36 Pages Posted: 19 Apr 2010 Last revised: 25 May 2010
Date Written: March 31, 2010
We respond to questions and comments we have received from numerous colleagues on the approach we developed for evaluating the reliability of accounting-based measures of the expected rate of return (i.e., ERR) on equity capital. First, we clarify the two implicit assumptions underlying the use of accounting-based ERR proxies: (1) firm- and portfolio-level realized returns are not reliable ERR proxies; and, (2) the factors that determine expected returns are unknown and/or they cannot be reliably estimated. Second, we discuss the approach developed by Botosan and Plumlee ; and, we explain that this approach is logically inconsistent with the second implicit assumption. Third, we elaborate on our approach (i.e., Easton and Monahan ) and we explain how it, and the proxies we use, follows logically from: (1) the first implicit assumption; and, (2) the analytical model developed by Vuolteenaho . Finally, we explain the importance of analyzing measurement error variances, and we answer some frequently asked questions about how to conduct and interpret these analyses.
Keywords: Expected rate of return, equity capital, ERR, realized returns, expected returns
JEL Classification: G12, M41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Monahan, Steven J. and Easton, Peter D., Evaluating Accounting-Based Measures of Expected Returns: Easton and Monahan and Botosan and Plumlee Redux (March 31, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1592518 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1592518