Previous empirical studies derive the standard equity valuation models (i.e., DDM, RIM, and DCF model) while assuming that ideal conditions, such as infinite payoffs and clean surplus accounting, exist. Because these conditions are rarely met, we extend the standard models by following the fundamental principle of financial statement articulation. We then empirically test the extended models by employing two sets of forecasts: (1) the analyst forecasts provided by Value Line, and (2) the forecasts generated by cross-sectional regression models. The main result is that our extended models yield considerably smaller valuation errors. Moreover, by constructing these models, we obtain identical value estimates across the extended models. By reestablishing empirical equivalence under nonideal conditions, our approach provides a benchmark that enables us to quantify the errors caused by individual deviations from ideal conditions and thus to analyze the robustness of the standard models. Finally, by providing a level playing field for the different valuation models, our findings have implications for other empirical approaches, for example, estimating the implied cost of capital.