About: Valuation (finance) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 27362 publications have been published within this topic receiving 667830 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: In this article, the problem of selecting optimal security portfolios by risk-averse investors who have the alternative of investing in risk-free securities with a positive return or borrowing at the same rate of interest and who can sell short if they wish is discussed.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the problem of selecting optimal security portfolios by risk-averse investors who have the alternative of investing in risk-free securities with a positive return or borrowing at the same rate of interest and who can sell short if they wish. It presents alternative and more transparent proofs under these more general market conditions for Tobin's important separation theorem that “ … the proportionate composition of the non-cash assets is independent of their aggregate share of the investment balance … and for risk avertere in purely competitive markets when utility functions are quadratic or rates of return are multivariate normal. The chapter focuses on the set of risk assets held in risk averters' portfolios. It discusses various significant equilibrium properties within the risk asset portfolio. The chapter considers a few implications of the results for the normative aspects of the capital budgeting decisions of a company whose stock is traded in the market. It explores the complications introduced by institutional limits on amounts that either individuals or corporations may borrow at given rates, by rising costs of borrowed funds, and certain other real world complications.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present evidence consistent with theories that small boards of directors are more effective, using Tobin's Q as an approximation of market valuation, and find an inverse association between board size and firm value in a sample of 452 large U.S. industrial corporations.
Abstract: I present evidence consistent with theories that small boards of directors are more effective, Using Tobin’s Q as an approximation of market valuation, I find an inverse association between board size and firm value in a sample of 452 large U.S. industrial corporations between 1984 and 1991. The result is robust to numerous controls for company size, industry membership, inside stock ownership, growth opportunities, and alternative corporate governance structures. Companies with small boards also exhibit more favorable values for financial ratios, and provide stronger CEO performance incentives from compensation and the threat of dismissal.
TL;DR: In this paper, the effect of differences in dividend policy on the current price of shares in an ideal economy characterized by perfect capital markets, rational behavior, and perfect certainty is examined.
Abstract: In the hope that it may help to overcome these obstacles to effective empirical testing, this paper will attempt to fill the existing gap in the theoretical literature on valuation. We shall begin, in Section I , by examining the effects the effects of differences in dividend policy on the current price of shares in an ideal economy characterized by perfect capital markets, rational behavior, and perfect certainty. Still within this convenient analytical framework we shall go on in Section II and III to consider certain closely related issues that appear to have been responsible for considerable misunderstanding of the role of dividend policy. In particular, Section II will focus on the longstanding debate about what investors "really" capitalize when they buy shares; and Section III on the much mooted relations between price, the rate of growth of profits, and the rate of dividends per share. Once these fundamentals have been established, we shall proceed in Section IV to drop the assumption of certainty and to see the extent to which the earlier conclusions about dividend policy must be modified. Finally, in Section V , we shall briefly examine the implications for the dividend policy problem of certain kinds of market imperfections.
01 Mar 1989
TL;DR: Mitchell and Carson as discussed by the authors argue that at this time the contingent valuation (CV) method offers the most promising approach for determining public willingness to pay for many public goods, an approach likely to succeed, if used carefully, where other methods may fail.
Abstract: Economists and others have long believed that by balancing the costs of such public goods as air quality and wilderness areas against their benefits, informed policy choices can be made. But the problem of putting a dollar value on cleaner air or water and other goods not sold in the marketplace has been a major stumbling block. Mitchell and Carson, for reasons presented in this book, argue that at this time the contingent valuation (CV) method offers the most promising approach for determining public willingness to pay for many public goods---an approach likely to succeed, if used carefully, where other methods may fail. The result of ten years of research by the authors aimed at assessing how surveys might best be used to value public goods validly and reliably, this book makes a major contribution to what constitutes best practice in CV surveys. Mitchell and Carson begin by introducing the contingent valuation method, describing how it works and the nature of the benefits it can be used to measure, comparing it to other methods for measuring benefits, and examining the data-gathering technique on which it is based---survey research. Placing contingent valuation in the larger context of welfare theory, the authors examine how the CV method impels a deeper understanding of willingness-to-pay versus willingness-to-accept compensation measures, the possibility of existence values for public goods, the role of uncertainty in benefit valuation, and the question of whether a consumer goods market or a political goods market (referenda) should be emulated. In developing a CV methodology, the authors deal with issues of broader significance to survey research. Their model of respondent error is relevant to current efforts to frame a theory of response behavior and bias typology will interest those considering the cognitive aspects of answering survey questions. Mitchell and Carson conclude that the contingent valuation method can obtain valid valuation information on public goods, but only if the method is applied in a way that addresses the potential sources of error and bias. They end their book by providing guidelines for CV practitioners, a list of questions that should be asked by any decision maker who wishes to use the findings of a CV study, and suggestions for new applications of contingent valuation. Additional features include a comprehensive bibliography of the CV literature and an appendix summarizing more than 100 CV studies.
17 Oct 2011
TL;DR: As a measure of market capacity and not economic well-being, the authors pointed out that the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions.
Abstract: As GDP is a measure of market capacity and not economic well-being, this report has been commissioned to more accurately understand the social progress indicators of any given state. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the most widely used measure of economic activity. There are international standards for its calculation, and much thought has gone into its statistical and conceptual bases. But GDP mainly measures market production, though it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions. One reason why money measures of economic performance and living standards have come to play such an important role in our societies is that the monetary valuation of goods and services makes it easy to add up quantities of a very different nature. When we know the prices of apple juice and DVD players, we can add up their values and make statements about production and consumption in a single figure. But market prices are more than an accounting device. Economic theory tells us that when markets are functioning properly, the ratio of one market price to another is reflective of the relative appreciation of the two products by those who purchase them. Moreover, GDP captures all final goods in the economy, whether they are consumed by households, firms or government. Valuing them with their prices would thus seem to be a good way of capturing, in a single number, how well-off society is at a particular moment. Furthermore, keeping prices unchanged while observing how quantities of goods and services that enter GDP move over time would seem like a reasonable way of making a statement about how society’s living standards are evolving in real terms. As it turns out, things are more complicated. First, prices may not exist for some goods and services (if for instance government provides free health insurance or if households are engaged in child care), raising the question of how these services should be valued. Second, even where there are market prices, they may deviate from society’s underlying valuation. In particular, when the consumption or production of particular products affects society as a whole, the price that individuals pay for those products will differ from their value to society at large. Environmental damage caused by production or consumption activities that is not reflected in market prices is a well-known example.
Trending Questions (10)