Advertisement

Asset use and the relevance of fair value measurement: evidence from IAS 41

  • Adrienna Huffman
Article
  • 262 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigates whether asset use influences the relevance of fair value measurement. Specifically, I examine whether fair value is more relevant when it is applied to in-exchange assets than when it is applied to in-use assets. I test the framework on a sample of international firms that adopt International Accounting Standard 41. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I find that earnings information is significantly more relevant when firms measure in-exchange biological assets at fair value, but book value and earnings information is significantly less relevant when firms measure in-use biological assets at fair value. Consistent with these results, in cross-sectional analyses I find that investors discount the fair value of in-use biological assets and their associated unrealized gains and losses relative to the fair value of in-exchange biological assets. At present, the Conceptual Framework provides little guidance on asset measurement, resulting in inconsistencies across measurement standards. Thus, my findings may provide insight to standard setters and those interested in conceptually based asset measurement.

Keywords

Asset measurement Fair value Asset use IAS 41 biological assets Conceptual Framework 

JEL classification

M41 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the editor (Richard Sloan) and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This study is based on my dissertation at the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business. I am particularly grateful to Steve Stubben for all of his help and guidance on this project. In addition, I thank my dissertation committee: Christine Botosan (chair), Melissa Lewis-Western, Marlene Plumlee, Jim Schallheim, and Haimanti Bhattacharya. I also thank Gus DeFranco, Lynn Hannan, and workshop participants from the BYU Research Symposium, the University of Utah, the FDIC, Tulane University, LSU, and the 2015 FARS Conference. This study was a finalist for the Best Paper Award at the 2015 Financial Accounting Reporting Section Mid-Year Conference.

References

  1. Aboody, D., Barth, M., & Kasnik, R. (1999). Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance: evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26(1–3), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, A., & Takeda, C. (1995). Stock market valuation of gains and losses on commercial banks investment securities: an empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(2), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altamuro, J., & Zhang, H. (2013). The financial reporting of fair value based on managerial inputs versus market inputs: Evidence from mortgage servicing rights. Review of Accounting Studies, 18(3), 833–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, R., Kothari, S., & Robin, A. (2000). The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth, M. (1994a). Fair value accounting: Evidence from investment securities and the market valuation of banks. The Accounting Review, 69(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  6. Barth, M. (1994b). Fair value accounting for banks investment securities: What do bank shares prices tell us? Bank Accounting and Finance, 7, 13–23.Google Scholar
  7. Barth, M. (2014). Measurement in financial reporting: The need for concepts. Accounting Horizons, 28(2), 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barth, M., & Clinch, G. (1998). Revalued financial, tangible, and intangible Assets: Associations with share prices and non-market-based value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(Supplement), 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barth, M., & Landsman, W. (1995). Fundamental issues related to using fair value accounting for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons, 9(4), 97–107.Google Scholar
  10. Barth, M., Beaver, W., & Landsman, W. (2001). The relevance of value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: Another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barth, M., Landsman, W., Lang, M., & Williams, C. (2012). Are IFRS-based and US GAAP-based accounting amounts comparable? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(1), 68–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beaver, W., & Landsman, W. (1983). Incremental information content of Statement No. 33 disclosures. FASB: Norwalk, CT.Google Scholar
  13. Beaver, W., & Ryan, S. (1985). How well do statement no. 33 earnings explain stock returns? Financial Analysts Journal, 41(5), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bernard, V., & Ruland, R. (1987). The incremental information content of historical cost and current cost income numbers: Time series analyses for 1962–1980. The Accounting Review, 62(4), 707–722.Google Scholar
  15. Bernard, V., Merton, R., & Palepu, K. (1995). Mark-to-market accounting for U.S. banks and thrifts: Lessons from the Danish experience. Journal of Accounting and Research, 33(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Botosan, C., & Huffman, A. (2015). Decision-useful asset measurement from a business valuation perspective. Accounting Horizons, 29(4), 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, P., Preiato, J., & Tarca, A. (2014). Measuring country differences in enforcement of accounting standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 41(1–2), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cairns, D., Massoudi, D., Taplin, R., & Tarca, A. (2011). IFRS fair value measurement and accounting policy choice in the United Kingdom and Australia. The British Accounting Review, 43(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, H., & Nikolaev, V. (2013). Does fair value accouting for nonfinancial assets pass the market test? Review of Accounting Studies, 18(3), 734–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen, H., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2–3), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Daly, A., & Skaife, H. (2016). Accounting for biological assets under IFRS and the cost of debt. Journal of International Accounting Research, 15(2), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deloitte. (2014). Bearer plants: Amendments to IAS 41, to bear or not to bear. Deloitte & Touche.Google Scholar
  23. Dietrich, J., Harris, M., & Muller, K. (2000). The reliability of investment property fair value estimates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30(2), 125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Easton, P. D., Eddey, P. H., & Harris, T. S. (1993). An investigation of revaluations of tangible long-lived assets. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(Supplement), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eccher, A., Ramesh, K., & Thiagarajan, S. (1996). Fair value disclosures of bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22(1–3), 79–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elad, C., & Herbohn, K. (2011). Implementing fair value accounting in the agricultural sector. Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.Google Scholar
  27. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2010). Statement of financial accounting standards no. 144: Accounting for the impairment of disposal of long-lived Asset Financial Accounting Series. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
  28. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2011). Fair value Measurement Accounting standards codification 820. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
  29. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2012). Discussion paper: Disclosure Framework Financial Accounting Series. Norwalk, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
  30. Heckman, J. (1979). The sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 41(1), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopwood, W., & Schaefer, T. (1989). Firm-specific responsiveness to input price changes and the incremental information content in current cost income. The Accounting Review, 64(2), 312–338.Google Scholar
  32. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. (2010). Business models in accounting: The theory of the firm and financial reporting. Working Paper, Information for Better Markets Initiative.Google Scholar
  33. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2006). International Accounting Standard 41: Agriculture. London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  34. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2009). International Accounting Standard 41: Agriculture. London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  35. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2010). Conceptual framework for financial reporting 2010. London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  36. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2012a). AOSSG issues paper on IAS 41: Agriculture. London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  37. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2012b). IAS 41 Agriculture - Bearer biological assets. London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  38. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2014). Agriculture: Bearer plants (Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41). London, UK: IASB.Google Scholar
  39. Kolev, K. (2009). Do investors perceive marking-to-model as marking-to-myth? Early evidence from FAS 157. Working paper, Yale University. Google Scholar
  40. KPMG. (2012). IFRS Compared to U.S.GAAP. London, UK: KPMG International Financial Reporting Group.Google Scholar
  41. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52, 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155.Google Scholar
  43. Landsman, W. (2007). Is fair value accounting information relevant and reliable? Evidence from capital markets research. Accounting and Business Research, 37(Supplement), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawrence, A., Sirikival, J., & Sloan, R. (2016). Who's the fairest of them all? Evidence from closed end funds. The Accounting Review, 91(1), 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lennox, C., Francis, J., & Wang, Z. (2012). Selection models in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 87(2), 589–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leuz, C., Nanda, D., & Wysocki, P. (2003). Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics, 69, 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Linsmeier, T. J. (2016). Revised model for presentation in statement(s) of financial performance: Potential implications for measurement in the Conceptual Framework. Accounting Horizons, 20(4), 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Littleton, A. (1935). Value or Cost. The Accounting Review, 10(3), 269–273.Google Scholar
  49. Lobo, G., & Song, I. (1989). The incremental information in SFAS No. 33 income disclosures over historical cost income and its cash and accrual components. The Accounting Review, 64(2), 329–343.Google Scholar
  50. Marshall, R., & Lennard, A. (2016). The reporting of income and expense and the choice of measurement bases. Accounting Horizons, 30(4), 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. May, G. (1936). The influence of accounting on the development of the economy. Journal of Accountancy, 61(1), 11–22.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson, K. (1996). Fair value accounting for commercial banks: An empirical analysis of SFAS No. 107. The Accounting Review, 71(2), 161–182.Google Scholar
  53. Nissim, D., & Penman, S. (2008). Principles for the application of fair value accounting. Working paper, Columbia Business School Center for Excellence in Accounting and Security Analysis. Google Scholar
  54. Penman, S. (2007). Financial reporting quality: Is fair value a plus or a minus? Accounting and Business Research, Special Issue, 33–44.Google Scholar
  55. Petroni, K., & Whalen, J. (1995). Fair values of equity and debt securities and share prices of property casualty insurance companies. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 62, 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Song, C., Thomas, W., & Yi, H. (2010). Value relevance of FAS 157 fair value hierarchy information and the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1375–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A.B. Freeman School of BusinessTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations