlation coefficients between these variables. The upper triangle reports Spearman rank correlation

coefficients; the lower triangle reports Pearson correlation coefficients. As

expected, EVS is positively correlated with the industry enterprise-value-tosales ratio (Indevs) and price-to-book ratio (Indpb). It is also positively correlated with industry-adjusted measures of a firms profit margin (Adjpm)

and expected growth rate (Adjgro). It is negatively correlated with book

leverage (Lev), and positively correlated with accounting rates of return

(Rnoa and Roe), as well as R&D expense (Rd). To a lesser degree, EVS

is also positively correlated with profit margin among loss firms (Losspm).

The results are similar for the PB ratio. All the correlation coefficients

WHO IS MY PEER?

419

TABLE 1

Summary Statistics of Estimation Variables

This table provides information on the mean and median of the variables used in the annual

estimation regressions. All accounting variables are from the most recent fiscal year end publicly

available by June 30th. Market values are as of June 30th. EVS is the enterprise value to sales

ratio, computed as the market value common equity plus long-term debt, divided by sales. PB

is the price to book ratio. Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of EVS based on two-digit SIC

codes. Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of PB. Adjpm is the difference between the firms

profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit margin is defined as operating profit

divided by sales. Losspm is Adjpm indicator variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit

margin 0 and 0 otherwise. Adjgro is the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of

the firms long-term growth and the industry average. Lev is the total long-term debt scaled by

book value of stockholders equity. Rnoa is operating profit scaled by net operating assets. Rd is

the firms R&D expressed as a percentage of net sales.

year

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Pooled

EVS

PB

Indevs

Indpb

Adjpm

Losspm

Adjgro

Lev

Rnoa

Roe

Rd

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

mean

median

0.63

0.50

0.98

0.77

0.84

0.69

0.88

0.73

1.07

0.88

1.22

1.00

1.09

0.90

1.07

0.89

1.09

0.89

1.10

0.87

1.15

0.94

1.22

1.02

1.20

1.00

1.36

1.07

1.49

1.13

1.51

1.20

1.59

1.24

1.11

0.93

1.82

1.48

1.46

1.26

1.72

1.46

2.14

1.82

2.31

1.92

1.97

1.70

2.02

1.70

1.99

1.64

1.93

1.54

2.13

1.76

2.48

2.04

2.31

1.98

2.49

2.08

2.75

2.24

2.87

2.41

3.06

2.55

0.50

0.50

0.76

0.77

0.69

0.72

0.70

0.72

0.85

0.86

0.95

0.95

0.85

0.80

0.84

0.76

0.83

0.79

0.80

0.69

0.87

0.78

0.90

0.86

0.89

0.86

0.95

0.93

1.01

0.98

1.02

1.07

1.09

1.08

0.92

0.92

1.57

1.59

1.34

1.30

1.45

1.30

1.87

1.69

1.95

1.82

1.69

1.61

1.79

1.63

1.69

1.49

1.65

1.39

1.71

1.52

1.91

1.76

2.02

1.91

2.06

2.02

2.18

1.99

2.12

2.01

2.20

2.05

0.006

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.006

0.000

0.007

0.000

0.009

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.007

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.50

0.00

0.21

0.05

0.44

0.01

0.66

0.00

0.30

0.04

0.18

0.10

0.29

0.00

0.69

0.00

0.58

0.08

0.45

0.12

0.23

0.19

0.55

0.09

0.49

0.15

0.73

0.00

0.40

0.13

0.36

0.17

0.43

0.00

0.45

0.36

0.49

0.38

0.43

0.33

0.44

0.32

0.50

0.34

0.54

0.40

0.56

0.43

0.57

0.41

0.61

0.44

0.59

0.45

0.59

0.42

0.58

0.39

0.58

0.36

0.56

0.38

0.58

0.37

0.61

0.36

0.63

0.38

20.85

19.62

17.18

16.18

17.85

16.93

19.96

18.82

17.58

16.41

17.27

16.00

19.05

17.68

19.90

18.54

19.77

17.97

19.00

16.93

17.86

15.97

19.80

17.22

20.08

17.47

21.66

18.72

22.19

18.93

21.56

18.97

22.84

20.24

14.39

14.77

11.88

12.82

12.04

13.00

13.49

14.32

11.45

12.92

10.63

12.22

12.61

12.93

13.90

14.71

13.29

13.51

11.91

12.55

10.31

11.29

11.87

12.39

11.57

12.37

13.48

13.18

12.57

13.08

12.46

12.89

12.31

12.76

1.23

0.14

1.33

0.09

1.51

0.08

1.66

0.05

1.75

0.00

1.94

0.00

1.83

0.00

1.94

0.00

1.86

0.00

1.96

0.00

2.03

0.00

1.99

0.00

1.90

0.00

1.77

0.00

2.01

0.00

2.01

0.00

2.25

0.00

mean

median

1.20

0.94

2.26

1.84

0.88

0.81

1.83

1.72

0.004

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.44

0.05

0.56

0.38

20.00

17.96

12.35

13.01

1.86

0.00

are in the expected direction. Except for the correlation between Rnoa

and Roe (which do not appear in the same estimation regression), none

of the average pairwise correlation coefficients exceed 0.60. These results

suggest that the explanatory variables are not likely to be redundant.

420

TABLE 2

Correlation between Estimation Variables

This table provides the correlation between the variables. The upper triangle reflects the

Spearman correlation estimates; the lower triangle reflects the Pearson correlation coefficients.

All accounting variables are based on the most recent fiscal year end information publicly

available by June 30th. Market values are as of June 30th. EVS is the enterprise value to sales

ratio, computed as the market value common equity plus long-term debt, divided by sales. PB

is the price to book ratio. Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of EVS based on two-digit SIC

codes. Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of PB. Adjpm is the difference between the firms

profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit margin is defined as operating profit

divided by sales. Losspm is Adjpm indicator variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit

margin 0 and 0 otherwise. Adjgro is the difference between the analysts consensus forecast of

the firms long-term growth and the industry average. Lev is the total long-term debt scaled by

book value of stockholders equity. Rnoa is operating profit scaled by net operating assets. Rd is

the firms R&D expressed as a percentage of net sales.

Average Correlation (Pearson/Spearman)

EVS

PB

Indevs

EVS

0.52

0.51

PB

0.47

0.09

Indevs

0.50 0.04

Indpb

0.15 0.28

0.35

Adjpm

0.59 0.33 0.06

Losspm 0.06 0.09

0.02

Adjgro

0.22 0.29 0.01

Lev

0.03 0.07

0.08

Rnoa

0.22 0.54 0.02

Roe

0.23 0.48

0.03

Rd

0.24 0.09

0.10

Rnoa

Roe

0.16

0.54

0.08

0.21 0.07 0.21 0.28

0.33

0.38

0.14

0.29 0.20 0.60 0.59

0.35 0.07

0.04 0.01

0.06 0.01 0.05

0.03

0.06 0.04 0.14 0.26 0.15

0.02

0.26

0.06 0.17 0.54 0.55

0.04

0.32

0.06 0.03 0.28 0.26

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.01 0.10 0.09

0.09 0.12 0.02

0.02

0.35 0.16

0.25

0.51

0.32

0.07 0.24

0.75

0.14

0.50

0.38

0.07 0.12 0.66

0.06

0.06 0.10

0.09 0.23 0.03 0.06

Rd

0.17

0.08

0.19

0.11

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.27

0.03

0.03

5. Empirical Results

5.1

MODEL ESTIMATION

year from 1982 to 1998. The dependent variable is the enterprise-value-tosales ratio (EVS). The eight independent variables are as described in the

previous section. Table values represent estimated coefficients, with accompanying p-values presented in parentheses. Reported in the right columns

are adjusted r -squares and the number of observations per year. The last two

rows report the average coefficient for each variable, as well as a Newey-West

autocorrelation adjusted t-statistic on the mean of the time series of annual

estimated coefficients.

The results from this table indicate that a consistently high proportion

of the cross-sectional variation in the EVS ratio is captured by the eight

explanatory variables. The annual adjusted r -squares average 72.2%, and

range from a low of 66.1% to a high of 76.5%. The strongest six explanatory variables (Indevs, Adjpm, Losspm, Adjgro, Rnoa, and R&D) have the same

directional sign in each of 17 annual regressions, and are individually significant at less than 1%. Indpb is positively correlated with EVS in 11 out

of 17 years, and is significant at the 5% level. Controlling for Indpb, book

WHO IS MY PEER?

421

TABLE 3

Annual Estimation Regressions for Warranted Enterprise-Value-to-Sales

This table reports the results from the following annual estimation regression:

EVSi,t = at +

8

j =1

where the dependent variable, EVS, is the enterprise value to sales ratio as of June 30th of each

year. The eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of

EVS based on two-digit SIC codes; Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book

ratio; Adjpm is the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin,

where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspm is Adjpm indicator

variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgro is the

difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the

industry average; Lev is long-term debt scaled by book equity; Rnoa is operating profit as a

percent of net operating assets; and Rd is R&D expense as a percentage of sales. P -values are

provided in parentheses. The last row represents the time-series average coefficients along with

Newey-West autocorrelation corrected t-statistics. The adjusted r -square (r -sq) and number of

firms (# obs) are also reported.

Year Intercept

1982 0.0623

(0.135)

1983 0.0883

(0.121)

1984

0.0192

(0.699)

1985

0.1337

(0.002)

1986

0.0225

(0.706)

1987

0.1899

(0.007)

1988

0.1774

(0.00)

1989 0.0455

(0.347)

1990

0.1083

(0.027)

1991

0.2321

(0.00)

1992

0.2064

(0.00)

1993

0.1811

(0.004)

1994

0.2698

(0.00)

1995

0.3148

(0.00)

1996

0.0713

(0.249)

1997

0.1192

(0.048)

1998 0.0269

(0.683)

All

0.1072

(0.007)

Indevs

Indpb

1.2643

(0.00)

1.3531

(0.00)

1.2778

(0.00)

1.2231

(0.00)

1.3202

(0.00)

1.0908

(0.00)

1.0759

(0.00)

1.1264

(0.00)

1.1263

(0.00)

1.0740

(0.00)

0.8277

(0.00)

1.0169

(0.00)

1.0027

(0.00)

1.0355

(0.00)

1.1690

(0.00)

1.1714

(0.00)

1.0157

(0.00)

1.1277

(0.00)

0.1648

(0.00)

0.0301

(0.342)

0.0015

(0.964)

0.0152

(0.604)

0.0047

(0.856)

0.0324

(0.339)

0.0097

(0.63)

0.0828

(0.00)

0.0322

(0.019)

0.0256

(0.079)

0.1150

(0.00)

0.0579

(0.097)

0.0027

(0.913)

0.0211

(0.512)

0.0430

(0.141)

0.0366

(0.264)

0.1561

(0.00)

0.0360

(0.031)

Adjpm

Losspm

6.3052 2.8510

(0.00)

(0.119)

8.1343 5.3800

(0.00)

(0.00)

6.9266 4.2894

(0.00)

(0.00)

7.9394 4.0951

(0.00)

(0.00)

9.4308 6.2424

(0.00)

(0.00)

9.8090 6.8296

(0.00)

(0.00)

8.6458 6.9959

(0.00)

(0.00)

8.4475 5.3691

(0.00)

(0.00)

9.3485 6.0607

(0.00)

(0.00)

10.4789 6.9779

(0.00)

(0.00)

10.2810 7.9414

(0.00)

(0.00)

11.4266 6.4058

(0.00)

(0.00)

10.6165 7.1717

(0.00)

(0.00)

11.9432 9.2245

(0.00)

(0.00)

11.331110.6464

(0.00)

(0.00)

12.5771 7.5521

(0.00)

(0.00)

13.030910.1430

(0.00)

(0.00)

9.8043 6.7162

(0.00)

(0.00)

Adjgro

Lev

Rnoa

Rd

R-sq

# Obs

0.0117

(0.00)

0.0392

(0.00)

0.0209

(0.00)

0.0177

(0.00)

0.0316

(0.00)

0.0363

(0.00)

0.0267

(0.00)

0.0225

(0.00)

0.0346

(0.00)

0.0316

(0.00)

0.0329

(0.00)

0.0333

(0.00)

0.0312

(0.00)

0.0419

(0.00)

0.0623

(0.00)

0.0452

(0.00)

0.0421

(0.00)

0.0330

(0.00)

0.0665

(0.007)

0.1414

(0.00)

0.0707

(0.012)

0.0238

(0.351)

0.0246

(0.325)

0.0608

(0.035)

0.0228

(0.27)

0.0143

(0.409)

0.0381

(0.065)

0.0430

(0.06)

0.0567

(0.004)

0.0129

(0.515)

0.0219

(0.202)

0.0100

(0.618)

0.0001

(0.996)

0.0201

(0.278)

0.0362

(0.069)

0.0184

(0.235)

0.0091

(0.00)

0.0049

(0.004)

0.0088

(0.00)

0.0089

(0.00)

0.0080

(0.00)

0.0041

(0.014)

0.0054

(0.00)

0.0032

(0.01)

0.0037

(0.005)

0.0053

(0.00)

0.0037

(0.008)

0.0045

(0.00)

0.0060

(0.00)

0.0069

(0.00)

0.0023

(0.121)

0.0032

(0.011)

0.0006

(0.637)

0.0052

(0.00)

0.0194

(0.00)

0.0463

(0.00)

0.0197

(0.00)

0.0153

(0.00)

0.0118

(0.01)

0.0319

(0.00)

0.0281

(0.00)

0.0127

(0.00)

0.0191

(0.00)

0.0134

(0.00)

0.0157

(0.00)

0.0253

(0.00)

0.0254

(0.00)

0.0680

(0.00)

0.0244

(0.00)

0.0313

(0.00)

0.0229

(0.00)

0.0253

(0.00)

74.40

741

70.80

748

73.45

771

74.66

797

71.11

799

66.84

856

75.44

787

74.58

813

73.54

829

76.45

855

71.63

902

71.31

978

73.19 1102

75.37 1190

66.05 1341

71.75 1440

66.65 1498

72.19 16447

422

results show that growth, profitability, and risk factors are incrementally important in explaining EVS ratios, even after controlling for industry means.

Note that the estimated coefficients on several of the key explanatory variables change systematically over time. For example, the estimated coefficient

on the industry adjusted profit margin (Adjpm) and forecasted growth rate

(Adjgro) both trend upwards over time, while the coefficient on the industry

enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (Indevs) shows some decline in recent years.

These patterns imply that, in forecasting future EVS ratios, the estimated coefficients from the most recent year is likely to perform better than a rolling

average of past years. In subsequent analyses, we use the estimated coefficients from the prior years regression to forecast current years warranted

multiple.

Table 4 reports the results of annual cross-sectional regressions for the PB

ratio. The explanatory variables are the same as for the EVS regression in

table 3, except for the replacement of Rnoa with Roe. Table 4 shows that all

the variables except Lev contribute significantly to the explanation of PB.

The coefficient on Indps is reliably negative. Otherwise, the variables are

correlated with PB in the same direction as expected. Overall, the model

is less successful at explaining PB than at explaining EVS. Nevertheless, the

average adjusted r -square is still 51.2%, ranging from a low of 32.8% to a

high of 61.0%.

5.2

Recall that our goal is to identify comparable firms that will help us to

forecast a target firms future price-to-sales multiples. In this section, we examine the efficacy of the warranted multiple approach in achieving this

goal. Specifically, we examine the relation between a firms future EVS

and PB ratios, and a number of ex ante measures based on alternative

definitions of comparable firms. The key variables in this analysis are defined

below.

EVSn and PBn, where n = 0, 1, 2, and 3The current, one-, two-, and

three-year-ahead EVS and PB ratios. These are our dependent variables.

IEVS and IPBThe harmonic mean of the industry EVS and PB ratios, respectively. Industry membership is defined in terms of two-digit SIC

codes.

ISEVS and ISPBThe harmonic mean of the actual EVS and PB ratios for

the four firms from the same industry with the closest market capitalization.

WEVS and WPBThe warranted EVS and PB ratios. These variables are

computed using the estimated coefficients from the prior years regression

(tables 3 and 4), and accounting or market-based variables from the current

year.

COMPActual EVS (or PB) ratio for the closest comparable firms. This

variable is the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB) ratio of the four

closest firms based on their warranted multiple. To construct this variable,

WHO IS MY PEER?

423

TABLE 4

Annual Estimation Regressions for Warranted Price-to-Book

This table reports the results from the following annual estimation regression:

PBi,t = at +

8

j =1

where the dependent variable, PB, is the price-to-book ratio as of June 30th of each year. The

eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of EVS based

on two-digit SIC codes; Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio; Adjpm

is the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, where profit

margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspm is Adjpm Dum, where Dum is 1

if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgro is the difference between the analysts consensus

forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the industry average; Lev is long-term debt

scaled by book equity; Roe is net income before extraordinary items as a percent of book

equity; and Rd is R&D expense as a percentage of sales. The p-values are provided below each

of the coefficients in parentheses. The last row represents the time-series average coefficients

along with Newey-West autocorrelation corrected t- statistics. The adjusted r -square (r -sq) and

number of firms (# obs) are also reported.

Year Intercept

1982 0.2990

(0.00)

1983 0.3434

(0.00)

1984 0.1065

(0.143)

1985 0.3518

(0.00)

1986

0.0998

(0.319)

1987

0.0632

(0.584)

1988

0.0568

(0.566)

1989 0.3306

(0.001)

1990 0.4592

(0.00)

1991

0.0459

(0.613)

1992

0.1797

(0.098)

1993

0.2426

(0.111)

1994 0.0187

(0.881)

1995 0.3095

(0.008)

1996 0.0713

(0.569)

1997

0.1104

(0.402)

1998

0.0247

(0.87)

All

0.0863

(0.169)

Indevs

Indpb

0.6056

(0.00)

0.5129

(0.001)

0.1806

(0.099)

0.2882

(0.009)

0.3548

(0.005)

0.6468

(0.00)

0.5150

(0.00)

0.5790

(0.00)

0.9002

(0.00)

0.9010

(0.00)

0.6645

(0.00)

0.5925

(0.00)

0.4753

(0.00)

0.2491

(0.00)

0.3475

(0.00)

0.3565

(0.00)

0.3666

(0.00)

0.5021

(0.00)

1.1601

(0.00)

1.1696

(0.00)

0.9401

(0.00)

1.0448

(0.00)

0.9866

(0.00)

1.0956

(0.00)

0.8393

(0.00)

1.1269

(0.00)

1.3508

(0.00)

1.0963

(0.00)

1.0051

(0.00)

0.7907

(0.00)

1.0234

(0.00)

0.9481

(0.00)

1.0319

(0.00)

0.8816

(0.00)

1.0553

(0.00)

1.0321

(0.00)

Adjpm

Losspm

2.0331 6.2544

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.289111.9301

(0.00)

(0.00)

2.0887 5.9880

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.0154 8.6571

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.6912 6.4419

(0.00)

(0.00)

6.0189 9.8553

(0.00)

(0.00)

2.0184 9.9218

(0.00)

(0.00)

2.602315.3872

(0.00)

(0.00)

1.928010.8096

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.082010.7620

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.527212.3146

(0.00)

(0.00)

1.628013.7791

(0.005) (0.00)

3.1253 9.8989

(0.00)

(0.00)

4.3329 9.7318

(0.00)

(0.00)

4.073013.0282

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.879013.5652

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.7902 7.1481

(0.00)

(0.00)

3.183710.3220

(0.00)

(0.00)

Adjgro

Lev

Roe

Rd

0.0371

(0.00)

0.1147

(0.00)

0.0527

(0.00)

0.0568

(0.00)

0.0883

(0.00)

0.0881

(0.00)

0.0694

(0.00)

0.0576

(0.00)

0.0815

(0.00)

0.0744

(0.00)

0.0781

(0.00)

0.0939

(0.00)

0.0834

(0.00)

0.0908

(0.00)

0.1221

(0.00)

0.0948

(0.00)

0.0852

(0.00)

0.0805

(0.00)

0.2245

(0.00)

0.1545

(0.01)

0.2302

(0.00)

0.2694

(0.00)

0.3075

(0.00)

0.0583

(0.221)

0.0675

(0.083)

0.0474

(0.176)

0.0663

(0.073)

0.1227

(0.001)

0.0018

(0.969)

0.1131

(0.02)

0.1650

(0.00)

0.0409

(0.284)

0.1303

(0.006)

0.1596

(0.00)

0.2276

(0.00)

0.0349

(0.511)

0.0402

(0.00)

0.0541

(0.00)

0.0397

(0.00)

0.0585

(0.00)

0.0542

(0.00)

0.0459

(0.00)

0.0666

(0.00)

0.0574

(0.00)

0.0644

(0.00)

0.0683

(0.00)

0.0593

(0.00)

0.0828

(0.00)

0.0521

(0.00)

0.0735

(0.00)

0.0649

(0.00)

0.0837

(0.00)

0.0674

(0.00)

0.0608

(0.00)

0.0418

(0.00)

0.0627

(0.00)

0.0314

(0.00)

0.0013

(0.845)

0.0053

(0.528)

0.0323

(0.001)

0.0266

(0.001)

0.0111

(0.122)

0.0144

(0.08)

0.0052

(0.477)

0.0203

(0.007)

0.0468

(0.00)

0.0436

(0.00)

0.0742

(0.00)

0.0147

(0.133)

0.0248

(0.006)

0.0341

(0.00)

0.0282

(0.00)

R-sq # Obs

55.78

832

60.99

852

57.83

319

59.15

956

56.55

954

52.97 1019

54.15

940

52.19

999

53.16 1023

54.88 1041

48.51 1089

46.82 1188

44.96 1349

53.52 1447

42.76 1628

43.00 1723

32.82 1828

51.18 19187

424

we rank all the firms each year on the basis of their WEVS (or WPB), and

compute the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB) for these firms.

ICOMPActual EVS (or PB) ratio for the closest comparable firms within

the industry. This variable is the harmonic mean of the actual EVS (or PB)

ratio of the four firms within the industry with the closest warranted multiple.

Essentially, this is the COMP variable with the firms constrained to come

from the same industry.

In short, we compute five different EVS (or PB) measures for each firm

based on alternative methods of selecting comparable firms. IEVS and

ISEVS (or, IPB and ISPB) correspond to prior studies that control for industry membership and firm size. The other measures incorporate risk,

profitability, and growth characteristics beyond industry and size controls.

We then examine their relative power in forecasting future EVS and PB

ratios.

As an illustration, Appendix C presents selection details for Guidant Corporation (GDT), a manufacturer of medical devices. This appendix illustrates the set of firms in the same two-digit SIC code, which are identified

as peers of Guidant based on data as of April 30, 2001. Panel A reports the

six closest firms based on WEVS, Panel B reports the closest firms based

on WPB. We reviewed this list with a professional analyst who covers this

sector. She agreed with most of the selections but questioned the absence

of St. Jude Medical Devices (STJ), which she regarded as a natural peer.

She agreed with our choices, however, after we discussed the profitability,

growth, and risk characteristics of STJ in comparison to those of the firms

listed.

Table 5 reports the results for a series of forecasting regressions. In

panel A, the dependent variable is EVSn, and in panel B, the dependent

variable is PBn; where n = 0, 1, 2, 3, indicates the number of years into the

future. In each case, we regress the future market multiple on various ex

ante measures based on alternative definitions of comparable firms.14 The

table values represent the estimated coefficient for each variable averaged

across 14 (n = 3) to 17 (n = 0) annual cross-sectional regressions. The bottom row reports the average adjusted r-square of the annual regressions for

each model.

These results show that the harmonic mean of the industry-matched firms

explains 17.5% (three-year-ahead) to 22.9% (current year) of the crosssectional variation in future EVS ratios. Including the mean EVS ratio from

the closest four firms matched on size increases the adjusted r-squares only

marginally, so that collectively IEVS and ISEVS explain 18% to 23% of the

variation in future EVS ratios. These results confirm prior evidence on the

usefulness of industry-based comparable firms. However, they also show that

14 Even for the current year (n = 0), the warranted multiples are based on estimated coefficients from the prior years regression. Therefore, the models that involve warranted multiples

are all forecasting regressions.

TABLE 5

Prediction Regressions

This table provides average estimated coefficients from the following prediction regressions:

EVSi,t+k = at +

n

PBi,t+k = at +

n

j =1

j =1

where k = 0, 1, 2, 3. In Panel A, the dependent variable is the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (EVS). In Panel B, the dependent variable is the price-to-book

ratio (PB). The expanatory variables are: IEVS, the harmonic mean of the industry EVS based on current year (k = 0), but excluding the target firm; ISEVS,

the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on size after controlling for industry; WEVS, the firms warranted EVS, determined

using the coefficients derived from last years estimation regressions and current year accounting and market-based variables; COMP, the harmonic mean of

the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS; and ICOMP, the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS

after controlling for industry. The variables for Panel B are defined analogously, replacing EVS with PB. Table values represent the time-series average of the

coefficients from annual cross-sectional regressions. The bottom row reports the average adjusted r -square of the annual regressions.

20.75

0.46

1.17

7.62

0.23

0.07

0.01

0.01

1.05

0.16 0.17 0.16

0.14

0.12

0.14

0.12

0.83

0.13

0.93

0.80

0.27

21.24 46.14 51.97 53.23

One year ahead PB

0.40

0.15

0.04

1.00

0.38

0.12

0.18

0.14

0.13

0.65

0.29

0.59

8.02

19.91

22.94

0.05

0.12

0.10

0.51

0.40

23.38

0.27

1.18

18.37

0.57

1.16

5.01

0.25

0.10

0.03

0.04

1.06

0.20 0.11 0.11

0.13

0.11

0.13

0.10

0.81

0.12

0.91

0.75

0.30

18.79 40.33 45.48 46.67

Two year ahead PB

0.50

0.28

0.20

0.96

0.35

0.12

0.21

0.17

0.16

0.62

0.30

0.53

5.47

12.52

14.04

0.18

0.11

0.13

0.49

0.39

14.71

0.30

1.19

17.49

0.80

1.06

4.07

0.28

0.12

0.06

0.07

1.04

0.20 0.12 0.10

0.15

0.15

0.17

0.14

0.79

0.09

0.92

0.70

0.33

17.99 36.80 41.48 43.09

Three year ahead PB

0.73

0.54

0.46

0.82

0.27

0.06

0.25

0.21

0.20

0.56

0.29

0.46

4.50

9.81

11.03

0.45

0.06

0.17

0.46

0.33

11.32

425

Panel B: Book-value-to-sales

Current year PB

Inter

0.40

0.35

0.07 0.06 0.07

IPB

1.19

1.04

0.26 0.09 0.07

ISPB

0.16

0.11

0.10

0.07

COMP

0.81

0.35

WPB

0.77

0.71

ICOMP

0.44

r -sq

11.80 12.34 35.21 41.94 43.20

0.24

1.19

WHO IS MY PEER?

Panel A: Enterprise-value-to-sales

Current year EVS

Inter

0.24

0.22

0.06

0.00

0.00

IEVS

1.19

1.02

0.08 0.27 0.26

ISEVS

0.16

0.14

0.16

0.13

COMP

0.89

0.16

WEVS

0.98

0.83

ICOMP

0.33

r -sq

22.94 23.46 54.71 61.68 62.99

426

the valuation accuracy of industry-based EVS ratios leaves much to be desired. In fact, industry-size based comparable firms explain less than 20% of

the variation in two-year-ahead EVS ratios.

The predictive power of the model increases sharply with the inclusion of

variables based on the warranted EVS ratio (WEVS). On average, a model that

includes IEVS, ISEVS, and COMP explains over 40% of the cross-sectional

variation in two-year-ahead EVS ratios. Including WEVS in the model increases the average adjusted r -square on the two-year-ahead regressions to

45.5%. Moreover, even after controlling for WEVS, the actual WEVS ratio

of the closest comparable firms (COMP or ICOMP) is incrementally useful

in predicting future EVS ratios. It appears that comparable firms selected

on the basis of their WEVS adds to the prediction of future EVS ratios even

after controlling for WEVS itself. COMP and ICOMP yield similar results. A

model that includes IEVS, ISEVS, WEVS, and ICOMP explains between 63.0%

(current year) and 43.1% (three-year-ahead) of the variation in future EVS

ratios.15

Panel B reports forecasting regressions for PB. Compared to EVS, a much

smaller proportion of the variation in PB is captured by these models. In

the current year, the combination of IPB and ISPB explains only 12.3% of

the variation in PB. The inclusion of WPB and ICOMP increases the adjusted

r -square to 43.2%. In future years, the explanatory power of all the models

declines sharply. However, over all forecast horizons, models based on warranted multiples explain more than twice the variation in future PB ratios

as compared to the industry-size matched model.

The rapid decay in the explanatory power of the PB model is a possible

concern with these results. Either PB ratios are difficult to forecast, or our

model is missing some key forecasting variables. To shed light on this issue,

we report below the serial correlation in annual EVS and PB ratios. Table values in the chart below are average Pearson correlation coefficients between

the current years ratio, and the same ratio one, two, or three years later.

Average Correlation Coefficient

EVS0

PB0

EVS1

EVS2

EVS3

PB1

PB2

PB3

0.87

0.79

0.73

0.72

0.56

0.44

These results show that with a one-year lag, EVS is serially correlated at 0.87,

suggesting an r -square of around 76%. With a three-year lag, EVS is serially

correlated at 0.73, suggesting an r -square of 53%. Similarly, with a one-year

lag, PB is serially correlated at 0.72, suggesting an r -square of 52%. With

15 We also conducted year-by-year analysis to examine the stability of these results over time.

We find that a model that includes IEVS, ISEVS, WEVS, and ICOMP is extremely consistent in

predicting future EVS ratios. All four variables are incrementally important in predicting future

EVS ratios in each forecasting period.

WHO IS MY PEER?

427

only 19.4%. These results show that PB is in fact inherently more difficult to

forecast than EVS. Even when we know a firms current PB ratio, we can only

explain a relatively small proportion of the variation in future PB ratios.16

Two results from table 5 deserve emphasis. First, this table shows that the

common practice of using industry and/or industry-size based comparable

firms performs relatively poorly in predicting a firms EVS and PB ratios. Only

around 18% (4.5%) of the cross-sectional variation in three-year-ahead EVS

(PB) ratios is captured by this approach. These results re-enforce the finding in LNT, in which the price-to-sales and price-to-book ratios of industrymatched firms generates relatively high valuation errors when compared

to the target firms current market price. Later, we provide a more direct

comparison based on the distribution of valuation errors.

Second, these tables show that firms identified on the basis of a warranted

EVS or warranted PB (i.e., firms matched on the basis of a weighted average of

eight variables including profit margin, growth, and determinants of cost-ofcapital) offer a much better benchmark for comparison. With the inclusion

of the warranted multiple (either WEVS or WPB) and the actual multiples of

comparable firms (either COMP or ICOMP), the adjusted r -square increases

sharply. In fact, 43% (11.3%) of the variation in three-year-ahead EVS (PB)

ratio can be predicted. This result suggests that by systematically matching

firms on the basis of their warranted multiples, we can identify superior

comparable firms.

Prior studies generally computed a distribution of valuation errors for

various prediction measures, expressed as a proportion of the actual priceper-share. To facilitate comparison, table 6 reports these valuation errors for

our firms. Panel A reports the results for EVS, and Panel B reports the results

for PB. In each case, we provide separate results for n = 0 through 3. We also

compare the errors for an industry-size matched model (ISEVS or ISPB)

to a model using warranted multiples (WEVS or WPB) and a model using

industry constrained comparables selected on the basis of their warranted

multiples (ICOMP). We report the Absolute Error (the absolute difference

between actual and implied price, scaled by the actual price), as well as the

Bias (the actual price minus the implied price, scaled by the actual price).17

Panel A shows that the median absolute error for the industry-size

matched firms in the current year is 0.55. This is slightly higher than the

absolute error reported by LNT. However, the difference is not surprising,

16 As expected, the lagged multiple has strong predictive power for the current multiple.

This result suggests that, for public firms, investors should use a firms own lagged multiple

as a predictor of its future multiples. However, this approach cannot be used to value private

firms, nor can it be used to identify control firms for research purposes.

17 In each case, the implied price for the warranted multiples is based on the coefficients

estimated in year n = 1, applied to the accounting and market-related variables obtained in

the future (n = 0, 1, 2, or 3).

428

TABLE 6

Distribution of Valuation Errors

This table presents the distribution of valuation errors for various prediction measures, expressed as a proportion of actual price-per-share. EVSk is the k year ahead enterprise-value-tosales ratio. PBn is the k year ahead price-to-book ratio. The expanatory variables are: ISEVS,

the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on size after controlling for industry, measured as of the current year (k = 0); WEVS, the firms warranted EVS, is

determined using the coefficients derived from last years estimation regressions (k = 1) and

current year accounting and market-based values (k = 0); and ICOMP, the harmonic mean of

the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS after controlling for industry. The

variables for Panel B are defined analogously, replacing EVS with PB. Absolute Error is the

absolute difference between actual and implied price, scaled by actual price. Bias is the actual

price minus the implied price, scaled by the actual price. Table values represent the mean,

median, inter-quartile range (IQRange), 90th-percentile minus 10th-percentile (90%10%),

and 95th-percentile minus 5th-percentile (95%5%).

Absolute Error

Bias

IQ 90% 95%

IQ 90% 95%

Mean Median Range 10%

5% Mean Median Range 10%

5%

Panel A: Enterprise-Value-to-Sales

EVS0 ISEVS

0.86

0.55

0.58

WEVS

0.61

0.35

0.51

ICOMP 0.57

0.36

0.45

1.62

1.24

1.01

2.75

1.91

1.68

0.27

0.22

0.12

0.13

0.04

0.08

1.09

0.75

0.70

2.44

1.68

1.55

3.67

2.53

2.36

EVS1 ISEVS

0.89

WEVS

0.67

ICOMP 0.63

0.56

0.41

0.40

0.72

0.60

0.55

1.69

1.32

1.18

2.73

1.99

1.79

0.22

0.18

0.08

0.12

0.05

0.07

1.11

0.83

0.79

2.57

1.88

1.73

3.91

2.80

2.62

EVS2 ISEVS

0.89

WEVS

0.70

ICOMP 0.66

0.58

0.43

0.43

0.76

0.65

0.60

1.74

1.40

1.27

2.66

2.08

1.85

0.15

0.13

0.02

0.12

0.03

0.08

1.12

0.88

0.84

2.57

1.99

1.83

3.87

2.98

2.76

EVS3 ISEVS

0.91

WEVS

0.71

ICOMP 0.69

0.59

0.45

0.44

0.80

0.66

0.63

1.78

1.42

1.34

2.64

2.13

2.00

0.08

0.09

0.03

0.15

0.03

0.08

1.13

0.91

0.88

2.58

2.03

1.93

3.93

3.02

2.85

Panel B: Price-to-Book

PB0 ISPB

0.55

0.38

WPB

0.48

0.30

ICOMP 0.44

0.29

0.46

0.41

0.38

0.91

0.93

0.74

1.54

1.44

1.19

0.12

0.14

0.08

0.09

0.02

0.08

0.74

0.62

0.56

1.61

1.35

1.25

2.30

1.99

1.84

PB1

ISPB

0.60

WPB

0.54

ICOMP 0.51

0.41

0.36

0.35

0.54

0.50

0.47

1.13

1.06

0.96

1.66

1.56

1.41

0.07

0.10

0.03

0.08

0.02

0.08

0.79

0.72

0.68

1.73

1.55

1.48

2.54

2.27

2.15

PB2

ISPB

0.62

WPB

0.57

ICOMP 0.56

0.43

0.39

0.39

0.58

0.55

0.53

1.19

1.15

1.09

1.73

1.63

1.53

0.00

0.04

0.03

0.11

0.00

0.10

0.82

0.78

0.75

1.80

1.67

1.60

2.62

2.42

2.34

PB3

ISPB

0.65

WPB

0.60

ICOMP 0.59

0.44

0.40

0.40

0.61

0.57

0.57

1.27

1.19

1.16

1.82

1.76

1.66

0.06

0.02

0.09

0.13

0.01

0.11

0.84

0.81

0.79

1.83

1.74

1.68

2.69

2.52

2.43

earnings) to be positive while we do not. In fact, our sample size is approximately twice as large as theirs. More important is the comparison between

ISEVS and the warranted multiple models (WEVS and ICOMP). The median

WHO IS MY PEER?

429

absolute error for the implied price based on WEVS (ICOMP) is sharply

lower at 0.35 (0.36). The advantage of the warranted multiples approach is

sustained in years n = 1, 2, and 3. The bias is also lower for WEVS and ICOMP

across all forecasting horizons. In short, the implied prices computed based

on warranted multiples produce valuation errors with lower means, a tighter

inter-quartile range, and less fat-tailed distributions. The results in panel B

show similar findings for the PB ratio. Collectively these results support the

earlier findings based on adjusted r -squares.

5.3

In this section, we estimate warranted enterprise-value-to-sales and priceto-book ratios for firms in so-called new economy sectors. We define these

as firms within the following two-digit SIC code categories: biotechnology

(28332836 and 87318734), computers (35703577 and 73717379), electronics (36003674) and telecommunication (48104841). This technologydominated sample is characterized by a higher proportion of growth firms

and firms that are not currently earning a profit. We are particularly interested in the robustness of our method in valuing the firms in this subsample.

Table 7 reports the year-by-year EVS estimation results for these technology

firms. This table shows that the same eight explanatory variables explain

a consistently large proportion of the variation in EVS ratios across these

firms. The average adjusted r -square for this population is 70.1%, which is

only marginally lower than the average adjusted r-square of 72.2% for the

overall population. Annually, the explanatory power of the model ranges

from 63.1% to 84.9%, suggesting a good fit every year.

Across the eight variables, the estimated coefficients for the technology

firms are strikingly different from those for the overall population. Three

variablesthe industry PB ratio (Indpb), leverage (Lev), and return on net

operating asset (Rnoa)have much lower estimated coefficients in this

sample. In fact, these variables are not individually significant at the 5%

level. On the other hand, the profit margin variable (Adjpm), the profit margin on loss firms (Losspm), the expected growth variable (Adjgro), and R&D

expenditures (R&D), all play a much more important role for these firms.18

Table 8 reports the PB regression for technology firms. The average adjusted r -square for these firms of 52.6% compares favorably with the adjusted

r -square for the full sample of 51.2% (see table 4). The best year had an

adjusted r -square of 71.2% and the worst year had an adjusted r -square of

35.3%. Lev, Adjgro, Adjpm, Losspm, and Rd all play more important roles in

this sample than in the full sample. Taken together, these results suggest

that the eight explanatory variables are effective in explaining variations in

the PB ratios even among new economy stocks.

18 To be consistent with the overall sample, we report results using industries defined in terms

of two-digit SIC codes. The results using three-digit SIC codes (not reported) are marginally

stronger.

430

TABLE 7

Annual Estimation of Warranted Enterprise-Value-to-Sales for Technology Firms

This table year-by-year estimation regression results for the following regression:

EVSi,t = at +

8

j =1

Only firms in the technology, biotechnology, and telecommunication sectors are included in

the sample. The independent variable, EVS, is the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio as of June 30th

of each year. The eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevs is the industry harmonic mean

of EVS based on two-digit SIC codes; Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book

ratio; Adjpm is the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin,

where profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspm is adjpm indicator

variable, where the indicator variable is 1 if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgro is the

difference between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the

industry average; Lev is long-term debt scaled by book equity; Rnoa is operating profit as a

percent of net operating assets; and Rd is R&D expense as a percentage of sales. P -values are

provided in parentheses. The last rows represents the time series average coefficients along with

Newey- West autocorrelation corrected t-statistics. The adjusted r -square (r -sq) and number of

firms (# obs) are also reported.

Year Intercept

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

All

0.0746

(0.694)

1.8275

(0.00)

0.3207

(0.191)

0.4148

(0.00)

0.6893

(0.00)

0.2585

(0.248)

0.3333

(0.071)

0.4446

(0.077)

0.0290

(0.901)

0.3252

(0.068)

0.2295

(0.116)

0.1469

(0.484)

0.4518

(0.004)

1.3244

(0.00)

0.0339

(0.911)

0.1878

(0.583)

0.4906

(0.103)

0.1496

(0.385)

Indevs

Indpb

2.5147

(0.00)

1.3958

(0.00)

1.3194

(0.00)

0.9490

(0.00)

0.9863

(0.00)

0.6142

(0.15)

0.8095

(0.00)

1.8429

(0.00)

2.5311

(0.00)

1.4312

(0.00)

0.4087

(0.058)

0.8104

(0.003)

0.6072

(0.00)

0.6868

(0.003)

0.5914

(0.007)

0.7185

(0.00)

0.3496

(0.142)

0.7345

(0.054)

0.6604

(0.03)

0.0248

(0.90)

0.2765

(0.002)

0.2137

(0.35)

0.3837

(0.03)

0.1195

(0.039)

0.1766

(0.11)

0.7448

(0.045)

0.0199

(0.845)

0.4255

(0.011)

0.0694

(0.581)

0.0902

(0.261)

0.1303

(0.447)

0.2069

(0.249)

0.3130

(0.056)

0.5722

(0.001)

Adjpm

Losspm

8.6017

(0.00)

13.6505

(0.00)

10.4726 2.1075

(0.00)

(0.36)

8.6284 6.2307

(0.00)

(0.013)

6.8203 6.1216

(0.00)

(0.00)

10.7332 6.9660

(0.00)

(0.002)

9.2366 5.5708

(0.00)

(0.001)

8.8866 8.2629

(0.00)

(0.00)

10.5869 5.3715

(0.00)

(0.006)

12.5785 5.5412

(0.00)

(0.005)

10.1490 6.3325

(0.00)

(0.00)

13.0156 6.3610

(0.00)

(0.019)

12.2570 8.5298

(0.00)

(0.00)

15.4918 8.6079

(0.00)

(0.004)

10.1740 9.6489

(0.00)

(0.00)

12.930010.9113

(0.00)

(0.00)

13.326313.8360

(0.00)

(0.00)

Adjgro

Lev

Rnoa

Rd

0.0365

(0.00)

0.0984

(0.00)

0.0537

(0.00)

0.0419

(0.00)

0.0354

(0.00)

0.0878

(0.00)

0.0752

(0.00)

0.0418

(0.00)

0.0483

(0.00)

0.0402

(0.00)

0.0689

(0.00)

0.0908

(0.00)

0.0340

(0.00)

0.1054

(0.00)

0.1174

(0.00)

0.0870

(0.00)

0.1340

(0.00)

0.1998

(0.11)

0.3145

(0.226)

0.0420

(0.794)

0.1008

(0.088)

0.2603

(0.007)

0.2573

(0.081)

0.0649

(0.508)

0.1172

(0.148)

0.0934

(0.193)

0.1464

(0.207)

0.0977

(0.199)

0.0130

(0.879)

0.0012

(0.99)

0.1448

(0.38)

0.1133

(0.387)

0.1287

(0.053)

0.1851

(0.168)

0.0104

(0.077)

0.0226

(0.006)

0.0259

(0.00)

0.0017

(0.575)

0.0021

(0.698)

0.0024

(0.778)

0.0088

(0.107)

0.0003

(0.951)

0.0107

(0.07)

0.0226

(0.00)

0.0112

(0.113)

0.0007

(0.906)

0.0034

(0.42)

0.0108

(0.114)

0.0140

(0.008)

0.0064

(0.216)

0.0092

(0.182)

0.0379

(0.001)

0.0705

(0.00)

0.0286

(0.27)

0.0494

(0.00)

0.0619

(0.00)

0.0449

(0.004)

0.0435

(0.00)

0.0268

(0.008)

0.0515

(0.00)

0.0179

(0.081)

0.0031

(0.733)

0.0550

(0.00)

0.0249

(0.002)

0.0663

(0.00)

0.0521

(0.00)

0.0355

(0.001)

0.0393

(0.001)

R-sq # Obs

78.70

84

78.13

88

73.74

98

84.92

118

70.17

125

64.98

143

69.48

134

75.64

131

71.38

130

72.15

152

68.15

168

64.55

173

70.39

185

65.21

213

63.07

261

62.83

286

58.85

290

1.0922 0.0105 11.0317 7.3600 0.0704 0.0657 0.0061 0.0417 70.14 2779

(0.00) (0.928) (0.00)

(0.00) (0.00) (0.086) (0.09) (0.00)

WHO IS MY PEER?

431

TABLE 8

Annual Estimation of Warranted Price-to-Book for Technology Firms

This table provides yearwise coefficients from the following regression:

PBi,t = at +

8

j =1

Only firms in the technology, biotechnology, and telecommunication sectors are included in

the sample. The independent variable, PB is the price-to-book ratio as of June 30th of each year.

The eight explanatory variables are as follows: Indevs is the industry harmonic mean of EVS

based on two-digit SIC codes; Indpb is the industry harmonic mean of the price-to-book ratio;

Adjpm is the difference between the firms profit margin and the industry profit margin, where

profit margin is defined as operating profit divided by sales; Losspm is adjpm indicator variable,

where the indicator variable is 1 if profit margin 0 and 0 otherwise; Adjgro is the difference

between the analysts consensus forecast of the firms long-term growth rate and the industry

average; Lev is long-term debt scaled by book equity; Roe is net income before extraordinary

items scaled by common equity; and Rd is R&D expense as a percentage of sales. P -values are

provided in parentheses. The last rows represents the time series average coefficients along with

Newey- West autocorrelation corrected t-statistics. The adjusted r -square (r -sq) and number of

firms (# obs) are also repoted.

Year Intercept

1982 0.3719

(0.521)

1983

1.0815

(0.195)

1984

0.8739

(0.064)

1985 0.6571

(0.05)

1986 0.5377

(0.221)

1987

0.1112

(0.796)

1988

0.3808

(0.388)

1989 0.7627

(0.204)

1990 1.5790

(0.002)

1991 0.3213

(0.365)

1992 0.4658

(0.195)

1993

0.9354

(0.123)

1994

0.2271

(0.74)

1995

0.9133

(0.415)

1996

0.0096

(0.988)

1997 1.1275

(0.115)

1998 0.9291

(0.076)

All

Indevs

Indpb

0.2384

(0.845)

1.4809

(0.051)

0.8572

(0.074)

0.1940

(0.668)

1.0501

(0.165)

0.4919

(0.531)

0.3979

(0.546)

1.0294

(0.312)

0.4220

(0.48)

0.5554

(0.197)

1.3092

(0.008)

0.2871

(0.691)

0.4288

(0.403)

0.6040

(0.198)

0.3468

(0.299)

0.4317

(0.354)

0.8094

(0.037)

0.3554

(0.68)

0.2848

(0.564)

0.0138

(0.972)

0.8856

(0.01)

1.5479

(0.003)

0.8625

(0.077)

0.7731

(0.128)

1.5381

(0.036)

1.6713

(0.00)

0.8374

(0.013)

1.8016

(0.00)

0.7052

(0.172)

1.0209

(0.047)

0.6983

(0.201)

1.0941

(0.00)

1.5256

(0.00)

1.8563

(0.00)

Adjpm

Losspm

2.4541

(0.168)

1.9356

(0.604)

6.4148 0.8036

(0.00)

(0.91)

5.1695 9.7264

(0.00)

(0.016)

4.6753 6.5886

(0.03)

(0.017)

4.502215.3127

(0.077) (0.001)

2.8966 9.1768

(0.14)

(0.001)

6.200525.9330

(0.001) (0.00)

3.737417.0171

(0.048) (0.00)

6.7005 9.1000

(0.00)

(0.005)

6.266810.3212

(0.019) (0.023)

6.089118.4597

(0.011) (0.002)

8.0718 7.2491

(0.00)

(0.018)

8.174017.0127

(0.00)

(0.019)

6.3722 5.7468

(0.002) (0.218)

4.917710.6854

(0.022) (0.001)

6.3907 8.3244

(0.006) (0.019)

Adjgro

Lev

Roe

0.0725

(0.00)

0.1713

(0.00)

0.0915

(0.00)

0.0597

(0.00)

0.0375

(0.039)

0.1294

(0.00)

0.1100

(0.00)

0.0809

(0.00)

0.0894

(0.00)

0.0467

(0.001)

0.1516

(0.00)

0.1503

(0.00)

0.0769

(0.00)

0.1720

(0.00)

0.1487

(0.00)

0.1473

(0.00)

0.2128

(0.00)

0.1017

(0.64)

0.6545

(0.178)

0.1966

(0.36)

0.2904

(0.113)

0.2447

(0.415)

0.4758

(0.01)

0.3173

(0.017)

0.0533

(0.728)

0.1774

(0.354)

0.1309

(0.454)

1.3935

(0.00)

0.1518

(0.583)

0.7869

(0.001)

0.5063

(0.071)

0.6142

(0.039)

0.6558

(0.007)

1.0429

(0.00)

0.0727

(0.00)

0.1242

(0.00)

0.0277

(0.066)

0.0683

(0.00)

0.0362

(0.023)

0.0966

(0.00)

0.0776

(0.00)

0.0681

(0.00)

0.0848

(0.00)

0.0445

(0.00)

0.0355

(0.002)

0.0640

(0.00)

0.0180

(0.033)

0.0735

(0.00)

0.0580

(0.00)

0.1190

(0.00)

0.0676

(0.00)

Rd

R-sq # Obs

0.0936 71.24

(0.00)

0.1876 57.22

(0.00)

0.0265 59.03

(0.177)

0.0375 62.75

(0.012)

0.0439 47.50

(0.039)

0.0280 53.02

(0.277)

0.0269 58.17

(0.0142)

0.0054 60.01

(0.736)

0.0256 60.99

(0.173)

0.0211 54.38

(0.231)

0.0036 52.53

(0.881)

0.0169 42.93

(0.43)

0.0530 42.59

(0.001)

0.0885 44.25

(0.00)

0.0411 35.31

(0.068)

0.0092 44.02

(0.633)

0.0268 47.93

(0.163)

84

87

102

121

124

141

138

138

138

158

169

177

196

220

164

294

301

0.1306 0.4490 1.0278 5.351111.3234 0.1146 0.3980 0.0668 0.0397 52.58 2752

(0.554) (0.001) (0.00) (0.00)

(0.00) (0.00) (0.001) (0.00) (0.009)

432

Panel A shows that using the industry harmonic mean alone (IEVS) results

in 13.4% to 16.4% in adjusted r -squares. Adding size-matched comparable firms improves the results marginally, to between 14.5% and 16.8%.

However, the predictive power of the model does not increase substantially

until we include comparable firms selected on the basis of warranted multiples. Adding the four nearest comparable firms matched on WEVS (COMP)

almost triples the r -square in the current year, and more than doubles the

r-square for all the other years. Adding WEVS increases the adjusted r -square

by a further 5 to 10%. Panel B shows that the adjusted r-squares are again

lower for the PB ratio. However, the incremental contribution of WPB and

either COMP or ICOMP remains sharp. Evidently the warranted multiples

approach is effective in controlling for differences in profitability, growth,

and risk that affect the EVS and PB ratios of new economy stocks. In fact, the

incremental usefulness of this approach seems to be even more pronounced

in the sub-sample of new economy firms than in the full-sample.

6. Summary

Our goal in this paper is to develop a more systematic technique for selecting comparable firms. Our approach selects comparable firms on the basis

of profitability, growth, and risk characteristics that theory suggests should

be cross-sectional drivers of a particular valuation multiple. Specifically, we

use regression analysis and large sample estimation techniques to generate

a warranted multiple for each firm. The comparable firms are those firms

whose warranted multiple is closest to that of the target firm.

We test our approach by examining the efficacy of the selected comparable

firms in predicting future (one- to three-year-ahead) enterprise-value-tosales and price-to-book ratios. Our tests encompass the general universe of

stocks as well as a sub-population of new economy stocks from the tech,

biotech, and telecommunication sectors. Our results show that comparable

firms selected in this manner offer sharp improvements over comparable

firms selected on the basis of other techniques, including industry and size

matches. The improvement is most pronounced among the so-called new

economy stocks.

These findings suggest a number of possible extensions and applications.

The technique we outline here is not limited to the EVS or PB multiple. It

is straightforward to extend the analysis to other multiples such as priceto-cash-flows or price-to-earnings (both forward and historical). Some of

the theoretical work for this type of extension has already been done; others are still being developed.19 Indeed, it might be desirable to combine

the results from several different multiples to come up with a set of firms

that are close peers based on alternative estimation procedures. We believe this composite approach will enhance the precision and objectivity of

19 Ohlson and Nuettner-Nauroth [2000] is a good example, in which the price-to-forwardearnings ratio is explicitly modeled.

TABLE 9

Prediction Regressions for Technology Firms

This table provides average estimated coefficients from the following prediction regressions:

EVSi,t+k = at +

n

PBi,t+k = at +

j =1

n

j =1

where k = 0, 1, 2, 3. Only firms in the technology, biotechnology, and telecommunication sectors are included in the sample. In Panel A, the dependent

variable is the enterprise-value-to-sales ratio (EVS). In Panel B, the dependent variable is the price-to-book ratio (PB). The expanatory variables are: IEVS, the

harmonic mean of the industry EVS based on current year (k = 0), but excluding the target firm; ISEVS, the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest

firms matched on size after controlling for industry; WEVS, the firms warranted EVS, determined using the coefficients derived from last years estimation

regressions and current year accounting and market-based variables; COMP, the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS;

and ICOMP, the harmonic mean of the actual EVS for the four closest firms matched on WEVS after controlling for industry. The variables for Panel B are

defined analogously, replacing EVS with PB. Table values represent the time-series average of the coefficients from annual cross-sectional regressions. The

bottom row reports the average adjusted r -square of the annual regressions.

Panel A: Enterprise-value-to-sales

Current year EVS

0.28 0.02 0.10

0.05 0.03 0.05

0.77 0.07

1.03 0.71

0.33

13.91 14.42 35.65 45.50 46.73

0.80

1.24

6.91

0.65

1.00

0.09

0.73 0.37 0.13

0.92 0.46 0.15

0.31 0.29 0.28

0.51 0.09

0.69

0.26

0.05

0.28

0.51

0.31

8.43 15.41 19.59 21.45

0.48 0.25 0.24

0.06 0.06 0.04

0.73 0.04

0.92 0.58

0.32

13.89 14.31 31.62 39.00 39.72

0.46

1.24

0.61

1.34

7.09

0.47

1.16

0.07

0.57 0.23 0.04

1.02 0.66 0.48

0.29 0.28 0.28

0.41 0.05

0.51

0.23

0.33

0.28

0.31

0.32

7.73 11.40 13.35 13.98

0.42

1.32

0.42

1.27

0.05

16.35

16.82

0.49

1.46

8.65

0.63

0.37

0.36

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.70

0.01

0.84

0.58

0.28

31.21 36.71 37.27

0.35

0.02

0.04

1.00

0.73

0.66

0.46

0.45

0.45

0.35

0.31

0.08

10.24

12.77

14.88

0.12

0.55

0.47

0.05

0.37

14.90

433

Panel B: Book-value-to-sales

Current year PB

Inter

0.90 0.82 0.29 0.17 0.24

IPB

1.19 1.02 0.30 0.09 0.14

ISPB

0.17 0.13 0.09 0.08

COMP

0.80 0.25

WPB

0.87 0.92

ICOMP

0.21

r -sq

8.80 9.65 28.27 36.70 37.93

0.64

1.10

WHO IS MY PEER?

Inter

0.71 0.72 0.28 0.16 0.16

IEVS

1.07 0.99 0.05 0.29 0.32

ISEVS

0.06 0.03 0.00 0.02

COMP

0.97 0.08

WEVS

1.11 0.83

ICOMP

0.39

r -sq

13.39 14.45 45.88 56.38 58.23

434

equity valuation.

Financial analysts and valuation experts often operate under conflicting

incentives.20 If a more objective and conceptually defensible technique for

selecting comparable firms becomes widely accepted, the onus will be on

an analyst to justify the selection of firms that depart significantly from the

norm. Our point is that any normative approach to selecting comparable

firms should reflect the fundamental concepts that underpin equity valuation. We do not regard our model as in any sense optimal. However,

we believe that an industry-based approach with firm-specific adjustments

is a sensible first attempt at empirically capturing these some key concepts

from valuation theory. Future work might consider variables that capture

the quality of earnings or other value relevant attributes not considered in

this study.

These results seem to have further potential for development as a decision

aid for financial analysis and investors. Experimental evidence suggests that

analysts may focus on more salient firms within an industry when selecting

comparables. As in the case of Guidant Inc. (Appendix C), it is likely that

our approach will nominate suitable peer firms that do not come immediately to mind to an analyst. A main advantage of market multiples is their

convenience in common practice, particularly in valuing private firms. It is

therefore important that any tool developed from this research be relatively

easy to use. The technique outlined here is fairly simple to implement.

The procedure would involve estimating warranted EVS and PB ratios (or

warranted price-to-earnings and other ratios) for a population of currently

traded firms. After firms have been ranked by the warranted multiple, the

names of comparable firms for any given target firm can be readily retrieved.

In fact, one can envision a web-based tool that returns a set of warranted

multiples, and a list of comparable firms, for each ticker entered. The idea

is to retain the convenience of the valuation heuristic while improving its

precision and objectivity. A simple version of this tool, updated weekly, is

now available on our web site (http://parkercenter.johnson.cornell.edu).

From an application point of view, the contribution of this methodology

is most evident when pricing non-traded firms, or when identifying a set of

comparable control firms. For publicly traded firms, we find that a company

is its own best peeri.e., a companys own lagged multiple is best at explaining its current multiple. However, it is not possible to secure lagged multiples

for private firms. Nor are lagged multiples useful in identifying control firms

for research purposes. In these latter applications, the warranted multiple

methodology offers some important advantages.

Our approach has at least three implications for academic researchers.

First, we provide a new research design device for isolating a variable of

interest. Barber and Lyon [1997], Lyon et al. [1999], and others suggest that

long-window tests of abnormal returns are more powerful when samples are

20

For a recent discussion of these problems from the popular press, see Morgenson [2000].

WHO IS MY PEER?

435

matched on the basis of firm characteristics, such as size and the book-tomarket ratio. Our study extends this line of research by suggesting a more

precise technique for identifying match firms. By controlling for general

determinants of market valuation, we introduce a research design device

that helps to isolate the pricing effect of other specific variables of interest

to the researcher. This research design should be broadly applicable in

studies that examine specific research issues (e.g., pooling versus purchase

accounting, or quality of earnings considerations).

Second, we introduce a parsimonious valuation methodology, which is

conceptually consistent with a noisy rational expectation equilibrium framework. Most past studies either assume market efficiency (price is the best

benchmark for value), or ignore it (value firms without reference to price).

In a philosophical departure, we treat price as a noisy, but informative, signal for firm valuation. In this framework, the current price is not necessarily

the best proxy for the true (unobserved) intrinsic value. However, it is likely

that price contains information useful for valuation purposes. Our approach

harnesses the information in price without relying on it entirely. This approach is in the spirit of the market-based valuation research advocated by

Lee [2001].

Finally, these results suggest additional tests of market efficiency. To the

extent that stock prices sometimes deviate from intrinsic value, it is possible

that a firms warranted multiple could contain information useful in forecasting future returns. Specifically, one can envision trading strategies based

on the deviation between warranted and actual multiples. Certainly the improved precision with which future EVS and PB ratios can be forecasted is

suggestive of such a strategy. This would appear to be another interesting

venue for further research.

APPENDIX A

Descriptive Statistics on Profit and Loss Firms

This appendix provides descriptive statistics on profit versus loss firms as of 5/29/2000. The

sample of 3,515 firms represent all NYSE/AMEX/Nasdaq stocks (excluding ADRs) with a

market capitalization of $100 million or more and at least 12 months of price and fundamental

data. Loss firms are defined as those with negative income before extraordinary items over

most recent four fiscal quarters.

Panel A: What percentage of these firms have a positive

Num

N.I.?

Gross

EBIT? Op. Inc.? EBITDA? Margin? Sales?

FY1?

Book

Value?

Profit firms

98%

100%

100% 100% 100% 99%

(78%)

Loss firms

776

0%

25%

40%

47%

87%

100% 34%

94%

(22%)

Panel B: Distribution of realized returns over the past six months (10/30/99 to 5/29/00)

Num

Mean Std. Dev. 10th %tile 25th %tile Median 75th %tile 90th %tile

7.8% 42.3%

(78%)

Loss firms

776 19.6% 111.3%

(22%)

30.3%

15.6%

+1.3%

+21.1%

+52.5%

56.6%

34.4%

2.3%

+43.6%

+105.7%

436

APPENDIX B

Variable Descriptions

All accounting and forecasted variables are based on the most recent information available

as of June 30th of each year. Stock prices are as of the end of June. Compustat data item is

reported in parentheses.

Variable

Description

EVSt

PBt

Price to Book

Indevs

Indpb

Industry PB ratio

Adjpm

Losspm

Adjgro

analyst growth forecast

Lev

Leverage

Rnoa

Roe

Return on equity

R&D

expenditures

Calculation

EVS = (Market value of equity +

Long-term debt (D9) + debt in

current liabilities (D34))/Net

Sales (D12). EVSt is the

t-year-ahead EV-to-sales ratio.

PB = Market value of equity/Total

common equity (D60). PBt is the

t-year-ahead price-to-book ratio.

Harmonic mean of the EVS ratio for

firms in the industry (based on

2-digit SIC code).

Harmonic mean of the PB ratio for

firms in the industry (based on

2-digit SIC code).

Firm profit marginmedian

industry profit margin; where

profit margin is operating profit

after depreciation (D178)/Net

Sales (D12).

Adjpm Indicator variable; where

Indicator Variable =1 if firm profit

margin is less or equal to 0, and 0

otherwise.

Consensus analyst forecast of

long-term growth for the firm

from IBESmedian consensus

analyst forecast in the industry.

Total long term debt (D9)/Total

stockholders equity (D216).

(Operating Income after

depreciation (D178)/(Net

property plant and equipment

(D8) + Total current assets

(D4) Total current liabilities

(D5))) 100.

Net Income before extraordinary

items (D18)/Common equity

(D60) 100.

Research and development expenses

(D46)/Net Sales (D12).

APPENDIX C

Guidant Corp.: A Case Study

This appendix illustrates the set of firms in same two-digit SIC code that are closest to Guidant Corp., based on warranted enterprise-value-to-sales

(EVS) and on warranted price-to-book (WPB). The warranted multiples are computed using regression coefficients estimated as of April 30, 2001.

Firms are ranked by WEVS (WPB). Warranted price is the price based on the WEVS/WPB and % mispricing is (Actual Price-Warranted price)/Actual

Price. Ind is the two-digit SIC code for the industry.

WPB

Warranted

Price (EVS)

Warranted

Price (PB)

%

Mispricing

%

Mispricing

SBSE

38

SBS TECHNOLOGIES INC

MDCC

38

MOLECULAR DEVICES CORP

KLAC

38

KLA-TENCOR CORP

GDT

38

GUIDANT CORP

TWAV

38

THERMA WAVE INC

MDT

38

MEDTRONIC INC

SRTI

38

SUNRISE TELECOM INC

3.633

3.638

3.650

3.748

3.823

3.888

4.188

3.90

3.76

4.46

5.20

4.24

5.06

4.48

40.5

25.0

41.9

28.3

29.7

17.4

9.5

33.34

38.29

45.59

19.95

23.54

22.45

9.47

107.50

28.53

17.51

14.23

67.98

61.83

6.87

70.70

96.77

10.28

39.55

32.98

50.88

6.93

CMOS

38

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORP

MDT

38

MEDTRONIC INC

IMA

38

INVERNESS MEDICAL TECHN

GDT

38

GUIDANT CORP

BEC

38

BECKMAN COULTER INC

CYTC

38

CYTYC CORP

CTI

38

CHART INDUSTRIES INC

4.756

3.888

5.007

3.748

2.001

5.251

1.853

5.00

5.06

5.08

5.20

5.24

5.38

5.92

63.5

17.4

25.7

28.3

47.8

6.5

13.7

70.07

22.45

21.15

19.95

30.18

7.00

13.33

178.12

61.83

22.29

14.23

28.90

70.26

320.78

206.65

50.88

35.99

39.55

18.64

68.12

310.31

Ind

Name

WHO IS MY PEER?

WEVS

Ticker

437

438

REFERENCES

ALFORD, ANDREW W. The Effect of the Set of Comparable Firms on the Accuracy

of the Price-Earnings Valuation Method. Journal of Accounting Research 30(1992): 94

108.

BAKER, M., AND R. RUBACK. Estimating Industry Multiples. Working paper, Harvard University,

1999.

BARBER, B., AND J. LYON. Detecting Long-run Abnormal Stock Returns: The Empirical

Power and Specification of Test Statistics. Journal of Financial Economics 43 (1997): 341

72.

BENEISH, D. M.; C. M. C. LEE; AND R. TARPLEY. Contextual Fundamental Analysis through the

Prediction of Extreme Returns. Review of Accounting Studies 6 (2001): 165189.

BOATSMAN, J. R., AND E. F. BASKIN. Asset Valuation with Incomplete Markets. Accounting Review

56 (1981): 3853.

COPELAND, T.; KOLLER; AND J. MURRIN. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies.

Second Edition. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1995.

DAMODARAN, A. Damodaran on Valuation, New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1994.

DEANGELO, L. Equity Valuation and Corporate Control. Accounting Review 65 (1990): 93

112.

FELTHAM, G. A., AND J. A. OHLSON. Valuation and Clean Surplus Accounting for Operating

and Financial Activities. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (1995): 689731.

FRANKEL, R., AND C. M. C. LEE. Accounting Valuation, Market Expectation, and Cross-sectional

Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25 (1998): 283319.

GEBHARDT, W. R.; C. M. C. LEE; AND B. SWAMINATHAN. Toward an Implied Cost of Capital.

Journal of Accounting Research 39 (2001): 135176.

GOLZ, W. C., Jr. Valuation and LBOs. Buyouts & Acquisitions 4 (September/October (1986)):

414.

HAYN, C. The Information Content of Losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (1995):

12553.

KAPLAN, S. N., AND R. S. RUBACK. The Valuation of Cash Flow Forecasts: An Empirical Analysis.

Journal of Finance 50 (1995): 105993.

KELLOGG, D., AND J. M. CHARNES. Real-Options Valuation for a Biotechnology Company.

Financial Analysts Journal 56 (2000): 7687.

KIM, M., AND J. RITTER. Valuing IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics 53 (1999): 409437.

LEE, C. M. C. Accounting-based Valuation: Impact on Business Practice and Research. Accounting Horizons 13 (1999): 41325.

. Market Efficiency and Accounting Research: A Discussion of Capital Market Research in Accounting by S. P. Kothari. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (2001): 233

253.

, J. MYERS, AND B. SWAMINATHAN. What Is the Intrinsic Value of the Dow? Journal of

Finance 54 (1999): 1693741.

LIU, J.; D. NISSIM; AND J. THOMAS. Equity Valuation Using Multiples. Working paper, UCLA

and Columbia University, December, 1999.

LYON, J. D.; B. M. BARBER; AND C. TSAI. Improved Methods for Tests of Long-run Abnormal

Stock Returns. Journal of Finance 54 (1998): 165201.

MCCARTHY, E. Pricing IPOs: Science or Science Fiction? Journal of Accountancy 188 (September

1999): 518.

MORGENSEN, G. How Did So Many Get It So Wrong? New York Times, December 31, 2000.

NISSIM, DORON, AND STEPHEN H. PENMAN. Ratio Analysis and Equity Valuation: From Research

to Practice. Review of Accounting Studies 6 (2001): 109154.

OHLSON, J. A., AND B. E. JUETTNER-NAUROTH. Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinants

of Value. Working paper, New York University, September, 2000.

OU, J. A., AND S. H. PENMAN. Financial Statement Analysis and the Prediction of Stock Returns.

Journal of Accounting and Economics 11 (1989): 295329.

WHO IS MY PEER?

439

SCHWARTZ, E. S., AND M. MOON. Rational Pricing of Internet Companies. Financial Analysts

Journal 56 (2000): 6275.

SIMON, H. A. Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, Volume 3.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.

WOODCOCK, J. Buying or Selling a Business? Dont Be Ripped off! Business Quarterly 57 (Autumn 1992): 416.

ZAROWIN, P. What Determines Earnings-Price Ratios: Revisited. Journal of Accounting, Auditing,

and Finance 5 (1990): 43957.

- data processing and analysis of dataUploaded byankita3031
- 5 QTM Assignment Cycle-6.docUploaded byGustav
- m6l12Uploaded byKhai Huynh
- Syllabus ISC Accounts 2009Uploaded byapi-3842194
- Venture AsessmentUploaded byNitin Wadhwa
- Starting Pages for Technical & Fundamental AnalysisUploaded byjitz80
- Sap Fico Interview QuestionsUploaded byLakshman Swamy
- Anand Dube Report v1Uploaded bylostanand
- SAP FI Interview Questions on FIUploaded bySurya Pratap Shingh Rajput
- EVAUploaded byroue2000
- PR 4-2 Investment Proposal ENGUploaded byumer109
- Week Three CAFMUploaded byAnonymous gtP37gHO
- Market Declines Lead to Reversal of ValuEngine.com Market/Sector OverviewsUploaded byValuEngine.com
- Rodericrdtks Computer Support and RepairUploaded byRoderick Thomason
- Ch 8.Palepu.jw.caUploaded byFlorensia Restian
- Silabus APLKUploaded byZefanya Artha Valencia
- VE_AAPL110119Uploaded byValuEngine.com
- Investment Analysis Example ReportUploaded byOwen
- Strategic Business Mgmt Sample Paper Final VersionUploaded bykarlr9
- SWB47EquityWeekly23.11Uploaded bynaudaslietas
- research methods i finalUploaded byapi-284318339
- ForecastingUploaded byGhagimKhal
- Ch 7 Valuation 1Uploaded bySam Baseet
- Module 3 Fore Cat Ing Tech 1Uploaded byM'mama Sawaneh
- Corp. Ac. - SyllabusUploaded byVishakh Krishnan
- 19032-38484-1-SM (2)Uploaded bySyifah
- TQ - STATUploaded byJM Fernandez
- Business Valuation - Determining Business WorthUploaded byAnthony Sanglay, Jr.
- PEER_stage2_10.1136%2Fbjo.2009.158097Uploaded byGema La Rosa Carbonell
- 2018Uploaded bySumaira Asim

- Urban Edge Development Announces Name Changes and RebrandingUploaded byPR.com
- IFRS Notes.docxUploaded by05550
- EVA @ G&B.docUploaded byKanwar Simar Singh
- Fahlenbrach and Stulz (2011) “Bank CEO incentives and the credit crisis.pdfUploaded byAnonymous WFjMFHQ
- Befa Unit IVUploaded byNaresh Guduru
- RWSEC-05062012Uploaded byRWadiwala Sec
- Accenture Strategy Banking Strategic Cost ReductionUploaded byRahmat M Jayaatmadja
- Trading Plan TemplateUploaded byVishal D Khombare
- June 2018 Nmims Solved Assignment PGDBM 2nd Semester by Sunita| CALL +91-9632359315Uploaded byMbacasestudyhelp
- SIP-Presentation.pdfUploaded bySheikh Aaishan
- Chapter 2 accountingUploaded byBen Soderholm
- MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS FINALUploaded byMahesh Paradkar
- pp10Uploaded byAhmed Bdair
- Morgan Wilshire Securities, Inc.Uploaded byMorganWilshire
- hershey method.docUploaded byDamian Predescu
- Required Rate of ReturnUploaded byGladys Shen Aguja
- M8Uploaded byMickey Koen
- Eurekahedge Interview with IP Asian Opportunities FundUploaded byEurekahedge
- Trading With the FXCM SSI - Automate the Range2 Trading Strategy | DailyFXUploaded byTrading Strategies Magazine; David Greenberg, PhD, MSA, EA, CPA; Tax Group International; 6467052910
- Stat Arb III ThorpUploaded byjimmy.pendry
- Louis Vitton Case Study Assignment2Uploaded byNesrine Youssef
- ben keating resumeUploaded byapi-300102480
- Can Analysts Pick Stocks for the Long-runUploaded byNguyen Trong Toan
- A Transparency Disclosure Index Measuring Disclosures Chinese Listed CompaniesUploaded byAnderson Kilpp
- Empirical Performance of Islamic FundUploaded byInsyirah Wafiyyah
- Private Equity Paper DanielreddyUploaded byDaniel Reddy
- EDHEC Impact Regulations ALM Euro Pension FundsUploaded byRoberto Magnifico
- 1-s2.0-S1044028317302417-mainUploaded bymsa_imeg
- MCB PPT Slids of Finance for VU StudentsUploaded byMudassar Yameen
- Excel Final ReportUploaded byDharmik Moradiya