Earnings Less Risk-Free Interest Charge (ERIC) and Stock Returns—A Value-Based Management Perspective on ERIC’s Relative and Incremental Information Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the relative and incremental information content of KPMG’s recently developed metric for shareholder value creation: earnings less risk-free interest charge (ERIC). We assess if ERIC has a better ability to predict stock returns than earnings, cash flow from operations (CFO), earnings before extraordinary items (EBEI), residual income (RI), or economic value added (EVA). We evaluate data from 214 companies listed on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index from 2003 to 2012 (2354 firm-year observations). Similar to previous studies, we confirm that CFO and EBEI have the strongest association with stock returns in the short term, while EVA trails behind all other metrics. In terms of new findings, ERIC is the best predictor of stock returns over a 5-year period, as well as during times of crises (from 2009 to 2010). In this period, ERIC also adds incremental information content beyond that of EBEI. However, the low-short-/mid-term predictive ability of shareholder value metrics (EVA, ERIC) raises concerns regarding their reliable use in future research on shareholder value creation. We consequently propose a research agenda that focuses less on the measurement and more on the management of shareholder value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".