Through the Economic-Value-Added(EVA)valuation model,the expected market value of equity can be determined by adding the book value of equity with the present value of expected EVAs under the assumption of constant re...Through the Economic-Value-Added(EVA)valuation model,the expected market value of equity can be determined by adding the book value of equity with the present value of expected EVAs under the assumption of constant required return and constant return on equity.The equation of EVA valuation model has taken its shape under the assumption of constant required return and constant return on equity.However,a large body of empirical evidence indicates that required rate of return never remain constant.The EVA-valuation model formulated under constant required return cannot be implemented under the scenario of changing required return.In this study,we explored whether the EVA valuation model could be implemented under changing required return by making any changes in the model and found that it could be implemented under the scenario of changing required return by replacing the book value of the equity of the existing model with the present value of required earnings or normal market earnings.We further examined whether the explanatory ability of the EVA valuation model under the assumption of changing required return is better than that of the valuation model under the assumption of constant required return.Relative information content analyses were conducted by considering sample of the intrinsic value of equities determined by valuation models and the market value of equities of 69 large-cap,88 mid-cap,and 79 small-cap companies.The results showed that the EVA-based valuation model with changing normal market return outperformed the EVA-based valuation model with constant required return.展开更多
Investing on value-added service （VAS） amplifies users＇ participation and platform profit. However, the investing resource is usually limited in practice. This paper investigates VAS investing and pricing strategie...Investing on value-added service （VAS） amplifies users＇ participation and platform profit. However, the investing resource is usually limited in practice. This paper investigates VAS investing and pricing strategies for a two-sided platform under investing resource constraint. We reveal that with VAS investment, Subsidizing can still be done to enlarge users＇ demand, even when the investing cost becomes higher. For optimal pricing strategies, the network effect will be the dominating determinant if the gap between two marginal cross-side benefits （i.e. the benefit that users obtain when each new user join the other side of the platform） is large. Interestingly, we show that with the increase of the marginal investing cost, users might either be priced higher or lower. If the marginal investing cost increases to a high level, and the gap between the two marginal cross-side benefits is large, lowering the access fee for users possessing the higher eross-side network effect does not necessarily compensate more profit loss caused by higher cost. Moreover, after VAS is developed, raising the access fee for those whose marginal investing benefit is large does not necessarily generate more profit as well. The opposite strategy further enlarges users＇ utility, and promotes the investment to benefit more users.展开更多
文摘Through the Economic-Value-Added(EVA)valuation model,the expected market value of equity can be determined by adding the book value of equity with the present value of expected EVAs under the assumption of constant required return and constant return on equity.The equation of EVA valuation model has taken its shape under the assumption of constant required return and constant return on equity.However,a large body of empirical evidence indicates that required rate of return never remain constant.The EVA-valuation model formulated under constant required return cannot be implemented under the scenario of changing required return.In this study,we explored whether the EVA valuation model could be implemented under changing required return by making any changes in the model and found that it could be implemented under the scenario of changing required return by replacing the book value of the equity of the existing model with the present value of required earnings or normal market earnings.We further examined whether the explanatory ability of the EVA valuation model under the assumption of changing required return is better than that of the valuation model under the assumption of constant required return.Relative information content analyses were conducted by considering sample of the intrinsic value of equities determined by valuation models and the market value of equities of 69 large-cap,88 mid-cap,and 79 small-cap companies.The results showed that the EVA-based valuation model with changing normal market return outperformed the EVA-based valuation model with constant required return.
文摘Investing on value-added service （VAS） amplifies users＇ participation and platform profit. However, the investing resource is usually limited in practice. This paper investigates VAS investing and pricing strategies for a two-sided platform under investing resource constraint. We reveal that with VAS investment, Subsidizing can still be done to enlarge users＇ demand, even when the investing cost becomes higher. For optimal pricing strategies, the network effect will be the dominating determinant if the gap between two marginal cross-side benefits （i.e. the benefit that users obtain when each new user join the other side of the platform） is large. Interestingly, we show that with the increase of the marginal investing cost, users might either be priced higher or lower. If the marginal investing cost increases to a high level, and the gap between the two marginal cross-side benefits is large, lowering the access fee for users possessing the higher eross-side network effect does not necessarily compensate more profit loss caused by higher cost. Moreover, after VAS is developed, raising the access fee for those whose marginal investing benefit is large does not necessarily generate more profit as well. The opposite strategy further enlarges users＇ utility, and promotes the investment to benefit more users.
