The Accuracy of Various Value Drivers of Price Multiple Method in Determining Equity Price
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock price multiple is one of the most well-known equity valuation technique used to forecast equity price. It measures by multiplying “the ratio of stock price to a value driver” by a value driver. The value driver can be earning per share (EPS), sales or other financial measurements. The objective of price multiple technique is to evaluate the value of assets and compare how similar assets are priced in the market. Although stock price multiple technique is common in financial filed, studies on the application of the technique in Thailand is still limited. The present study is conducted to serve three major objectives. The first objective is to apply the technique to measure value of firms in banking sector in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. The second objective is to develop composite price multiple index to forecast equity prices. The third objective is to compare valuation accuracy of different value drivers of price multiple (i.e. EPS, Earnings Growth, Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization, Sales, Book Value and Composite Index) in forecasting equity prices. Results indicated that EPS is the most accurate value drivers of price multiple used to forecast equity price of firms in baking sector.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".