Search results

This study examines the long-term link between fair valuation uncertainty and discounts/premia in closed-end funds. This study argues that, in exploring the close-end funds puzzle, prior research generally omits to consider the uncertainty surrounding the measurement of funds' financial disclosure, as reflected in the fair value hierarchy, when investment specialty differs across funds.

Regressions were employed to explore how the fair value hierarchy affects closed-end funds' discounts/premia when investment specialty differs. The authors also examine the effects pre- and post-2012 to explore if that relationship changes due to the additional disclosure requirements enacted at the end of 2011.

The authors find that the three levels of the fair value hierarchy have effects that vary according to a fund's specialty. For equity specialized funds, Level 3 significantly increases discounts and decreases premia, suggesting the impact of valuation uncertainty that underlies Level 3 estimates; this relationship disappears (decreases in severity) for premia (discount) experiencing funds post-2012. In contrast, Level 1 and Level 2 do not have any significant effect on discounts or premia except that post-2012, Level 2 begins to display discount decreasing effects. For bond specialized funds, no significant association was noted between premia and any of the fair value levels except that post-2012, Level 3 begins to display premium increasing effects. However, results are different for discounts. The authors note that Level 1 valuations significantly increase discounts, but only post-2012; Level 2 valuations significantly decrease discounts (pre- and post-2012), consistent with such estimates incorporating unique and relevant information; and Level 3 valuations do not have a significant effect on discounts.

The results of this study revisit prior evidence and indicate that results about the effects of fair value measurement and the closed-end funds' puzzle are sensitive to the period length being considered and the investment specialty of the fund. The authors also note that additional disclosure regarding Level 3 valuation inputs decreases market concern for valuation uncertainty and increases the liquidity benefits of investing in Level 3 carrying funds.

This chapter addresses the general process of determining the value of a particular company, with additional detail on how valuation processes might be adapted to produce credible value conclusions of emerging technology ventures. There are three primary approaches to business valuation. There is the income approach, which indicates that value is a product of expected future cash flows – cash flows that are discounted to equate them to dollars in-hand (present value). There is the market approach, which attempts to draw conclusions of value based on the market prices of similar companies in the public and/or private markets. Finally, there is the asset approach, which indicates that the value of a company is equal to the sum of the values of its net assets. Specific adjustments are appropriate with respect to each of these approaches where the value of an emerging technology company is concerned. Professional valuation standards require that all of these approaches be considered in the valuation, even if the available information does not permit their credible application. Often, multiple approaches and techniques can be applied. The results of applying multiple techniques often do not overlap, and it is the analyst’s very important task to reconcile differing valuation results, or to decide which result or results should be discarded.

Part IV provides readers with the extant requirements for the application of materiality to recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure in the financial statements. This part also includes a detailed critical review of the recent Practice Statement on materiality, the FASB’s proposed ASU on the notes and the amendments to the Conceptual Framework proposed by the IASB and the FASB.

The part expands to issues that are typical of Management Commentary, including the SEC guidance on materiality in Management Discussion and Analysis.

It informs about the complexities and subtle differences between financial statements and bookkeeping and the different standards of reasonableness versus materiality.

A section moves from materiality to material misstatements and covers the application of materiality in auditing.

Another section goes in depth on internal control over financial reporting, showing the linkages between materiality and risk appetite and risk tolerance and the related application guidance.

This study aims to examine whether banks are compliant with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s standard Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2010-06 requiring disaggregated fair value hierarchy information. It also identifies institutional and firm-specific factors that are associated with compliance or non-compliance.

Using quarterly reports of banks for the first quarters of 2009 (pre- ASU 2010-06) and 2010 (post- ASU 2010-06), we hand-collect information on disclosures about fair values from the footnotes. Using a logistic regression with compliance/non-compliance as the dependent variable, we examine factors associated with compliance/non-compliance.

Results show that 23 per cent of banks do not comply with ASU 2010-06 and that the non-compliant banks tend to be small, lack effective internal controls and are more likely to be audited by non-specialist auditors.

This study only considers one type of non-compliance with ASU 2010-06, i.e. whether or not firms provide disaggregated fair value hierarchy information. There may be other forms of non-compliance that the authors do not examine because of the difficulties involved in objectively defining non-compliance.

The findings suggest firms may need to increase training for internal personnel and hire high-quality auditors for ensuring compliance with fair value accounting rules. The authors also suggest that smaller firms may find compliance to be onerous and recommend additional research to examine whether smaller firms should be exempted from some or all of the fair value rules.

This study provides some of the first evidence on the level of compliance with mandated fair value disclosures.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the association between bargain purchase gains (BPGs) booked by the acquirer and smoothing of acquirers’ earning performance across time.

The authors use a sample of 122 bargain purchase acquisitions in non-financial industries from 2009 to 2012 and a pair-match control group of 122 goodwill acquisitions.

The authors find that BPGs, and in particular, the Level-3 fair value estimates of intangible assets acquired, have consistently been used to smooth earnings but that such smoothing activities are not associated with long-term market returns.

This study is the first one to investigate bargain purchase acquisitions in a broad range of non-financial industries and suggests that managers are using the valuation of intangibles to avoid unfavorable earnings even though these valuations are not credible to investors.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relation between managerial ability and fair value inputs (measured as fair value intensity) for nonfinancial firms.

This study uses regression analysis to investigate the impact of managerial ability on the level of fair value inputs.

This study finds significant and positive relations between managerial ability and use of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value inputs. On the other hand, this study finds an insignificant relation between managerial ability and Level 3 inputs.

The findings contribute to two research streams. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is perhaps the first study that directly examines the link between managerial ability and fair value inputs.

Rapidly evolving fintech and decentralized finance environments present an opportunity to reconsider how best to teach financial reporting, internal controls, auditing, taxation, and accounting information systems. Industrial firms have found considerable success in growing the customer value/cost ratio by applying “design thinking” (DT) to product and service innovation. DT may serve a similar, value-enhancing role in curriculum development and accounting pedagogy. The authors demonstrate the application of DT to the accounting curriculum using non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as an illustration. This chapter defines NFTs and DT, proposes a DT-based curriculum development model, and offers specific recommendations for teaching about NFTs in the classroom.