Fair Value Hierarchy Research Articles

Who's the Fairest of Them All? Evidence from Closed-End Funds

ABSTRACT Prior research examining the ASC 820 fair value hierarchy concludes that Level 3 fair value measurements are significantly less value-relevant than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. We reevaluate this conclusion using the closed-end fund setting, in which fair value measurements are available for substantially all assets. Contrary to prior research, we find that Level 3 fair values are of similar value relevance to Level 1 and Level 2 fair values. Our findings suggest that the results in previous research are attributable to correlated omitted variable bias arising from the absence of fair value data for most assets. JEL Classifications: M41; G12; G29. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the article.

Corporate social responsibility and ASC 820 hierarchy: evidence from responsible CSR activities

In 2006, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB, 2006) issued Accounting Standards Codification No. 820 (ASC 820) requiring firms to prioritise the inputs used in fair value assessment by levels: from the most reliable (Level 1) to the least reliable (Level 3) inputs. This paper studies the relationship between responsible corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and the fair value hierarchy under ASC 820. Consistent with the stakeholder theory, we find a positive (negative) relationship between responsible CSR activities and Levels 1 and 2 (Level 3) fair values, suggesting that firms with high levels of responsible CSR activities use more Levels 1 and 2 fair values and less Level 3 fair values. Additionally, we find that more able managers use more Level 3 fair values. However, more able managers in firms with higher levels of CSR activities reduce the use of Level 3 fair values. Overall, our results support the stakeholder theory of CSR.

MADDİ DURAN VARLIKLARIN RAPORLANMASINDA GERÇEĞE UYGUN DEĞER HİYERARŞİSİNİN KULLANILMASI

In this study, applicability of new approaches has been questioned by comparing applications of depreciation methods of Tax Procedure Law (TPL) and “TAS 16 Tangible Fixed Assets”. Accordingly, depreciation calculation by estimating residual value and change of this value that estimated on date of entry assets of a depreciation unit in useful life in accordance with “TAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors” are exemplified both according to cost and revaluation models by taking into fair value hierarchy. Thus, recommendations of how to apply depreciation methods with Turkish Accounting/Financial Reporting Standards framework are presented.

Information content of SFAS 157 fair value reporting

This paper examines whether SFAS 157 fair value hierarchy information is associated with stock price synchronicity and whether the relation is moderated by the quality of the firm's information environment. If SFAS 157 information is useful, stock prices of reporting firms should incorporate more firm-specific information and hence exhibit lower synchronicity (measured as the R2 from a market model regression). The sample consists of 3538 firm-years of listed firms reporting SFAS 157 fair values during the period 2008–2009. Evidence suggests that synchronicity is negatively related to aggregate fair values, that the relation does not monotonically change across the fair value levels, and stock prices of firms with ex ante higher quality information environment exhibit weaker differences between fair value levels in their effect on synchronicity. Finally, we further partition the sample into financial and non-financial firms and find that liabilities (assets) are viewed as having a stronger impact on these cash flows than assets (liabilities) in the case of financial (non-financial) firms.

Factors influencing non-compliance with ASU 2010-06 in the banking industry

Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Practical implications – 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. Originality/value – This study provides some of the first evidence on the level of compliance with mandated fair value disclosures.

Does disaggregation of fair value information increase the value relevance of the fair value hierarchy?

In response to pressures from Congress, the SEC and investors, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurement. ASU 2010-06 mandates that firms provide disaggregated fair value information by class of financial instruments under each level of the fair value hierarchy. Using financial statements of publicly traded banks for the first quarters of 2009 and 2010, this study examines whether providing class-level information increases the value relevance of the fair value hierarchy. In support of our hypothesis, we find that fair value relevance increases under ASU 2010-06.

Adjustment of valuation inputs and its effect on value relevance of fair value measurement

The fair value accounting standards; i.e., FAS 157, FAS 157-3 and FAS 157-4, specify the circumstances where firms need to adjust valuation inputs to fair value measurements in response to changes in market conditions. Such an adjustment inherently involves substantial management judgment and is accompanied with transfers of assets and liabilities among the different levels of the fair value hierarchy. We study the effect of adjusting valuation inputs to reflect market variations on value relevance of fair value measurements by comparing the value relevance of fair value assets between the banks that make transfers of assets and the banks that make no transfers. Overall, we find a significant increase in value relevance of fair value measurements for banks that transferred assets into/out of the Level 3 category. Our study examines a challenging situation in the application of fair value standards; i.e., determining fair value when there is a change in market conditions. Fair value measurement under such a situation involves substantial management judgment and potential estimate errors and manipulation. Our findings provide useful information for researchers, regulators and accounting professionals to assess the market’s perception of the reliability of fair value information when management exercises substantial discretion in adjusting valuation inputs under changing market conditions.

An Anatomy of the Level 3 Fair Value Hierarchy's Discount

We use an integrated approach to analyze the reasons behind the discount on the balance-sheet fair value of illiquid financial instruments held by European banks and classified into the Level 3 Fair Value hierarchy under IFRS 7. We believe that the potential sources of misalignment are 1) the lack of disclosure, 2) earnings management, and 3) the lack of liquidity. We show that the discount implicit in market values is linked to the lack of mandatory additional disclosure required by IFRS 7 and that this result support the strong enforcement activity made by national authorities. We also show that financial markets penalize banks that transfer assets from other fair-value hierarchy levels and that the penalty is due both to the instruments’ drop in liquidity and the opacity of the transfers.

Measurement Approaches with Fair Value in Environmental Accounting

Environmental accounting plays an important role in monitoring and analyzing environmental issues, while measurement is the key to develop it. Fair value is the hottest subject in accounting field. With the analysis of connection between fair value and environmental science, the paper advocates that it is meaningful and necessary to utilize fair value to settle the measurement problem of environmental accounting. Approaches are put forward about extending the content of environmental assets and liabilities, how to bring in environmental valuation methods, disclosing with fair value hierarchy and integrating into environmental regulation system.

Private Equity Fair Value Measurement: A Critical Perspective on IFRS 13

In this paper, we discuss IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement with regard to private equity valuation. We raise issues on the fair value definition as an exit price and question the reliability of valuation techniques, which are categorised into Level 2 fair value hierarchy. Our paper questions whether fair value as defined by IFRS 13 is an appropriate measure for private equities and can contribute to enhancing transparency and comparability in financial statements, which is one of the purposes of the International Accounting Standards Board and the European Union Regulation 1606/2002.

Earnings Management in the Context of Fair Value Accounting: Adjusting the Modified Jones Model to Fair Value Accounting

Since the late 1980s, the Financial Accounting Standards Board has implemented several new fair value accounting rules that have resulted in unrealized fair value gains or losses in net income. However, accrual-based earnings management models such as the Modified Jones Model (MJM) of Dechow, Sloan, and Sweeney (1995) and other accrual models in the literature do not consider the net income effects of fair value accounting. The fair value hierarchy of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 157 implies that valuation of level 1 and level 2 instruments is subject to observable market inputs, whereas the valuation inputs of level 3 are unobservable. Therefore, with respect to earnings management, level 3 instruments are more likely to be manipulated relative to level 1 and level 2 instruments. In this paper, we adjust the MJM by adding level 1 and level 2 instruments as explanatory variables to nondiscretionary accruals; we classify net income effects of level 3 instruments as discretionary accruals in our Fair Value Adjusted Modified Jones Model (FVAMJM). We show that the FVAMJM is more powerful than the MJM in detecting earnings manipulation based on level 3 instruments and is equally good in detecting expense and revenue manipulations. In addition, the nondiscretionary accruals derived under FVAMJM have incremental explanatory power to firm market value beyond the accruals of the traditional MJM; the discretionary accruals derived under FVAMJM contribute to identifying companies meeting or beating earnings targets after controlling for MJM discretionary accruals.

Who's the Fairest of Them All? Evidence from Closed-End Funds

Prior research examining the ASC 820 fair value hierarchy concludes that Level 3 fair value measurements are significantly less value relevant than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. We reevaluate this conclusion using the closed-end fund setting, in which fair value measurements are available for substantially all assets. Contrary to prior research, we find that Level 3 fair values are of similar value relevance to Level 1 and Level 2 fair values. Our findings suggest that the results in previous research are attributable to correlated omitted variable bias arising from the absence of fair value data for most assets.

Fair value hierarchy in financial instrument disclosure. Is there transparency for investors? Evidence from the banking industry

The debate on fair value accounting is still open although the last 20 years have been spent in looking for solutions by academics, practitioners and institutions. After long and continuous discussion both on the basic concepts and the information level contained in fair value measurements and on the different solutions that are possible to adopt in mark to market measurements, IASB and FASB have recently issued new standards on fair value measurements applying some principles not only to financial instruments but also to property and other investments. To verify if the solutions adopted in these Standards really improve the disclosure level and the “usefulness of data for investors”, this paper analyzes the actual level of transparency and the “usefulness” of the “fair value hierarchy” (which from some points of view synthesized the Board’s way of thinking regarding to fair value) which has already been introduced for financial instruments by IFRS 7, Financial Instruments: Disclosure. The paper presents results of an empirical investigation on a sample of domestic and foreign listed banks that adopted fair value hierarchy in line with SFAS 157 and IFRS 7 recommendations. Research questions can be summarized as follows: (i) does fair value hierarchy improve transparency in financial instrument evaluation in bank annual reports, or can it be considered as a tool for earnings management?

Measurement in Financial Reporting

Much of the current thinking of accounting standard setters about measurement seems to be based on an idealized view of markets as being complete and in perfectly competitive equilibrium. In such conditions, there is a unique market price based on full information for every asset and liability, and there is an obvious attraction in using this price as the measure for accounting. This explains the apparent enthusiasm for single ideal measurement methods based on market price, such as fair value (FV), defined in SFAS 157 as a market selling price...

Snowy Ridge Ski Resort: Fair Value Measurement and the Impairment of Long-Term Assets

ABSTRACT: The Snowy Ridge Ski Resort case study illustrates the use the new Fair Value Measurement Standard (SFAS No. 157) with various assets in connection with the acquisition of a ski resort and subsequent test for impairment. The case study introduces students to the two primary approaches for measuring fair value (Market and Income). These approaches are then used to compute fair value for a variety of assets. In addition, students become familiar with the Fair Value Hierarchy and classify fair value measures in accordance with the hierarchy. The assets to which the fair value measures are generated include: marketable securities; property, plant, and equipment; real estate under development; and goodwill. The fair values and other input data are then used to test for impairment of the operating assets and goodwill. Thus, the case study illustrates the interplay between fair value measurement and impairment testing in a simple setting to give the student a foundation for understanding how fair value measurement is used in GAAP for operating assets.

Value Relevance of FAS 157 Fair Value Hierarchy Information and the Impact of Corporate Governance Mechanisms

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (FAS 157), Fair Value Measurements, prioritizes the source of information used in fair value measurements into three levels: (1) Level 1 (observable inputs from quoted prices in active markets), (2) Level 2 (indirectly observable inputs from quoted prices of comparable items in active markets, identical items in inactive markets, or other market-related information), and (3) Level 3 (unobservable, firm-generated inputs). Using quarterly reports of banking firms in 2008, we find that the value relevance of Level 1 and Level 2 fair values is greater than the value relevance of Level 3 fair values. In addition, we find evidence that the value relevance of fair values (especially Level 3 fair values) is greater for firms with strong corporate governance. Overall, our results support the relevance of fair value measurements under FAS 157, but weaker corporate governance mechanisms may reduce the relevance of these measures.

Value Relevance of FAS No. 157 Fair Value Hierarchy Information and the Impact of Corporate Governance Mechanisms

ABSTRACT: Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (FAS No. 157), Fair Value Measurements, prioritizes the source of information used in fair value measurements into three levels: (1) Level 1 (observable inputs from quoted prices in active markets), (2) Level 2 (indirectly observable inputs from quoted prices of comparable items in active markets, identical items in inactive markets, or other market-related information), and (3) Level 3 (unobservable, firm-generated inputs). Using quarterly reports of banking firms in 2008, we find that the value relevance of Level 1 and Level 2 fair values is greater than the value relevance of Level 3 fair values. In addition, we find evidence that the value relevance of fair values (especially Level 3 fair values) is greater for firms with strong corporate governance. Overall, our results support the relevance of fair value measurements under FAS No. 157, but weaker corporate governance mechanisms may reduce the relevance of these measures.

FASB statement on fair value measurements

PurposeThis paper sets out to describe the FASB Statement on Fair Value Measurements (FAS 157).Design/methodology/approachExplains 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.FindingsThe 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”.Originality/valueExplains a new accounting statement that may change some accounting practices of investment companies and broker‐dealers.