||At present, the mainstream evaluation method of securities is to use the estimated evaluation multiplier to evaluate ( EG PB ratio, PE ratio). Past studies using industry criterion averages as corporate assessment multiplier estimates. However, such companies may not have similar characteristics in terms of these drivers and thus should not be traded at the same multiple. This article wants to study the importance of fundamental factors for evaluation. Compared with the traditional industries criterion averages, individual company evaluations are more impacted by fundamental factors.|
This article uses Knudsen, Kold, Plenborg (2017)′s research method SARD (Sum of Absolute Rank Differences) to select ROE, debt ratio, earnings per share growth rate, Capitalization, and gross profit margin for Taiwanese listed stock from 2001 to 2016. Benchmark multiplier using PB. The empirical results show that the original industry peers estimated the PB error mean/median of 0.592/0.401. Using the SARD estimation can effectively reduce the error to 0.338/0.305. If the industry is first selected, the SARD estimation can further reduce the error to 0.267/ 0.234, it is proved that selecting the fundamental factor as the screening criterion can effectively reduce the estimation error.
||1. Baker, M., Ruback, R. S., & Wurgler, J. (2004). Behavioral corporate finance: A survey (No. w10863). National Bureau of Economic Research.|
2. Bhojraj, S., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Who is my peer? A valuation?based approach to the selection of comparable firms. Journal of accounting research, 40(2), 407-439.
3. Bhojraj, S., Lee, C. M., & Oler, D. K. (2003). What′s my line? A comparison of industry classification schemes for capital market research. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 745-774.
4. Hakak, Y., Walker, J. R., Li, C., Wong, W. H., Davis, K. L., Buxbaum, J. D., ... & Fienberg, A. A. (2001). Genome-wide expression analysis reveals dysregulation of myelination-related genes in chronic schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(8), 4746-4751.
5. Dittmann, I., & Weiner, C. (2005). Selecting comparables for the valuation of European firms.
6. Lee, C. M., Ma, P., & Wang, C. C. (2015). Search-based peer firms: Aggregating investor perceptions through internet co-searches. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(2), 410-431.
7. Lie, E., & Lie, H. J. (2002). Multiples used to estimate corporate value. Financial Analysts Journal, 58(2), 44-54.
8. Nel, W. S. (2010). A South African perspective on the multiples of choice in the valuation of ordinary shareholders equity: From theory to practice. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 930-941.
9. Nel, S., Bruwer, W., & le Roux, N. (2014). An emerging market perspective on peer group selection based on valuation fundamentals. Applied Financial Economics, 24(9), 621-637.
10. Plenborg, T., & Pimentel, R. C. (2016). Best practices in applying multiples for valuation purposes. The Journal of Private Equity, 55-64.
11. Pinto, J. E., Robinson, T. R., & Stowe, J. D. (2015). Equity valuation: a survey of professional practice.
12. Shipman, J. E., Swanquist, Q. T., & Whited, R. L. (2016). Propensity score matching in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 92(1), 213-244.
13. Knudsen, J. O., Kold, S., & Plenborg, T. (2017). Stick to the Fundamentals and Discover Your Peers. Financial Analysts Journal, 73(3), 85-105.