Information Risk and Fair Values: An Examination of Equity Betas

Using a sample of U.S. financial institutions, we exploit recent mandatory disclosures of financial instruments designated as fair value level 1, 2, and 3 to test whether greater information risk in financial instrument fair values leads to higher cost of capital. We derive an empirical model allowing asset‐specific estimates of implied betas, and find evidence that firms with greater exposure to level 3 financial assets exhibit higher betas relative to those designated as level 1 or level 2. We further find that this difference in implied betas across fair value designations is more pronounced for firms with ex ante lower‐quality information environments: firms with lower analyst following, lower market capitalization, higher analyst forecast errors, or higher analyst forecast dispersion. Overall, the results are consistent with a higher cost of capital for more opaque financial assets, but also suggest that differences in firms' information environments can mitigate information risk across the fair value designations.     

Voluntary fair value disclosures beyond SFAS 157’s three-level estimates

Some firms voluntarily make disclosures about the controls and processes in place to ensure the reliability of fair value estimates. Consistent with these disclosures being driven by investors’ concerns about the reliability of their SFAS 157 estimates, we find that firms with more opaque estimates are more likely to provide such disclosures. We then examine whether these disclosures improve investors’ perception about the reliability of fair value estimates. We find that they are associated with higher market pricing and lower information risk for Level 3 estimates. Further analyses of the disclosures reveal that the following types of information are particularly important to investors: discussion of the external and independent pricing of fair value estimates and their proper classification according to the SFAS 157 hierarchy. Overall, our results suggest that the voluntary reliability disclosures that firms provide beyond SFAS 157’s three-level estimates help reduce investors’ uncertainty toward the more opaque fair value estimates.     

Corporate governance,SFAS 157 and cost of equity capital: evidence from US financial institutions

This study examines the association between fair value measurements and the cost of equity capital under different fair value valuation methods, and assesses the impact of corporate governance on this relationship for US financial firms. We find that firms’ cost of equity capital is negatively associated with more verifiable fair value assets and positively related to less verifiable fair value assets. Furthermore, the positive association between less verifiable fair value assets and the cost of equity capital is mitigated under better corporate governance. The differential impact between more and less verifiable assets becomes smaller for firms with stronger governance. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate on fair value regulation by investigating the economic consequences of adopting Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157) and the importance of audit committee financial expertise on fair value reporting. We also provide evidence on the importance of board independence, internal control strength, auditor industry specialists, and audit committee financial experts in fair value reporting.     

Fair value disclosures and crash risk

In response to the public criticism of the inadequate disclosures mandated by SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, the FASB issued ASU (Accounting Standards Update) 2010–06, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements, and ASU 2011–04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements, in an effort to increase the reporting transparency. We examine whether the increased fair value disclosures required by these two updates effectively decrease crash risk, defined as the frequency of extreme negative stock returns. In support of the hypothesis, we find that increased transparency from these updates reduces crash risk among U.S. banking firms and that the reduction is greater in banks that have a higher level of Level 3 financial assets.     

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.     

Information Asymmetry and Voluntary SFAS 157 Fair Value Disclosures by Bank Holding Companies During the 2007 Financial Crisis

We hand‐collect SFAS 157 voluntary fair value disclosures of 18 bank holding companies. The SEC's Division of Corporate Finance likely targeted these entities in 2008 through their “Dear CFO” letters in which they requested specific, additional disclosure items. We collect disclosures that match the SEC recommendations and create eight common factor disclosure variables to examine the effect of such disclosures on information asymmetry. We find that disclosure variables about the use of broker quotes or prices from pricing services and the use of market indices and illiquidity adjustments are related to lower information asymmetry. However, disclosure variables about valuation techniques and asset‐backed securities are related to greater information asymmetry. We also document that disclosure complexity, and disclosure tone (uncertainty and litigious) is related to greater information asymmetry. These findings are consistent with criticism that corporate disclosures are voluminous; management may obfuscate unfavorable information which in turn increases market participants’ assessment of uncertainty associated with the fair value measures. We caveat that the setting of the financial crisis and a small sample size may limit the ability to generalize these inferences to other time periods or other financial firms.     

Do measurement-related fair value disclosures affect information asymmetry?

Using a sample of European real estate firms over the 2007–2010 period, this study provides some evidence that measurement-related fair value disclosures reduce information asymmetry. We find a negative association between the extent of fair value disclosures and the bid-ask spread, but no association with two additional measures of information asymmetry (zero returns and price impact). Contrary to our expectation, we fail to find evidence that firms using model estimates exclusively benefit the most from such additional disclosure. Analysing measurement errors (the absolute difference between the selling price of an asset and its fair value prior to sale), we find that firms that use model estimates exclusively and provide more measurement-related disclosures have lower errors and more accurate fair value estimates. In other words, if our lack of results is due to investors not using this additional disclosure this is to their detriment.     

Fair value accounting: Current practice and perspectives for future research

A fundamental issue debated in the accounting literature centres on the appropriate basis for measuring firms’ assets and liabilities. During the last several decades, scholars have generated a growing body of important insights about the use of the fair value measurement attribute in financial reports around the globe. In this paper, we provide an overview of the institutional background of fair value accounting and the associated accounting standards that prescribe the use of fair value measurements under International Financial Reporting Standards and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the US. We discuss and document the extent to which firms across different industries and accounting regimes recognize and disclose in their financial reports assets and liabilities measured at fair value and we reflect on aspects of the fair value accounting literature. In doing this, we identify several areas in which additional research can further our understanding of fair value measurements and disclosures.     

Managerial discretion and the comparability of fair value estimates

We explore how discretion over fair value measurement affects the comparability of fair value estimates in the financial industry. We find that greater exposure to Level 2 (Level 3) measurement enhances (diminishes) the comparability of fair value estimates across firms. These contrasting results reflect a nuanced relation between discretion over fair value measurement and comparability and suggest that managers convey useful information through Level 2 estimates, whereas Level 3 measurement is subject to error and managerial opportunism. Cross-sectional analyses show that fair value estimates are less comparable when managers have stronger incentives to introduce discretion and more comparable when investor monitoring is stronger. Additional analyses demonstrate that the comparability of fair value estimates is negatively associated with non-agency mortgage backed security holdings, the asset class most likely to be held at Level 3 by our sample firms, and that our primary results hold for alternative measures of comparability. Taken together, our results highlight the critical role of discretion in shaping the comparability of fair value estimates.     

Intangible Assets and Firms' Disclosures: An Empirical Investigation

This study examines how research and development (R&38;D) and advertising expenditures affect firms' disclosures. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) mandate that these expenditures be immediately expensed in financial reports, despite the fact that they often benefit the firm for longer periods. Prior studies find, however, that investors consider intangible assets in their valuation of firms. These studies argue that current GAAP, by not recognizing the value generated by these assets, severely impairs the usefulness of accounting reports. I investigate if firms with higher levels of R&38;D and advertising expenditures place greater reliance on voluntary, and therefore more flexible, disclosures such as voluntary publications and investor relations. Using analysts' ratings of firms' disclosures, I find that firms with higher levels of intangible assets are more likely to receive significantly higher ratings for their investor relations programs or voluntary publications than for their annual reports. These findings suggest that firms with higher levels of intangible assets emphasize supplemental disclosures because mandated accounting disclosures inadequately present their financial performance. These results have important policy implications for regulators and investors since they indicate that voluntary disclosures, which are unregulated and unaudited, are an important means of disclosure for these firms.     

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

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.     

Fair Value‐related Information in Analysts’ Decision Processes: Evidence from the Financial Crisis

We use a sample of conference calls and analyst research reports from international banks to examine how financial analysts request and communicate fair value‐related information in their valuation process. We find that analysts devote considerable attention to fair value‐related topics. Most of the conference call questions and references in research reports pertain to fair value reclassifications and fair value changes of liabilities resulting from banks’ own credit risk. The accounting impact of these one‐time effects during the financial crisis and a lack of corresponding firm disclosures help to explain the prevalence of these two topics. The content of the questions and references suggests that analysts have different motives for their interest in fair value‐related information. While some analysts adjust reported earnings for unrecognised fair value changes of reclassified assets, most of the observed analysts exclude banks’ own credit risk effects from reported earnings. Thus, the use of fair value‐related information varies substantially across analysts and across instruments.     

Disclosure of GAAP line items in earnings announcements

We provide new evidence on the disclosure in earnings announcements of financial statement line items prepared under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). First, we investigate the circumstances that might provide disincentives generally for GAAP line item disclosures. We find that managers who regularly intervene in the earnings reporting process limit disclosures at the aggregate level and in each of the financial statements so as to more effectively guide investor attention to summary financial information. Specifically, this disclosure behavior obtains when managers habitually cater to market expectations, engage in income smoothing, or use discretionary accruals to improve earnings informativeness. Second, we predict and find that the specific GAAP line items that firms choose to disclose are determined by the differential informational demands of their economic environment, consistent with incentives to facilitate investor valuation. However, these valuation-related disclosure incentives are muted when managers habitually intervene in the earnings reporting process.     

Information asymmetry of fair value accounting during the financial crisis

We examine whether US banks’ fair value net assets, measured according to the three-level hierarchy introduced in SFAS 157, are associated with information asymmetry during the 2008 financial crisis. Our results show that bid–ask spread, a proxy for information asymmetry, is positively associated with fair value net assets, and the degree of association is contingent upon the three-level hierarchy, with bid–ask spreads being lowest for Level 1 (the most transparent valuation inputs) and highest for Level 3 (the least observable). Also, there is some evidence that SFAS 157 led to a reduction in bid–ask spread, and we find that quarterly changes in Level 1 and Level 2 fair value net assets are significantly associated with changes in bid–ask spread in 2008 when the spread was rapidly rising, but not in 2009 when it was falling. Our findings suggest that the three-level hierarchy under SFAS 157 provides investors with useful information, and fair value is associated with uncertainty, as measured by bid–ask spread, before and during the financial crisis.     

The association between fair value measurements and banks' discretionary accounting choices

This study examines the association between fair value measurements and banks' discretionary loan loss provisions using regulatory financial data from 2009 to 2016 for a sample of U.S. public bank holding companies. I find that banks recognizing larger proportions of fair value assets and liabilities based on level 2 and level 3 inputs are associated with lower discretionary loan loss provisions. However, there is no significant association between level 1 fair value assets and liabilities and discretionary loan loss provisions. When pre-managed earnings are lower, banks with larger proportions of level 2 and level 3 fair value assets and liabilities report smaller discretionary loan loss provisions to inflate earnings. Banks reporting larger proportions of level 2 and level 3 fair value assets and liabilities are more likely to use discretionary loan loss provisions to beat earnings benchmarks and manage tier one capital ratios. Overall, the results support the proposition that fair value assets and liabilities based on level 2 and level 3 inputs are less transparent and are subject to more discretion regarding loan loss provisions.     

The Role of Auditing Firms in the Implementation of New Accounting Standards: Evidence from China

This paper explores the impact of auditing firms on the implementation of the new Chinese Accounting Standards for Enterprises 22 (new CAS 22), which converges with IFRS 9. We find that the Big4 firms focus on fair value measurement and application of the expected credit loss (ECL) impairment model, whereas the LocalTop6 firms primarily focus on the classification of financial assets. The results indicate that effective implementation of the new standards mainly depends on standardized procedures and professional techniques of auditing firms, as the Big4 firms exhibit better implementation of the new standards in terms of items that generate greater risk and uncertainty than do local large auditing firms in China. In addition, we further test how cross-listing affects the role of auditing firms in implementing the new standards and find that the Big4 firms play a more significant role for A-share only companies than A + H companies. The findings reveal the challenges associated with implementation of IFRS 9-based new CAS 22 in China.     

Fair value and audit fees

This paper investigates the effect of fair value reporting and its attributes on audit fees. We use as our primary sample the European real estate industry around mandatory IFRS adoption (under which reporting of property fair values becomes compulsory), due to its unique operating and reporting characteristics. We document lower audit fees for firms reporting property assets at fair value relative to those employing depreciated cost—a difference that appears driven, in part, by impairment tests that occur only under depreciated cost. We further find that audit fees are decreasing in firms’ exposure to fair value and increasing both in the complexity of the fair value estimation and for recognition (versus only disclosure) of fair values. We corroborate our findings in two alternative settings: contrasting UK and US real estate firms and using UK investment trusts. Overall, the results suggest that fair values can lead to lower monitoring costs; however, any reductions in audit fees will vary with salient characteristics of the fair value reporting, including the difficulty to measure and the treatment within the financial statements.     

Who benefited from the disclosure mandates of the 1964 Securities Acts Amendments?

The 1964 Securities Acts Amendments extended disclosures mandated of NYSE firms to most firms trading in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) market. Although some prior evidence suggests substantial value increases for OTC firms due to the “value enhancing” mandated disclosures, we find no statistical difference in announcement returns for OTC firms moving to the NYSE before and after the legislation. One purported advantage to investors from the 1964 legislation was increased financial reporting. Yet, we document that the bulk of OTC firms analyzed in prior studies was already providing investors financial information before the legislation. Apparently, investors did not value the mandated disclosures. We do find evidence that the NYSE benefited from the legislation by increasing the number of OTC firms switching to their exchange around its passage.     

Repetitive disclosures in the MD&A

This study is the first to empirically analyze repetitive disclosures in the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the 10‐K filing. Repetitive disclosures refer to the extent that content in the MD&A is repeated from the audited financial statement notes. I empirically analyze repetitive disclosures in the MD&A section of the 10‐K filing, and find that firms tend to use more repetitive disclosures when firms have a new CEO, a high level of new disclosures in the notes, issued equity, and have missed the prior year's earnings benchmark. These findings suggest that not all managers use repetitive disclosures to simply obfuscate disclosures. Rather, some managers use repetitive disclosures to emphasize firm‐specific events, consistent with the succession hypothesis. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) states that repetitive disclosures are uninformative and that such disclosures decrease the informativeness of other disclosures in the MD&A. Casting doubt on the SEC's comments, in my primary analyses, I find that repetitive disclosures are informative to investors; this result is stronger for individual investors. Overall, my results suggest that repetitive disclosures are informative, and such disclosures may be effective tools for providing information to investors.