MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122888805 · doi:10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.85

What Determines Residual Income?

2005· article· en· W3122888805 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic rentResidual income valuationEconomicsPassive incomeValuation (finance)Explanatory powerReturn on equityEquity (law)Market valueResidualMarket powerAccountingMonetary economicsFinancial economicsLabour economicsMicroeconomicsMarket economyGross incomeFinanceEquity capital marketsMonopolyProfitability index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the determinants of residual income scaled by book value of equity, i.e., abnormal return on equity (ROE), by analyzing the impact of value-creation (economic rents) and value-recording (conservative accounting) processes on abnormal ROE. I rely on economic theories to characterize economic rents and develop an empirical measure—the conservative accounting factor—to capture the effect of conservative accounting. As expected, industry abnormal ROE increases with industry concentration, industry-level barriers to entry, and industry conservative accounting factors. Also as expected, the difference between firm and industry abnormal ROE increases with market share, firm size, firm-level barriers to entry, and firm conservative accounting factors. Integrating these determinants into the residual income valuation model significantly increases its explanatory power for the variation in the market-to-book ratio.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations138
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Accounting ReviewSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207