Literature Review for the Theory of Business Value measurementABSTRACTBusiness value measurement depends on expectations for the future earnings, there are many ways to assess earnings, and the mainly methods are DCF method, Residual Income valuation theory, Economic Value Added valuation method and Real Options Valuation method. This article bases on the development of domestic and foreign business value theory, and gives a brief summary of the latest research, then compares the different valuation theory at home and abroad.Finally, combining with practical features of Chinese enterprise value assessment concluded that assessments of the latest theories in Chinese enterprises.KEY WORDS : Business Value, Measurement Theory, Literature Review1、IntroductionBusiness value measurement theory rose in the United States in the early 1960th of the 20th century. With the 50 years’ development and application , Western developed countries have been greatly applied in practice. At present, the theory and method of enterprise value evaluation in Western developed countries have been more and more mature，and it has been used to assess in practice. In China, the application of business value measurement theory is later than western countries which is now relatively slowly. Therefore, arranging the present research results and analysis the theory structure have been an important aspects so as to form a tight,coherent theory system. On the guidance of the business valuation practice it can establish new methods of business valuation in China, and it is essential to promote the development of theoretical study.2、Studies AbroadBusiness value measurement have a history of hundreds of years as an industry in Western countries. During those hundreds of years, many scholars in Western countries on business valuation have done a large number of theoretical studies.Shiller (1981) used the discounted cash flow model to describe stock prices fluctuating boundaries, and the research shows that real stock prices change significantly beyond this range. Because these uncertain information is estimated with hypothesis and data processing technology. Its disadvantage is that it required too many intuition for decision makers, but also achieving many possible distribution hypothesis [1]In 1995, Ohlson use the conception of clean surplusin residual income valuation model based on the use of clean-surplus (clean surplus) constructing and perfecting the concept of residual income valuation model [2]. Felthan and Ohlson (1995) further developed this theory, that extraordinary income sources are twofold: first, monopoly rents, second, accounting for sound doctrine. Their most prominent contribution is presented for the evaluation of linear information models (1inear information model) [3]. Evaluation of applying the residual income model, relates to the extraordinary income is not included in the current period in the time series estimates of future earnings, more difficult.1995年，Ohlson在剩余收益定价模型的基础上利用干净盈余(clean surplus)的概念构建并完善了剩余收益估值模型[2]。
Felthan和Ohlson(1995)进一步发展了这一理论，认为非常收益的来源有两个方面：其一，垄断租金；其二，会计的稳健主义。
他们最突出的贡献在于提出了用以价值评估的线性信息模型(1inear information model)[3]。
运用剩余收益模型进行价值评估，涉及到对没有包含在当期非常收益中的未来非常收益的时间序列估计，难度较大。
Jackson(1997)认为，计算EVA能够使现金流量折现模型计算，更能反映企业真实经营状况并且容易评价企业历年的经营业绩[4]。
JohnA．Compbell(2002)应用实物期权分析方法讨论了IS(information System)的投资时机决策问题[5]。
2000年,Copeland等几位专家合著《价值评估:公司价值的衡量与管理(第三版)》中,把价值评估方法分为现金流量法与非现金流量法两大类别。
由于Copeland推崇现金,因而他将现金作为价值评估方法的分类标准。
他主要论述了现金流量法,对于非现金流量法仅点到为止[6]。
2003年,David Fryman和Jakob Tolleryd在合著的《公司价值评估》专著中,将价值评估方法分为四大类:①基于现金流量的估值——股利折现模型、折现现金流量模型与投资的现金流收益;②基于收益的估值——经济增加值(EVA);③基于资产的估值——净资产估值;④期权估值——实物期权法[7]3、Domestic Research我国企业价值评估理论及技术的运用比较晚，而且发展较为缓慢。
在我国的价值评估研究体系中，主要以DCF及其衍生模型为主。
早期提出的现金流与股利贴现模型随着我国市场经济的发展，已很难适应现代快速发展中的企业的价值评估。
为解决未来不确定性因素对现代企业的影响，我国学术界引进了以期权理念为基础的价值评估理论。
更加完善了我国企业价值评估的理论体系。
李姚矿、童昱(2006)回顾了期权定价理论在企业不确定性资产评估中的研究成果，根据科技型中小企业的特点对期权定价模型进行了修正，并以合肥市高新区内的一家科技型中小企业为案例，说明了具体的评估计算过程[8]。
肖留华 (2007)提出的企业价值评估体系是：P=NV+AV+sV，其中NV即净资产价值是目标企业的实际账面价值，在总额上等于所有者权益；△V即资产溢价是指由无形资产带来的企业潜在的价值，△V=NV*d，d是溢价系数，由企业成长性、管理能力、创新能力三个方面来衡量；SV是协同溢价[9]。
白登顺与贺强(2009)对比了EVA估价法与自由现金流量折现法，发现EVA 估价法优于自由现金流量折现法。
与FCFF估价法相比EVA估价法具有双重优势：一方面EVA与企业价值相关联，便于了解企业每年的经营情况，对价值实效计算考核；另一方面EVA克服了自由现金流量波动较大的缺点，不受前后年度资本随意投资额的影响[10]。
黄朔，赵银川(2010)指出由剩余收益模型计算出的企业价值并不能完全代表股票的实际价格。
其原因主要表现在以下四个方面：首先，股票的实际价格往往与其内在的价值不一致，股票的内在价值由上市公司的财务数据分析而来，具有一定的稳定性；而影响股票实际价格的市场因素有很多，二者很难完全一致。
其次，“清洁盈余关系”是EBO模型的—个重要前提假设。