Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 395–435 | Cite as

Linear valuation without OLS: the Theil-Sen estimation approach

  • James A. OhlsonEmail author
  • Seil Kim
Article

Abstract

OLS-based archival accounting research encounters two well-known problems. First, outliers tend to influence results excessively. Second, heteroscedastic error terms raise the specter of inefficient estimation and the need to scale variables. This paper applies a robust estimation approach due to Theil (Nederlandse Akademie Wetenchappen Ser A 53:386–392, 1950) and Sen (J Am Stat Assoc 63(324):1379–1389, 1968) (TS henceforth). The TS method is easily understood, and it circumvents the two problems in an elegant, direct way. Because TS and OLS are roughly equally efficient under OLS-ideal conditions (Wilcox, Fundamentals of modern statistical methods: substantially improving power and accuracy, 2nd edn. Springer, New York 2010), one naturally hypothesizes that TS should be more efficient than OLS under non-ideal conditions. This research compares the relative efficiency of OLS versus TS in cross-sectional valuation settings. There are two dependent variables, market value and subsequent year earnings; basic accounting variables appear on the equations’ right-hand side. Two criteria are used to compare the estimation methods’ performance: (i) the inter-temporal stability of estimated coefficients and (ii) the goodness-of-fit as measured by the fitted values’ ability to explain actual values. TS dominates OLS on both criteria, and often materially so. Differences in inter-temporal stability of estimated coefficients are particularly apparent, partially due to OLS estimates occasionally resulting in “incorrect” signs. Conclusions remain even if winsorization and the scaling of variables modify OLS.

Keywords

Linear valuation Estimation methods Theil-Sen estimator OLS 

JEL Classification

M40 M41 G17 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Sudipta Basu, Ilia Dichev, Stan Markov, Stephen Penman, Kam-Ming Wan, and Rand Wilcox for helpful comments. Kim gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Samsung Scholarship.

References

  1. Basu, S., & Markov, S. (2004). Loss function assumptions in rational expectations tests on financial analysts’ earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 38, 171–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, W., Liu, C.-C., & Ryan, S. G. (2008). Characteristics of securitizations that determine issuers’ retention of the risks of the securitized assets. The Accounting Review, 83(5), 1181–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, J.-H., Kim, J.-B., Liu, X., & Simunic, D. A. (2008). Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: Theory and cross-country evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(1), 55–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dechow, P. M., & Dichev, I. D. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(Supplement), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Sweeney, A. P. (1995). Detecting earnings management. The Accounting Review, 70(2), 193–225.Google Scholar
  6. Easton, P. D., & Harris, T. S. (1991). Earnings as an explanatory variable for returns. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feltham, G. A., & Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Valuation and clean surplus accounting for operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 689–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerakos, J., & Gramacy, R. B. (2013). Regression-based earnings forecasts. Working paper.Google Scholar
  9. Guthrie, K., Sokolowsky, J., & Wan, K.-M. (2012). CEO compensation and board structure revisited. Journal of Finance, 67(3), 1149–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heitmann, G., & Ord, K. (1985). An interpretation of the least squares regression surface. The American Statistician, 39(2), 120–123.Google Scholar
  11. Hirsch, R. M., Slack, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (1982). Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resources Research, 18(1), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hou, K., van Dijk, M. A., & Zhang, Y. (2012). The implied cost of capital: A new approach. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(3), 504–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, J., Liu, J., & Su, W. (2008). On the relation between predictable market returns and predictable analyst forecast errors. Review of Accounting Studies, 13, 266–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 193–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leone, A. J., Minutti-Meza, M., & Wasley, C. (2014). Influential observations and inference in accounting research. Working paper.Google Scholar
  17. Li, K., & Mohanram, P. (2014). Evaluating cross-sectional forecasting models for implied cost of capital. Forthcoming at Review of Accounting Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peng, H., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2008). Consistency and asymptotic distribution of the Theil-Sen estimator. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138(6), 1836–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen, P. K. (1968). Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63(324), 1379–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Theil, H. (1950). A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial regression analysis. Nederlandse Akademie Wetenchappen, Series A, 53, 386–392.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, X., & Yu, Q. (2005). Unbiasedness of the Theil-Sen estimator. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, 17(6), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilcox, R. R. (2004). Some results on extensions and modifications of the Theil-Sen regression estimator. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57(2), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilcox, R. R. (2010). Fundamentals of modern statistical methods: Substantially improving power and accuracy (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilcox, R. R. (2013). A heteroscedastic method for comparing regression lines at specified design points when using a robust regression estimator. Journal of Data Science, 11(2), 281–291.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong
  2. 2.Cheung Kong Graduate School of BusinessBeijingChina
  3. 3.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations