Search results

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.

This paper sets out to describe the FASB Statement on Fair Value Measurements (FAS 157).

Explains the Statement's definition of fair value, the three valuation techniques pre‐scribed by the Statement, a fair value hierarchy established by the Statement, a valuation method used when inputs are based on bid and ask prices, and disclosures required by the Statement to enable users to assess the inputs used to develop fair value measurements.

The Statement identifies three valuation techniques: the market approach, the income approach, and the cost approach. The Statement establishes a fair value hierarchy based on whether the inputs are “observable” or “unobservable”.

Explains a new accounting statement that may change some accounting practices of investment companies and broker‐dealers.

This paper investigates the application of the product differentiation and shared efficiency approaches to understand the impact of the auditor industry specialisation (IS) on audit fees in relation to Fair Value Disclosures (FVD).

The study uses 1,470 firm-year observations for the period 2005–2018 and is focused on Jordanian financial firms. Two competing theoretical approaches of IS proxied by audit fee-based measures were employed: firstly, the product differentiation approach measured using Market Share-based (MS) measure and secondly, the shared efficiency approach measured using Portfolio Share-based (PS) measure. The paper employs the Ordinary Least Squares regression to test the association between the proportion of fair-valued assets (using fair value hierarchy inputs) and audit fees.

The results suggest that the association between the proportion of fair-valued assets and audit fees is strengthened (weakened) when the client hires specialist auditors identified by MS (PS). This association varied across the fair value inputs. Level 1 assets were found to be only moderated by both scenarios positively (negatively) for MS (PS) experts. The results are robust after controlling the endogeneity of auditor self-selection.

The results provide valuable insights for policymakers into challenges of auditing FVD. These insights present a valuable input for the development of FVD policies and practices as well as providing guidance for updating auditor prices. Additionally, the results provide a foundation for policymakers and regulators to introduce and update fair value auditing practices. The current findings are generalisable to other countries, including the Middle East and North Africa, and are particularly beneficial for those countries which have adopted the fair value model.

This study contributes to the theory by demonstrating the impact of the auditor industry expertise on post-implementation costs of FVD. The novelty of the study lies in introducing principle-based standards requirements of FVD to test the relationship. This approach is based on the IFRS disclosure requirements using data from the Jordanian financial sector to examine this relationship.

This paper aims to explore whether fair value Levels 1 and 2 measurements are more value relevant than Level 3 fair value measurements in a less-active market. Specifically, this research addresses two objectives. Firstly, it examines the value relevance of fair value measures for each disclosure level of fair value. Secondly, it assesses the impact of corporate governance on the value relevance of less observable fair value disclosures (Levels 2 and 3).

Drawing insights from agency theorising, this research adopts a quantitative approach (regression analysis) that investigates data from a less active financial market (South Africa).

Contrary to agency theory suppositions, the results show that investors in a less active market value management inputs more than market (more transparent) information. The authors also observe that investors pay limited interest to corporate governance structures when pricing fair value measurement, implying that they rely on factors beyond corporate governance mechanisms.

The authors’ findings offer useful evidence to standard setters and preparers of financial information. While the International Accounting Standard Board suggests that investors value transparent financial information, the data shows that investors in less-active markets value management’s inputs more than those of the market.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and depict the advantages and disadvantages connected to the fair value, providing the reader with objective information and thorough insight into the problems and benefits of fair value. Partial objectives of this paper are to define the concept of fair value, to provide information about theoretical background and evolution of fair value and to examine and describe the possible future development of fair value.

Findings in the paper are based on study of existing literature and also on study using the open-ended approach of grounded theory, including 50 interviews and two group discussions with professional accountants dealing with the fair value accounting in practice.

According to the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of fair value in accounting, it is quite obvious and clear that this concept is far from being perfect. It is very difficult to determine whether its contribution to the improvement of accounting is really beneficial. Although the fair-value discussion seems to be far from over now, the current crisis provided an interesting setting to further explore these issues, understand them better and hopefully urge responsible institutions to fix the imperfections within the system to make it work correctly and more effectively.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

This paper highlights that historical cost and fair value accounting must not be considered as competitors, as they serve different purposes. Knowledge of fair value is important, although it is not enough. Users also need to know the cost of the investment. In fact, knowing how much resources have been sacrificed to obtain that fair value, they could effectively evaluate stewardship. As a consequence, the adoption of a dual measurement and reporting system should be considered and discussed at a standard setting level.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study how fair value accounting can be useful in the future.

This study aims to examine the association between fair value accounting and the cost of corporate bonds, proxied by bond yield spread. In addition, this study explores the moderating role of auditor industry expertise at both the national and the city levels.

This study first examines the effect of the use of fair value on yield spread by estimating firm-level regression model, where fair value is the testing variable and yield spread is the dependent variable. To test the differential impact of the three levels of fair value inputs, this paper divides the fair value measures based on the three-level hierarchy, Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3, and replace them as the test variables in the regression model.

This study finds that the application of fair value accounting is generally associated with a higher bond yield spread, primarily driven by Level 3 estimates. The results also show that national-level auditor industry expertise is associated with lower bond yield spreads for Level 1 and Level 3 fair value inputs, whereas the impact of city-level auditor industry expertise on bondholders is mainly on Level 3 fair value inputs.

The paper innovates by exploring the impact of fair value accounting in a setting that extends beyond financial institutions, the traditional area of focus. Moreover, most prior research considers private debt, whereas this study examines public bonds, for which investors are more likely to rely on financial reporting for their information about a firm. Finally, the study differentiates between city- and national-level industry expertise in examining the role of auditors.

This research has several practical implications. First, firms seeking to raise debt capital should consider involving auditors, with either industry expertise or fair value expertise, due to the roles that auditors play in safeguarding the reliability of fair value measures, particularly for Level 3 measurements. Second, from standard-setting and regulatory perspectives, the study’s findings that fair value accounting is associated with higher bond yield spread cast further doubt on the net benefits of applying a full fair value accounting regime. Third, PCAOB may consider enhancing guidance to auditors on Level 2 fair value inputs, to further enhance audit quality. Finally, creditors can be more cautious in interpretating accounting information based on fair value while viewing the employment of auditor experts as a positive signal.

First, the paper extends research on the role of accounting information in public debt contracting. Second, this study adds to the auditing literature about the impact of industry expertise. Finally, and more generally, this study adds to the ongoing controversy on the application of fair value accounting.

This paper aims to examine the information content of changes in fair values of investment property reported under international accounting standards (IAS) 40 and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13 to debtholders. This study further examines the effect of fair value hierarchy inputs, valuer types and the quality of fair value measurement-related disclosure on the information usefulness of changes in fair value.

This paper performs a panel regression on the cost of debt capital and changes in fair value of investment properties, and fair value measurement features using data covering periods 2007–2015 from Australian real estate companies.

The findings suggest that changes in fair value of investment property are informative about the real estate firm’s future cash flow to debtholders. Also, the findings show that the use of unobservable inputs in an active market (Level 3 inputs) and Level 2 has no different impacts on the cost of debts. Also, this paper documents that employing the directors solely in valuation may lead to a higher cost of debts. Furthermore, this paper reports that an extensive fair value disclosure appears no additional value in the debt decision.

Collectively, the findings indicate that although the use of unobservable inputs is common in the real estate sector, information on the changes of the fair value of investment properties are informative to debtholders. The findings have important implications for accounting standard setters to consider revisiting the IAS 40 and IFRS 13 on whether the independent valuation should be required and whether the extensive disclosure requirement is worthwhile.

This study investigates the association between the estimates of fair value and external auditor's fees.

Based on a sample of 32 Jordanian financial companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) over the period 2005–2018. We employ random effect models to test our hypothesis.

We found a positive relationship between audit fees and the proportion of fair value assets, which implies that external auditors are more likely to spend more effort for complex estimates, thereby increasing audit fees. We examined the relationship between audit fees and three levels of fair value inputs and found a positive relationship between the level of effort spent on assessment of higher uncertainty fair value inputs and audit fees. The findings are consistent with the expectation that more audit effort is required in a highly regulated environment due to the possibility of a higher cost of litigation.

The findings of this study could be beneficial for a number of users of financial information, such as investors, regulators, auditors. This group of users might consider the results of this study when they are using a company's financial information, and consequently, better able to make the right decisions.

Although prior studies have researched fair value, no study to date among developing countries has investigated its relationship with audit fees. This study, therefore, provides new empirical evidence that the complexity and risk of fair value estimates significantly influences auditors' motivation to expend additional effort, resulting in higher audit cost.

The paper aims to investigate the value-relevance of changes in fair values of investment property reported under International Accounting Standards (IAS) 40 and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13.

Multivariate regression models are used to regress cumulative market-adjusted stock returns of real estate firms on changes in fair values, along with control variables and corporate governance variables, in order to examine the research question.

Using hand-collected data from the Australian Real Estate Industry (AREI), the authors find that changes in fair values of investment property are value-relevant for equity investors. The authors further find that using unobservable inputs in an active market (Level 3 inputs) does not diminish the information content of fair values. The authors document that properties valued exclusively by directors have a significantly reduced value-relevance, whereas property valuations made collectively by both directors and independent valuers have superior value-relevance, possibly owing to the combination of inside knowledge and externally imposed monitoring. Collectively, the findings suggest that in the real estate industry, where unobservable inputs are commonly used to determine fair values of properties, the fair values determined subjectively are perceived to be sufficiently informative and relevant.

The authors' findings have important implications for accounting standard-setters in considering whether an external valuation should be required and whether the extensive measurement-related fair value disclosure requirements are useful.

The study extends previous archival evidence and complements prior commentaries on experimental and analytical work in the Australian regulatory environment.

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.