Abstract This paper revisits Ohlson 1995 to make a number of points not generally appreciated in the literature. First, the residual income valuation (RIV) model does not serve as a crucial centerpiece in the analysis. Instead, RIV plays the role of condensing and streamlining the analysis, but without any effect on the substantive empirical conclusions. Second, the concept of “other information” in the model can be given concrete empirical content if one presumes that next‐period expected earnings are observable.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 312 citations exist upstream.