The Quest for the Superior Financial Performance Measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tries to answer whether value based measures are superior to traditional accounting measures in explaining stock returns. A pooling panel data method on 115 Iranian listed companies in the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) from 2001 to 2008 is used to investigate the explanatory power of four value-based measures (including Economic Value Added, Refined Economic Value Added, Market Value Added and Shareholder Value Added) compare to five accounting-based measures (including Earning Per Share, Return On Equity, Return On Assets, Cash Flow from Operations and Return On Sales) in explaining stock returns. Our findings do not provide evidence which support assertions that value-based measures are superior compared with other traditional accounting measures. Relative information content tests revealed that stock returns are more closely associated with ROA and ROE than other performance measures. Furthermore, incremental information content tests suggest that value-based measures add only marginally information content beyond accounting measures. However, the results indicate that accounting measures generally dominate value-based measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it