Abstract

 
 

References (16)



 
 

Citations (21)



 


 



On Comparing Cash Flow and Accrual Accounting Models for Use in Equity Valuation


Stephen H. Penman


Columbia University - Department of Accounting

August 2001


Abstract:     
A claim is commonly made that cash and accrual accounting methods for valuing equities must always yield equivalent valuations. A recent paper by Lundholm and O'Keefe (Contemporary Accounting Research, Summer, 2001), for example, claims that, because of this equivalence, there is nothing to be learned from empirical comparison of valuation models. So they dismiss recent research that has shown that accrual accounting residual income models and earnings capitalization models perform, over a range of conditions, better than cash flow or dividend discount models. This paper demonstrates, with examples, that the claim is misquided. Practice inevitably involves forecasting over finite,truncated horizons and the accounting specified in a model - cash versus accrual accounting in particular - is pertinent to valuation with finite horizon forecasting. Indeed, the issue of choosing a valuation model is an issue of specifying pro forma accounting, and so, for finite horizon forecasts, one cannot be indifferent to the accounting.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: Equity valuation; Dividend discounting; Discounted cash flow; Accrual accounting

JEL Classification: G12, M41

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 10, 2001  

Suggested Citation

Penman, Stephen H., On Comparing Cash Flow and Accrual Accounting Models for Use in Equity Valuation (August 2001). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=282421 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.282421

Contact Information

Stephen H. Penman (Contact Author)
Columbia University - Department of Accounting ( email )
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027
United States
212-854-9151 (Phone)
212-316-9219 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 14,856
Downloads: 4,769
Download Rank: 597
References:  16
Citations:  21

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.422 seconds