Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the accounting standards reforms that have moved the accounting profession away from rules‐based towards principles‐based accounting practice and financial reporting, and to explore the implications for boards of directors of fair value estimates of the unknowable contaminating financial statements with financial misstatements.

The paper critically reviews the internationally accepted accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards with respect to fair value accounting and relates them to directors' fiduciary duties – the duties of care, of oversight, and of obedience.

The search for relevance in financial accounting raises daunting challenges for boards of directors tasked with fairly presenting the financial condition of a reporting business entity.

The accounting profession has long been epistemologically conservative, judging reliability to be more important than relevance in the compiling of financial statements. With the fair value reforms, relevance has achieved ascendency over reliability. This necessitates an increase in the need for more research in the epistemology and ethics of accounting.

Boards of directors need to be well‐informed about, and fully engaged with, the assessment of the level of risk of material misstatement associated with the fair value accounting estimates, and with the adequacy of the related mandatory explanatory disclosures.

This paper's originality is grounded in its exploration of the epistemology of accounting in the light of the adoption of fair value conventions in the internationally accepted accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and its drawing out of the implications this has for corporate governance.

The International Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board allow fair value measurement of liabilities. Previous findings from the literature on recognition versus disclosure indicate that recognition of fair value information better serves investors' needs, because it is more likely to facilitate the incorporation of the information into their judgment. In cases of credit risk changes for own liabilities, however, many authors doubt that fair value measurement is beneficial due to its potential counter‐intuitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into non‐professional investors' processing of fair value information for liabilities.

A between‐subjects laboratory experiment was employed. Subjects received financial information on three different companies. The authors manipulated the accounting treatment of liabilities between the three groups. Subjects ranked three companies according to their economic performance. The authors then compared these rankings to the companies' actual performance.

The results of the experiment indicate that non‐professional investors are less likely to acquire the information of credit risk changes when liabilities are not measured at fair value. Additionally, evidence was found that fair value measurement is to some extent counter‐intuitive for non‐professional investors.

A main limitation is that our experiment concentrates on liabilities and abstracts from interactions of both sides of the balance sheet.

This is the first study to analyze in detail non‐professional investors' information processing of liabilities measured at fair value.

This paper aims to discuss fair value accounting and its usefulness to financial statement users. The European Commission has recently endorsed IFRS 13 on fair value measurement and is considering the endorsement of IFRS 9, which extends the use of fair value for financial instruments. Furthermore, fair value accounting has been under deep scrutiny because of its alleged role in the financial crisis. Therefore, the usefulness of fair value accounting is a key issue for standard setting purposes.

This paper delineates the theoretical background for fair value accounting, it provides empirical evidence on its usefulness, it highlights some controversial issues and makes some proposals for standard setting discussion.

Empirical research raises some doubts on fair value reliability. Furthermore, fair value accounting alone cannot provide information useful to evaluate stewardship. Historical cost is also needed. A dual measurement and financial reporting system could therefore deliver more complete and useful information to financial statement users.

This paper provides the reader with a comprehensive picture of the main issues related to fair value accounting and contributes to the standard setting debate on the optimal measurement system.

This paper reframes the debate on historical versus fair value accounting by explaining the reason why a dual measurement and reporting model should be implemented.

This paper aims to examine the interaction between fair-value accounting, asset sales and banks’ lending in booms and busts. Throughout, the author uses “fair value” and “mark-to-market” interchangeably, to denote an accounting regime where changes in the prices of banks’ assets affect regulatory capital. “Historic-cost accounting” has been used in the paper to denote an accounting regime where changes in asset prices do not affect regulatory capital.

The author built a model that examines how the accounting regime affects banks’ incentives to sell assets and how the impact of the accounting regime on asset sales affects lending.

In a bust, fair value strengthens banks’ incentives to sell assets. The resulting increase in sales increases banks’ lending capacity. Consequently, lending can be higher under fair value. Conversely, in a boom, historic cost strengthens banks incentives to sell assets. The resulting increase in sales increases banks’ lending capacity. Hence, lending can be higher under historic cost.

This paper identifies a new channel through which the accounting regime could affect lending. The accounting regime can affect banks’ incentives to sell assets. The resulting difference in sales can affect banks’ ability to make new loans. Hence, in a boom, although banks book mark-to-market gains under fair value, asset sales could be higher under historic cost. Lending, thus, could be higher under historic cost. Conversely, in a bust, although banks book mark-to-market losses under fair value, sales could be higher under fair value. Lending, thus, could be higher under fair value.

The purpose of this paper is to provide “Comments” on two previous papers in this journal about fair value in Chinese accounting. It extends those papers by considering developments since 2006.

The paper analyses the contents of Chinese Accounting Standards, dividing the references to fair value into several different categories. This analysis is compared to the findings of the two previous papers. This paper then re-assesses the evidence about the alleged pressures from international institutions on Chinese accounting.

The two previous papers greatly overstate the importance of fair value in Chinese accounting, partly through misinterpreting Chinese standards and partly because of a lack of caveat that the instructions about fair value often relate to special circumstances or unusual companies. The theorising about Chinese enthusiasm for fair value is misguided: the present author suggests that China became keen to adopt international standards despite their use of fair value not because of it, and that China removed much of the fair value when it adapted international standards. The extension of the analysis beyond 2006 provides a fuller coverage but does not alter the conclusions.

The earlier of the two papers examined has been extensively cited. Researchers need to be warned that the technical content and the conclusions of both papers are questionable. Authors should define terms clearly and should provide sufficient reference detail to enable readers to check findings.

Multinational companies, auditors and financial analysts should not be misled into thinking that Chinese accounting makes extensive use of fair value accounting.

This paper critically re-assesses two previous papers, starting with detailed technical data and moving through to the influence of international institutions. This paper also newly extends the analysis of Chinese standards beyond 2006.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of ASU 2016–01 on the predictive value, the confirmatory value and the value relevance of earnings. One of the key provisions of ASU 2016–01 is the requirement that all changes in unrealized gains and losses on all equity securities are recognized in income instead of other comprehensive income (OCI) as under prior guidance (SFAS 115). Because many companies in the insurance industry are large holders of equity securities, the sample for this study consists of firms from the insurance industry.

The author compares the change in earnings volatility and analysts’ forecast error for the periods before and after adoption of ASU 2016–01, and the relationship between the percentages of assets invested in equity securities for both earnings volatility and analysts’ forecast error. Further, the author tests the price reaction at the time of the release of earnings using an event study. The author also tests the value reliance of earnings measured by the correlation of earnings and stock prices, as well as the change in earnings and stock returns. The association between investment gain/loss components of earnings, and OCI, with stock prices and returns is tested for value relevance.

The findings of this study show that earnings volatility and analysts’ forecast errors increased in the period after adopting ASU 2016–01 and an initial overreaction to earnings releases. Further, the investment gain/loss components of earnings and OCI are not value-relevant in this study and including unrealized gains/losses on equity securities in income decreased value relevance of earnings in the post-adoption period, particularly for firms with large equity investment portfolios.

This study is limited to one industry and only represents the impact of ASU 2016–01 on that industry. Thus, there are opportunities to extend the research to other industries. Furthermore, the time-period of study since adopting ASU 2016–01 is limited to only two years and with the passage of time, a greater sample of post-ASU 2016–01 will be available for testing.

Standard setters considering recognizing fair value changes on all investment securities in income should consider the findings of this study. Further, industry participants affected by ASU 2016–01 should consider improving explanation of earnings to mitigate the initial misunderstanding of earning announcements found in this study.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study on the effects of ASU 2016–01 on volatility of earnings, earnings forecast errors, market reactions to earnings releases and the value relevance of earnings. This paper fills a gap in prior research by studying the effects of fair value on reported earnings, which is limited in prior research. This study contributes to the growing field of research on fair value accounting.

This paper seeks to examine the risk relevance of fair value income measures under IAS 39 and IAS 40.

The study sample comprises Jordanian insurance companies. Data were collected from two main sources: Jordanian insurance companies' annual reports, and the official website of the Amman Stock Exchange. The study begins by investigating the volatility of four income measures, calculated by including and excluding holding gains or losses of financial instruments and property investments. Then it examines the association between its four income volatility measures and one stock market‐based risk factor, in order to provide evidence on the risk‐related information content of each income volatility measure.

Income based on fair values reflects income volatility more than historical cost‐based income. It is also found that income is (not) more volatile with the recognition of unrealized fair value gains/losses on financial instruments (investment property). Results of assessing the relative explanatory power of income volatility measures suggest that not all fair value income volatility measures can be a good proxy of the total risk. On the contrary, none of our income volatility measures provides significant incremental risk‐relevant information for total risk.

Most prior studies have focused on the value relevance of fair value accounting in Western developed countries, and mainly in the banking sector. This study makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge via exploring the applications of fair value accounting by insurance companies and investigating the implications of mark‐to‐market on risk, instead of share price, in an emerging country – Jordan. The findings of this study are useful to researchers and capital‐market participants interested in explaining accounting and market risk measures.

The purpose of this paper is to examine potential financial accounting treatments for cryptocurrencies, including the current guidance, and compare the benefits and shortcomings of each method. It proposes the introduction and use of an intangible asset revaluation model. The study aims to inform both standard setters and financial statement preparers of the most appropriate accounting treatment of this digital asset.

This paper uses an exploratory analysis and conceptualizes each technical treatment option. For each potential treatment, this paper describes the technical accounting guidance and financial statement implications. The study also uses an illustration to compare the outcomes of each treatment option.

This paper provides insights into the most appropriate financial accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies. Findings indicate the best option is an intangible asset revaluation model that allows firms to elect a fair value option and record fluctuations in market value to other comprehensive income. This model would improve the accuracy of asset numbers while maintaining the relevance of income amounts by preventing large gains or losses from fair value fluctuations from flowing through the income statement.

The number of firms that hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheet remains small, thus the research is limited to anecdotal and expository analysis.

The study includes implications for accounting standard setters as they continue to deliberate the appropriate financial accounting treatment for cryptocurrencies. The study can inform the standard setting process and impact future authoritative guidance.

The use of cryptocurrency is extremely popular among individual investors and consumers. Updating accounting guidance on crypto can help support a robust crypto market through a useful, informative approach to measurement and reporting. This can also aid in improving the economic prosperity of crypto investors.

This paper fulfills an identified need to examine and understand appropriate accounting guidance for cryptocurrencies. Current guidance has been deemed ineffective and there is debate regarding the proper treatment moving forward. This paper contextualizes this debate and provides suggested solutions.

The issue of how banks should disclose the effects of financial instruments is fraught. The global standard‐setting community put forward their views in what became known as the Joint Working Group’s proposals. These aroused strong feelings in the banking world. This article is the first detailed response from the banking community. It argues for evolution of the rules rather than radical change.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether fair value accounting fits for long-term equity investments, which are considered key to retool economies according to sustainability criteria. In doing so, the paper focuses on the European Union and addresses the European Commission’s (2018a) concern that current accounting rules are unfit for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development goals and the targets of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The paper grounds in a wide literature review on the effects of fair value accounting on investors’ asset allocation strategies. By critically integrating literature on the notion of long-term investment with theories and possible accounting approaches, the paper provides implications for a revision of the current measurement system for long-term equity investments.

The literature review supports the view that fair value accounting has played a role in discouraging equity investments over time, thus leaving economies with poorer risk-sharing and weaker long-term investments. The paper contributes to the debate on alternative measurement systems by suggesting possible solutions in relation to controversies arising from empirical evidence.

Reorienting economies according to sustainability criteria represents an urgent issue which requires prompt and policy-oriented responses. Accordingly, this paper offers insights and guidelines that can help policymakers revise current accounting rules for long-term equity investments in line with sustainable development objectives.