By assuming that a large share of investors follows a fundamental approach to stock picking we build a discounted cash flow (DCF) model (which we assume to be commonly used by fundamentalists) and test on a sample of high-tech stocks whether the strong and the weak version of the model are supported by data. Empirical results show that, even though our "fundamental" price earnings explain a significant share of cross sectional variation of the observed price earnings, the strong version of the discounted cash flow model is rejected for the relevance of additional variables. These are the dividend payout, the number of recommending brokers, the sales to earnings ratio, the institutionals' share and a proxy of firm risk. We argue that all these variables are either signals of firm actual and future capacity of being profitable in a framework of imperfect information and/or proxies for the value of the real option of expansion which represents an important part of value for high-tech stocks. Empirical results of the paper therefore outline a new benchmark for testing market anomalies in which simple rules for building portfolios of value and glamour stocks (size, P/E, book to market), may be replaced by more sophisticated rules based on indicators of the deviation between fundamental and observed firm DCF (plus real option) values
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
De Long, J Bradford & Andrei Shleifer & Lawrence H. Summers & Robert J. Waldmann, 1990.
"Noise Trader Risk in Financial Markets,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 703-38, August.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)