Search results

Several researchers and practitioners, notably Stern Stewart Consulting Company and Associates, have claimed that economic value added (EVA) is superior to traditional accounting measures in driving shareholder value. Other researchers have refuted these claims by supplying data in support of traditional accounting indicators such as earnings per share (EPS), dividends per share (DPS), return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). This study endeavoured to analyse the results of companies listed on the JSE Securities Exchange South Africa, using market value added (MVA) as a proxy for shareholder value. The findings do not support the purported superiority of EVA. The results suggest stronger relationships between MVA and cash flow from operations. The study also found very little correlation between MVA and EPS, or between MVA and DPS, concluding that the credibility of share valuations based on earnings or dividends must be questioned.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the explanatory power of two value‐based performance measurement models, Economic Value Added (EVA^®) and shareholder value added (SVA), compared with three traditional accounting performance measures: earnings per share (EPS), return on investment (ROI), and return on equity (ROE), in explaining stock market returns in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE).

The paper uses the Easton and Harris formal valuation model and employs both a relative and an incremental information content approach to examine which performance measure best explains stock market returns; and the explanatory power of the pairwise combinations of one value‐based performance measurement model and one traditional accounting performance measure in explaining stock market returns. For this purpose, pooled time‐series, cross‐sectional data of listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) over the period 1992‐2001 have been collected and modelled.

Relative information content tests reveal that stock market returns are more closely associated with EPS than with EVA^® or other performance measures. However, incremental information content tests suggest that the pairwise combination of EVA^® with EPS increases significantly the explanatory power in explaining stock market returns.

The results suggest that the market participants in the Greek stock market should pay additional attention to EVA^® but they should also consider other determinants to develop their investment strategies.

The paper is one of the first studies on the value relevance of traditional accounting (EPS, ROI, and ROE) and value‐based (EVA^® and SVA) performance measures in explaining stock market returns in the ASE. The results extend the understanding of the role of EVA^® and SVA in explaining stock market returns in the ASE, and, moreover, whether they may affect investors' decisions in a continental European market with market characteristics similar to that of Greece.

The current search for operational criteria and tests of firm performance is largely focused on the Economic Value Added (EVA) framework. While reasserting the essential soundness of this approach the paper seeks to improve its application by proposing a version of EVA which anchors the opportunity cost of equity capital on market rather than book values. The case for this is argued on general grounds and the resulting model is convenient for examining the possible effects of the gearing factor. The practicability of the model is illustrated by applying the proposed ‘EVA’ formula to a mixed set of accounting and stock market data from a sample of UK companies.

The student's task is to develop a comprehensive strategy for Briggs & Stratton, which is facing severe competition and margin pressures. A major component of the strategy to be considered is whether to implement economic value added (EVA) as a new performance measurement for management. The case is designed to serve as an introduction to how to compute and use EVA. It emphasizes the importance of performance evaluation as part of a larger strategic plan. A teaching note is available to registered faculty, as well as two video supplements to enhance student learning.

“Paying for performance” has been the corporate mantra for ages, but finding the right performance benchmarks continues to be an enigma. Equally significant is the ongoing debate on the superiority of economic value added (EVA) aligned executive incentive plans over traditional financial performance benchmarks to ensure optimal goal congruence between the corporate and the executive performances. Consequently, this paper aims to explore a plausible linkage between executive compensation and EVA for Indian corporates from a social constructivist perspective.

The study uses a mixed method approach where the quantitative analysis of responses from the survey of senior personnel/finance executives of Indian firms is complemented by the qualitative analysis of personal interviews to provide contextual depth to the quantitative data.

Based on the study, the researchers construct an understanding that EVA is a superior concept but has restricted utility primarily owing to its computational complexity and unaudited characteristics. The researchers’ interpretive inference finds mandatory disclosure of an audited EVA figure in the corporate financial statements as a prime requirement for EVA to emerge as an objective and visible performance measure.

Attention of policymakers is sought towards standardising its computation and ensuring its disclosure to bring it at par with the conventional executive financial performance benchmarks.

The narrative on benefits and the challenges of adopting EVA aligned performance management system is provided directly by the top-level executives responsible for designing the “paying for performance” policies.

The purpose of this paper is to test assertions that economic value added (EVA) is more highly associated with stock returns and firm values than accrual earnings, and evaluates which components of EVA, contribute to these associations.

Thirty three non‐EVA users and 75 EVA users were selected at random. Variables used in this study were revenues, profits, assets, stockholders’ equity, market value, earnings per share, total return to investors, and percentage cost reduction over time. Data were collected on several metrics.

The study suggest that the common and widely accepted metrics used by analysts and calculated for EVA users are not necessarily superior to that of non‐EVA users. The evidence support that EVA is somewhat invalid, unreliable, and questionable.

The first limitation deals with the measurement of capital invested in assets. The second limitation was the use of an accounting definition of the return on equity. The operating income was not cleansed of any expenses which are really capital expenses (in the sense that they create future value). The operating income was adjusted if any cosmetic effects were identified. The third limitation is the determination of cost of capital (estimate). Discounted cash flow valuation assumes that cost of capital is calculated using market values of debt and equity.

This study raises serious doubts about the capacity of EVA to deliver superior metrics. EVA users may be placing themselves at unnecessary risks and costs. Study shows that EVA is not a satisfactory descriptor of the real world and, therefore, it should be used with caution by management consultants, practitioners, and investors.

The movement in stock prices reflects something other than EVA.

This study aims to investigate the factors that support or obstruct market value creation through intangible capital.

The paper explores the impact of intangibles and exogenous shocks on corporate attractiveness for investors measured by market value added. Specifically, the relationship between intangible-driven outperformance of companies, measured by economic value added (EVA) and a number of intangible drivers on macro-, meso- and micro-levels is analyzed. It is supposed that the process of value creation is not only confined to companies’ performances. The empirical research was conducted on > 900 public companies from Europe and the USA during the period of 2005-2009.

The study establishes that investment attractiveness is affected by intangibles. It is found that a company’s experience, size and innovative focus facilitate value creation. An unexpected result was revealed concerning countries’ education level, which appears to be an obstructive condition for intangible-driven value creation.

The study reveals the significance of industry belonging for intangible-driven value creation. Nevertheless, it does not discover the particular characteristics of industry that influence corporate attractiveness for investors. These issues could be addressed in future research.

The findings established in this study extend the understanding of the phenomenon of intangible capital and enable the improvement of investment decision-making.

The study emphasizes the holistic framework of market value creation by analyzing a number of strategic crucial factors in line with EVA.

This study aims to examine the long-term effects of adopting economic value added (EVA) as a compensation tool on managers’ behaviour.

The authors extend the sample used in prior studies both in the time and the cross-section dimensions.

The study conclusions are distinct from those offered by existing studies. The authors show that EVA adopters, relative to non-EVA adopters, increase the working capital cycle, use their assets less intensively and decrease their payouts to shareholders via a decrease in dividends and share repurchases. In investing decisions, the authors find a decrease in new investments, but no change in asset dispositions after the adoption of EVA compensation plans.

The study results highlight that the EVA adoption provides more incentives to reduce the total cost for capital rather than increasing operations and maximising shareholder wealth. The results also have implication for corporate management, particularly in the area of management compensation scheme design.

This chapter assembles the key literature on value creation for consideration in relationship to stakeholder theory. The literature review identifies and explains the core topics concerning value creation and related ideas. The purpose is to stimulate research into the theory, practice, and social consequences of value creation in a stakeholder management framework. The construct of “value” lacks theoretical precision and empirical verification. The most fundamental and disputed question addressed is which value approach for the firm best contributes to overall (aggregate) social welfare. The vital issue is whether the managerial stakeholder theory is superior, at long-run value creation for multiple stakeholders including society at large, to the conventional agency theory. Business executives and directors are the ones who choose between agency and stakeholder approaches to management. Their actions influence organizational and social outcomes. Research is limited to a literature review, followed by a discussion of the likely role of value creation theory in future stakeholder research. The chapter first defines value. The basic approach is then to focus on key topics in the relevant literature. The last section addresses the role of value creation theory in future stakeholder research.

This case serves as an introduction to the concept of economic value added (EVA). The student is placed in the position of Valmont's CFO to decide whether EVA can live up to its promise to motivate managers to act like shareholders and ultimately lead them to make value-enhancing decisions that can reverse Valmont's weak earnings and lackluster stock-price performance. The case works best if students are acquainted with the concepts of cost of capital and net present value. The teaching note that is available for registered faculty explains how to incorporate the accompanying six-minute video supplement.