Search results

The accelerated pace of change in the global economy and capital markets along with the complexity of transactions and financial reporting that involve applying fair value measurements (FVM) is a major third-party user concern. The 2008 financial crisis highlighted risks that investors are exposed to when making FVM-related capital allocations. Accounting estimates often involve subjective assumptions and measurement uncertainty, increasing potential management bias (Choudhary, 2011; Ramanna & Watts, 2012). FVMs are of critical importance to the reliability of the financial statements. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to inform educators of the possible need to evaluate their curriculum as to coverage of FVM topics. The support for this evaluation is based on our attempt to: (1) evaluate the extent of reported FVM-related deficiencies with reference to regulatory bodies’ findings of significant deficiencies in FVM; (2) examine the use of FVM specialists; (3) determine if colleges and universities are keeping pace with FVM demands; (4) list the Uniform CPA Examination Blueprint FVM testing areas; and (5) provide curricular FVM topic recommendations.

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.

Accounting for stock options is a controversial issue. The FASB recognized that the “intrinsic value” method, which had been used for years, failed to adequately account for the costs involved. To rectify the problem they suggested the use of a “fair value” method. Their proposal met with strong objections from companies, which were concerned with the impact of the proposed standard on their reported profits. Consequently, the board relented and allowed the use of either method. Unfortunately, both the intrinsic value and fair value approaches have deficiencies, particularly in regard to how they measure compensation expense and gains and losses over time. This paper addresses these shortcomings by developing two alternative cost measurement approaches that apply an option‐pricing model on an iterative basis over the life of the option. Both approaches represent specific ways to implement exercise‐date measurement techniques for stock options. The paper argues that both approaches provide more relevant and reliable measures of an option’s cost than either intrinsic or fair value methods.

This paper seeks to assess the feasibility and desirability of a major emerging economy adopting and implementing fair value accounting (FVA), as codified in the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), by studying China's recent experience.

The paper examines the extent of FVA adoption in China's new accounting standards (“2007GAAP”), reasons for differences from the International Accounting Standard Board's IFRS, and how 2007GAAP has been implemented in practice. Data are obtained from content analyses of IFRS and 2007GAAP FVA requirements, critical assessments of standard setters' official statements, and analyses of empirical evidence from official reports, media, and academic research.

The authors find a high degree of adoption of IFRS FVA standards in China's 2007GAAP for financial instruments, but many differences for non‐financial long‐term asset investments. Standard setters justify this divergence by fundamental characteristics of the Chinese environment. The resulting differences from IFRS in the 2007GAAP FVA standards, and in their implementation, challenge official claims of “substantial convergence” between 2007GAAP and IFRS. Hence, the benefits desired by Chinese regulators from adopting FVA and international accounting convergence to IFRS may not be realized.

The findings are derived from aggregated data in government reports. These findings can be extended in future research by examining specific implementation outcomes in company financial statements.

The paper contributes a timely critical examination of a major emerging economy's convergence with the controversial FVA requirements, which supports the IFRS's standing as a high quality set of accounting standards. The findings provide new insights into factors that can impede international accounting convergence in emerging economies.

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.

The objective of this research is to explore the challenges being encountered when applying and implementing fair value accounting requirements, focusing specifically on the determination of fair value per International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13: Fair value measurement (IFRS 13) in the South African capital market.

Data are collected from 20 detailed interviews, primarily with preparers and interpretively analysed to identify how individuals internalise the requirements of IFRS 13 and the challenges associated with its application. The researchers focus specifically on South Africa because of its status as a developing economy and, at the same time, its extensive experience in applying IFRS.

South African preparers appear reluctant to change from a conventional cost-based measurement approach to one grounded in fair value. Primary concerns include the perceived usefulness of fair value accounting and its conceptual appropriateness, given its perceived de-emphasis of the traditional stewardship role of financial reporting. Related challenges to the application of IFRS 13 include concerns about the cost of determining fair value; the inherent subjectivity of fair value measures and the practical difficulty of calculating fair values when markets are not efficient or where business environments are complex and dynamic where Level 1 inputs are not widely available for all assets and liabilities. These challenges encourage preparers to choose accounting policies, which minimise the use of fair value or apply the provisions of IFRS 13 legalistically.

Data are collected from a group of respondents from a single developing economy. Additional research on the application of IFRS 13 in other developing markets will be required to conclude on the relevance of economic, cultural and social factors for the understanding and implementation of new accounting standards by practitioners.

Standard setters and regulators cannot assume that new accounting standards will be interpreted and applied as intended. Even when compliance with IFRS is mandatory, preparers have considerable discretion when it comes to operationalising accounting prescriptions. Unless the challenges raised by preparers are addressed, misapplication of IFRS is likely to continue.

The research makes an important empirical and practical contribution by providing primary evidence on the operationalisation of IFRS 13 in a novel setting. It complements earlier research which has focused primarily on the conceptual/theoretical dimension and on American and European perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate if there is an expectation gap among accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Complex reporting standards and current market expectations have the potential to create differences between what third-party users consider to be the responsibilities of the auditor and what auditors believe to be their responsibilities in auditing fair value estimates.

This study surveys the perceptions of accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements and the degree to which an expectation gap exists in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Survey respondents chose from a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

This paper proposes two hypotheses. The results for all nine survey items have provided significant evidence that there is a difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between users of financial statements and accounting practitioners (H1). Additionally, the findings for all survey items present support there is a significant difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between accounting academics and users of financial statements (H2).

A limitation of the current study, as an inherent attribute with survey research, is non-response bias. The only way to evaluate this was to test late responses to earlier results. There were no significant results in these analyses. According to Fink (2003), if there are no significant differences in this indicator the likelihood of non-response bias is extremely low. Hence, this limitation did not have serious implications on the current study.

The implications of this study affect the accounting academic community as they prepare students in response to the evolving market expectations (Pan and Perera, 2012). Previous research has pointed toward the sluggish reaction for change in the accounting curriculum relative to external demands (Harvey, 2004; Pan and Perera, 2012). The results of this study also have resonating effects for accounting practitioners. The marketplace expects accountants to be “knowledge professionals” (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). Regulators continue to ask auditors to find more fraud and understand financial valuation (Pan and Perera, 2012).

Contemporary accounting practice is moving beyond the scope of quantitative recording of historical financial information. Ignoring integral market transformations could result in lower quality audits with corresponding increased litigation against auditors for negligence (Pearson, 2011).

This study is important for several reasons. First, users of financial statements have expressed the necessity for auditors to acquire financial valuation skills (Christensen et al. (2012). Therefore, the evidence obtained from users of financial statements in this research will be critical guidance to reconcile expectations. Second, accounting educators have not provided a significant response to teaching fair value concepts in the university curriculum (Carlino, 2012; Hanson, 2013). This research presents a clarion call to accounting educators to align university curriculum toward market expectations (Christensen et al., 2012). Third, the practitioner community has also been criticized for audit deficiencies in fair value. It is critical to understand if additional training in financial valuation is necessary to improve the fair value judgments of practitioners and meet stakeholder’s expectations. Accordingly, the study provides a contribution to practice. Finally, this paper answers the call by Christensen et al. (2012) for future research on the topic of fair value: to “mirror the categories of recommendations of regulators and standard setters.”

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.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.