托宾Q的误用

Robert P. Bartlett, Frank Partnoy
{"title":"托宾Q的误用","authors":"Robert P. Bartlett, Frank Partnoy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3118020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine the common and growing misuse of Tobin’s q as a proxy for firm value within the law and finance literatures. We trace the history of Tobin’s q, beginning with its original role as a mean-reverting construct that macroeconomists used to model investment policy. We document how the original version of q morphed into the simplified market-to-book ratio version that law and finance scholars regularly use today to examine regulatory policy, corporate governance, and other economic phenomena. Whereas macroeconomists rejected this simplistic version of q because of measurement error problems, law and finance scholars embraced it as a proxy for firm value. \nIn addition, we demonstrate empirically why the simplistic version of q is so problematic. Many of the problems arise because regressions that have as their dependent variable a ratio with book value in the denominator are likely to produce biased estimates, due to both omitted assets and time-varying, firm-specific characteristics that can systematically alter a firm’s book value. As a result, the simplistic version of q produces non-classical measurement error in regression specifications that seek to estimate the relationship between firm value and various corporate and regulatory phenomena. We also confirm, consistent with macroeconomists’ view of the original Tobin’s q, that the market-to-book estimate of q is mean-reverting in terms of stockholder returns. \nFinally, we suggest a new approach. We replicate the details of one leading study that was based on the simplistic version of q and then show how its results differ when we employ several alternative approaches. We propose that scholars should use these alternative approaches, including direct estimates of firm value instead of the simplistic market-to-book ratio, and, when possible, should supplement the popular fixed effects estimator with the first difference estimator. Overall, our message is straightforward: scholars should view with suspicion any assertions about corporate governance and regulation that are based on the use of market-to-book ratios as the dependent variable in regressions.","PeriodicalId":408879,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance & Economics eJournal","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Misuse of Tobin's Q\",\"authors\":\"Robert P. Bartlett, Frank Partnoy\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3118020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine the common and growing misuse of Tobin’s q as a proxy for firm value within the law and finance literatures. We trace the history of Tobin’s q, beginning with its original role as a mean-reverting construct that macroeconomists used to model investment policy. We document how the original version of q morphed into the simplified market-to-book ratio version that law and finance scholars regularly use today to examine regulatory policy, corporate governance, and other economic phenomena. Whereas macroeconomists rejected this simplistic version of q because of measurement error problems, law and finance scholars embraced it as a proxy for firm value. \\nIn addition, we demonstrate empirically why the simplistic version of q is so problematic. Many of the problems arise because regressions that have as their dependent variable a ratio with book value in the denominator are likely to produce biased estimates, due to both omitted assets and time-varying, firm-specific characteristics that can systematically alter a firm’s book value. As a result, the simplistic version of q produces non-classical measurement error in regression specifications that seek to estimate the relationship between firm value and various corporate and regulatory phenomena. We also confirm, consistent with macroeconomists’ view of the original Tobin’s q, that the market-to-book estimate of q is mean-reverting in terms of stockholder returns. \\nFinally, we suggest a new approach. We replicate the details of one leading study that was based on the simplistic version of q and then show how its results differ when we employ several alternative approaches. We propose that scholars should use these alternative approaches, including direct estimates of firm value instead of the simplistic market-to-book ratio, and, when possible, should supplement the popular fixed effects estimator with the first difference estimator. Overall, our message is straightforward: scholars should view with suspicion any assertions about corporate governance and regulation that are based on the use of market-to-book ratios as the dependent variable in regressions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":408879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance & Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance & Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3118020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance & Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3118020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

摘要

我们研究了在法律和金融文献中,托宾q作为公司价值代理的常见和日益增长的滥用。我们追溯了托宾q的历史,从它最初作为一个均值回归结构的角色开始,宏观经济学家用它来为投资政策建模。我们记录了q的原始版本如何演变成简化的市净率版本,法律和金融学者今天经常使用它来检查监管政策、公司治理和其他经济现象。由于测量误差问题,宏观经济学家拒绝使用这种简单化的q,而法律和金融学者则将其视为企业价值的代表。此外,我们从经验上证明了为什么q的简化版本是如此有问题。许多问题的出现是因为以账面价值为分母的因变量比率的回归很可能产生有偏差的估计,因为遗漏的资产和随时间变化的公司特定特征可以系统地改变公司的账面价值。因此,在试图估计企业价值与各种公司和监管现象之间关系的回归规范中,q的简化版本会产生非经典测量误差。我们还确认,与宏观经济学家对原始托宾q的看法一致,就股东回报而言,市场对账面价值的估计q是均值回归的。最后,我们提出了一种新的方法。我们复制了一项基于q的简化版本的领先研究的细节,然后展示了当我们采用几种替代方法时,其结果是如何不同的。我们建议学者们应该使用这些替代方法,包括直接估计公司价值,而不是简单的市净率,并且,在可能的情况下,应该用第一差分估计器补充流行的固定效应估计器。总的来说,我们的信息很直接:学者们应该以怀疑的态度看待任何基于使用市净率作为回归中的因变量的关于公司治理和监管的断言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Misuse of Tobin's Q
We examine the common and growing misuse of Tobin’s q as a proxy for firm value within the law and finance literatures. We trace the history of Tobin’s q, beginning with its original role as a mean-reverting construct that macroeconomists used to model investment policy. We document how the original version of q morphed into the simplified market-to-book ratio version that law and finance scholars regularly use today to examine regulatory policy, corporate governance, and other economic phenomena. Whereas macroeconomists rejected this simplistic version of q because of measurement error problems, law and finance scholars embraced it as a proxy for firm value. In addition, we demonstrate empirically why the simplistic version of q is so problematic. Many of the problems arise because regressions that have as their dependent variable a ratio with book value in the denominator are likely to produce biased estimates, due to both omitted assets and time-varying, firm-specific characteristics that can systematically alter a firm’s book value. As a result, the simplistic version of q produces non-classical measurement error in regression specifications that seek to estimate the relationship between firm value and various corporate and regulatory phenomena. We also confirm, consistent with macroeconomists’ view of the original Tobin’s q, that the market-to-book estimate of q is mean-reverting in terms of stockholder returns. Finally, we suggest a new approach. We replicate the details of one leading study that was based on the simplistic version of q and then show how its results differ when we employ several alternative approaches. We propose that scholars should use these alternative approaches, including direct estimates of firm value instead of the simplistic market-to-book ratio, and, when possible, should supplement the popular fixed effects estimator with the first difference estimator. Overall, our message is straightforward: scholars should view with suspicion any assertions about corporate governance and regulation that are based on the use of market-to-book ratios as the dependent variable in regressions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using Machine Learning to Measure Conservatism Export Guarantees and Firm Performance in the Context of Corporate Governance Innovation in Times of Global Pandemic and the Debate on the Company Purpose Benefits of Having a Female CFO The Competitive Effects of Mergers with Cournot Competition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1