Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 2–3, pp 349–365 | Cite as

Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinantsof Value

  • James A. Ohlson
  • Beate E. Juettner-Nauroth
Article

Abstract

This paper develops a parsimonious model relating a firm’s price per share to, (i), next year expected earnings per share (or 12 months forward eps), (ii), short-term growth (FY-2 versus FY- l) in eps, (iii), long-term (asymptotic) growth in eps, and, (iv), cost-of-equity capital. The model assumes that the present value of dividends per share (dps) determines price, but it does not restrict how the dps-sequence is expected to evolve. All of these aspects of the model contrast sharply with the standard (Gordon/Williams) text-book approach, which equates the growth rates of expected eps and dps and fixes the growth rate and the payout rate. Though the constant growth model arises as a peculiar special case, the analysis in this paper rests on more general principles, including dividend policy irrelevancy. A second key result inverts the valuation formula to show how one expresses cost-of-capital as a function of the forward eps to price ratio and the two measures of growth in expected eps. This expression generalizes the text-book equation in which cost-of-capital equals the dps-yield plus the growth in expected eps.

Keywords

Equity valuation EPS EPS growth Dividend policy 

JEL Classification

M41 G12 G14 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C. 1991Principles of Corporate Finance4McGraw-HillNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Botosan, C. A. (1997). “Disclosure Level and the Cost of Equity Capital.” The Accounting Review 72, S323–S349Google Scholar
  3. Claus, J. and J. Thomas. (1998). “The Equity Risk Premium is Much Lower than you Think it is: Empirical Estimates from a New Approach.” Working paper. Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Damodaran, A 1997Corporate Finance: Theory and PracticeWileyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Easton, P., G. Taylor and P. Shroff. (2000). “Empirical Estimation of the Expected Rate of Return on a Portfolio of Stocks.” Working paper. University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  6. Elton, E. J., Gruber, M. J. 1995Modern Portfolio and Investment Analysis5John WileyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Fama, E. F. and K. R. French. (2000). “The Equity Premium.” CRSP Working Paper No. 522. University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Feltham, G. and J. A. Ohlson. (1995). “Valuation and Clean Surplus Accounting for Operating and Financial Activities.” Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 689–731Google Scholar
  9. Gebhardt, W., C. Lee and B. Swaninathan. (1999). “Towards an Ex ante Cost-of-Capital.” Working paper. Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Ohlson, J. A. (1998). “Comments on an Analysis of Historical and Future-oriented Information in Accounting-based Security Valuation Models.” Contemporary Accounting Research (Summer)Google Scholar
  11. Ohlson, J. A. (2000). “Residual Income Valuation: The Problems.” Working Paper. Stern School of Business. New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhang, X.-J. (2000). “Conservative Accounting and Equity Valuation.” Journal of Accounting and Economics ForthcomingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • James A. Ohlson
    • 1
  • Beate E. Juettner-Nauroth
    • 2
  1. 1.W. P. Carey School of BusinessArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Chair of BankingJohannes Gutenberg-UniversityMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations