ACCOUNTING DOESN'T NEED MUCH FIXING (JUST SOME REINTERPRETING)

In response to Stewart's proposal for comprehensive reform of GAAP, this article offers a classic defense of traditional accounting practices and standards. Like the recent efforts of the FASB to achieve greater balance sheet realism through "fair value accounting," Stewart's call to make economic profit the centerpiece of GAAP is said to rest on a mistaken premise–the widespread notion that audited financial statements are intended primarily to guide equity investors in setting stock prices. More important than the valuation role of public accounting is its "stewardship" function in detecting theft and gross misuse of corporate assets. And it is this stewardship role, with its emphasis on producing reliable (and conservative) numbers that can be readily verified by auditors, that is likely to be compromised by Stewart's proposal, fair-value accounting, and other well-meaning attempts to incorporate greater economic realism into GAAP statements.
At the same time, however, the author agrees with Stewart's contention that GAAP a accounting numbers have major limitations for investors seeking to establish the market values of companies and for managers attempting to make value-increasing investment and operating decisions. Accordingly, he endorses many of Stewart's proposed modifications of GAAP both for internal purposes, such as performance evaluation and incentive compensation, and for voluntary supplemental reporting to the investment community.     

Performance Reporting under Fair Value Accounting

Abstract

This paper compares performance measurement under fair value accounting vs. U.S. GAAP accounting. As illustrated in the paper, the main difference between fair value accounting and U.S. GAAP accounting lies in the treatment of gains and losses on both assets and liabilities. Fair value accounting would report all gains and losses on both assets and liabilities in the period in which they arise. U.S. GAAP on the other hand, recognizes gains and losses over the life of the block of business (or at the time of a transaction). When net gains and losses on assets and liabilities are immaterial, the pattern of earnings under both systems can be quite similar. However, If a company is generating significant gains or losses on its net book of business (such as in the case of an asset/liability mismatch), fair value accounting will reveal this much sooner than U.S. GAAP. When the full impact of its actions (including gains and losses) is reported in the current period, management is in a better position to understand how the value of the company is changing and adjust its decisions accordingly. This is one of the main reasons for moving to a fair value system and is expected to be a major benefit if fair value accounting is ultimately adopted.     

从净收益视角看公允价值和历史成本计量属性的作用

论文在决策有用性的会计目标框架下,以权益投资者的企业价值评估为视角,探讨了会计计量属性的选择和应用问题。在资产负债会计体系下,即便采用公允价值计量也无法反映企业的整体经济价值。企业价值需要借助金融模型估计,传统收入费用会计体系下的净收益指标是模型中的关键变量,但资产负债表中公允价值的引入使净收益的计量失去了逻辑一致性。这对权益估价模型的应用造成了干扰,从而损害了财务报告对投资者的有用性。论文认为对投资者提供公允价值信息的最佳方式是单独披露,而不是表内确认。最近FASB为应对金融危机对有关会计准则的修订反映了计量方法多样化的趋势,但计量方法的优势并不取决于该计量方法是否符合计量对象的具体特点,而是是否符合会计系统的整体目标。     

CREATING VALUE IN PENSION PLANS (OR, GENTLEMEN PREFER BONDS)

Pension funds are typically one-half to two-thirds invested in equities because equities are expected to outperform other financial assets over the long term, and the long-term nature of pension fund liabilities seems well suited to absorbing any short-term return volatility. What's more, U.S. GAAP currently makes it possible to take credit in advance for the higher anticipated earnings on equity investments without acknowledging their inherent risk. But by allowing the higher expected returns from stocks to reduce a company's current pension expenses, the accounting treatment conflicts with some very basic principles of finance (in particular, the idea that investors must earn higher returns on riskier investments just to "break even"), conceals systematic biases in the actuarial analysis, and gives managers considerable latitude to manipulate the bottom line.
The authors suggest a startlingly different approach. They argue that pension assets should be invested entirely in duration-matched debt instruments for two reasons: (1) to capture the full tax benefits of pre-funding their pension obligations and (2) to improve overall corporate risk profiles by converting general stock market risk into firm-specific operating risk, where corporate managers should have a comparative advantage and can generate real value. Investing exclusively in bonds would take better advantage of the tax-exempt status of pension plans and greatly reduce fund management costs, while at the same time helping o shore up fund quality and sharpening corporate executives' focus on their real operating assets.     

What Do FAS 157 “Fair Values” Really Measure: Value Or Risk?

FAS 157, the U.S. accounting standard that prescribes how fair values of assets and liabilities are to be measured when other U.S. GAAP standards require fair valuation, stipulates that fair values be measured as the exit values of assets and liabilities—the proceeds for assets hypothetically sold on the date of the financial report, and, correspondingly, the amount required to settle liabilities on the date of the financial report. This conceptual article argues that exit values do not reflect the value of the net assets of the firm to shareholders, which is best reflected by discounted cash flows to maturity. Moreover, exit values—biasing fair values downward when markets are illiquid—have a pernicious, systemic risk effect; specifically, they give rise to write‐downs that in turn cause contagion: prices of equities and other financial instruments of peers react negatively, leading to further write‐downs by those peers. This may have aggravated the recent financial crisis. However, while exit values are not proper measures of value to shareholders, they are useful measures of downside risk when prospects turn sour for a firm. Thus, both exit values and discounted cash flows should be presented in financial statements.     

HOW TO FIX ACCOUNTING—MEASURE AND REPORT ECONOMIC PROFIT

Bending accounting rules has become so ingrained in our corporate culture that even ethical business leaders succumb to the temptation to “manage” their earnings in order to meet analysts' demands for smoothly rising results. The author of this article argues that such behavior reflects not a general decline in ethical standards so much as executives' growing sense that accounting itself has become “unhinged from value.” For example, clearly valuable expenditures on R&D, customer acquisition, and employee training are generally expensed immediately against earnings. And reported corporate income is often further reduced by provisions for losses that most companies never expect to incur, by “book” taxes they never expect to pay, and by depreciation charges on assets that are actually increasing in value. At the same time, the opportunity costs associated with employee stock options and the corporate use of equity capital are not reflected in the accountant's measure of profit. To improve the quality of corporate governance and revitalize the public's faith in reported earnings, the author proposes a complete overhaul of GAAP accounting to measure and report economic profit, or EVA. Stated in brief, the author's concept of economic profit begins with an older, but now seldom used, definition of accounting income known as “residual income,” and then proposes a series of additional adjustments to GAAP accounting that are designed to produce a reliable measure of a company's annual, sustainable cash‐generating capacity. Besides expensing the cost of equity capital as well as stock options, the author recommends bringing off‐balance‐sheet items such as pension assets and liabilities back onto the balance sheet, eliminating reserve accounting, capitalizing R&D and other expenditures on intangible assets, and recording economic rather than accounting depreciation. Such changes, by replacing the accountants' current flawed definition of earnings with a comprehensive new statement of value added, could restore investor confidence in financial statements. Even more important, managers would be less likely to pursue their now common practice of boosting earnings by making value‐reducing operating and investment decisions and more likely to use financial reporting not to mislead the market but as an opportunity to communicate relevant, forward‐looking information.     

The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157

Analysis of the examples given by the FASB to show how fair values, defined as exit prices, should be determined in specified circumstances is revealing. Such prices require determining what hypothetical companies might pay for assets, a costly procedure at best. Even though SFAS 157 specifies exit values, several examples employ values in use and entrance values. Although transaction costs must be excluded, they often are not. Fair valuation of non-financial assets, required in certain circumstances (e.g., business combinations), is particularly difficult to apply. Furthermore, exit values of such assets as work-in-process inventories and special-purpose machines, as defined by SFAS 157, often are zero or negative. Importantly, assets and liabilities restated at exit prices yield balance sheets and income statements that are of little, if any, value to investors in ongoing firms. Further, the examples presented show that fair values could be readily manipulated. Implementation of SFAS 157, therefore, is likely to be costly to investors and independent public accountants.     

ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATES: BACK TO BASICS

Public accountants have had a hard time deciding how to account for derivatives that are used to hedge risks, which in turn has given derivatives users and others a hard time. For about six years, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has struggled with several, often diametrically opposed procedures, ranging from showing all derivatives at “fair” values to deferring realized losses or gains on derivatives until related gains or losses on the hedged transactions have been realized (a practice known as “hedge accounting”). What is behind the FASB's inability to come up with a decisive and authoritative ruling? Although the politics of self-interest has fueled much of the debate, there is more to the problem than politics. The author argues that the underlying cause of the FASB's inability to reach a satisfactory and acceptable solution is not politics, but rather a flawed basic concept of how financial accounting should be done. In this article, the author recommends a procedure for derivatives accounting that was endorsed by the Financial Economists Roundtable in its 1995 “Statement on Accounting Disclosure about Financial Derivative Instruments.” The proposal, in brief, is this: Provided a company can satisfy its auditors that it is using derivatives primarily to hedge an offsetting price exposure, the firm should be given the option to use hedge accounting for that part of its derivatives position that is functioning as a hedge. All other investment or speculative uses of derivatives should be treated like other financial instruments and marked to market or fair value. Such a procedure, the author argues, is far more consistent than the FASB's recent proposals with fundamental principles of accounting that have been developed by accounting practitioners and scholars over several centuries.     

The Differential Value Relevance of S&P's Core Earnings Versus GAAP Earnings: The Role of Stock Option Expense

In 2002, Standard & Poor's (S&P) introduced Core Earnings as a proprietary, uniform earnings metric, with the goal of improving financial reporting. The distinguishing feature of Core Earnings is its consistent treatment of seven adjustments to GAAP earnings for which there is no consensus adjustment by managers and analysts. We use stock price and return data to assess whether investors perceive Core Earnings to be more value relevant than GAAP earnings. The implementation of FASB 123R changed the calculation of GAAP and Core Earnings. This change allows us to assess the role of stock option expense in the valuation of earnings numbers by partitioning the sample into pre‐ and post‐FASB 123R periods and creating consistent measures of GAAP and Core Earnings. Our price results indicate that Core Earnings is more value relevant than GAAP earnings in the pre‐period after controlling for stock option expense, and in the post‐FASB 123R periods. The price results provide empirical evidence consistent with S&P's expectation that a uniformly calculated earnings measure is a more consistent and useful indicator of current performance and future earnings.     

“De‐risking” Corporate Pension Plans: Options for CFOs

Until the stock market bubble burst in 2000–2002, most CFOs viewed their defined benefit pension plans as profit centers and relatively risk‐free sources of income. Since neither pension assets nor liabilities were reported on corporate balance sheets, and expected returns on pension stocks could be substituted for actual returns when reporting net income, the risks associated with DB plans were masked by GAAP accounting and thus assumed to have no bearing on corporate capital structure. But when stock prices and corporate profits fell together, the risks associated with conventional stock‐heavy pension plans showed up first in reduced pension surpluses (or, in many cases, deficits) and then later in higher required cash contributions and lower reported earnings. As a consequence, today's investors (and rating agencies) are viewing pension and other legacy liabilities as corporate debt, and demands for transparency and increased funding have triggered accounting changes and proposed legislative reforms that will further unmask the economics. This article aims to provide both private‐sector and public‐sector CFOs with suggestions for reducing and controlling the cost of providing for the retirement of their employees. Profitable, tax‐paying companies with DB plans should consider (1) funding any unfunded liabilities (if necessary, by issuing debt) and (2) reducing pension equity and interest rate exposures by shifting some (if not all) pension assets into bonds and defeasing the pension liability (achieving a tax arbitrage in the process). And in cases where the expected costs of maintaining DB plans outweigh the benefits, companies should consider freezing or terminating their plans and switching to a defined contribution (DC) or some form of hybrid plan. The authors also propose similar changes for public pension plans, where underfunding and mismatch problems are greater, less transparent, and in some ways less tractable than those of corporate DB plans.     

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.     

TESTING HEDGE EFFECTIVENESS FOR FAS 133: THE VOLATILITY REDUCTION MEASURE

Although the authors of this article praise the spirit of the new FASB guidelines for hedge accounting, they find flaws in the recommended tests for determining if a hedge qualifies for such treatment. In some cases, the tests recommended by the FASB pass hedges that clearly should fail, and in others they fail hedges that should be accepted. In place of the recommended testing procedures, the authors propose the use of the volatility reduction measure (VRM)—a measure that is fully compliant with the spirit of the FASB's recommendations, while correcting their major shortfalls.
While the illustrations in this article are from the realm of fixed income, the VRM approach is applicable to any hedge, whether designated as "fair value" or "cash flow." Moreover, by expressing volatility in the units of the widely used "Value at Risk" measure, VRM establishes a natural link between accounting and risk management.     

Comparative analysis of accounting treatments for derivatives

This paper provides educators with a classroom example or a self-study tutorial to teach Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 (FAS 133), Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. The example can be used in courses such as intermediate or advanced accounting that discuss derivative instruments or investments topics or in a training program that focuses on implementing FAS 133. This teaching material can help students gain technical knowledge of FAS 133. It can also help develop critical thinking skills in analyzing the impact of an accounting standard on a firm's operation. A scenario based on a futures contract used by a natural gas company to hedge price fluctuations of its gas inventory is applied across four cases to show the impact of derivative designation on the accounting treatment and to provide a comparative analysis of the economic results from using different accounting treatments for the derivative. Case 1 and Case 2 demonstrate hedge accounting under FAS 133 by designating the derivative as a fair value hedge and a cash flow hedge, respectively. Case 3 illustrates accounting for a derivative that is not designated as a hedge. Case 4 demonstrates the impact of not entering or using a derivative to mitigate market risk. A downloadable spreadsheet on the author's website can be customized for use in the classroom.     

Research Note: Revisiting Fair Value Accounting––Measuring Commercial Banks' Liabilities

IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IASB, 2000), requires assets to be marked to fair value if held-for-trading, available-for-sale purposes, or if they are derivatives; held-to-maturity securities, originated loans and originated securities are measured at amortized cost, providing they are not held-for-trading. Financial liabilities are measured at amortized cost except those that are held-for-trading or derivatives. A proposed amendment would accommodate improved fair value measurement of financial instruments. Commercial banks are greatly affected by any accounting standard concerning the recognition and measurement of financial instruments, whether related to assets or liabilities. This article demonstrates that the existing and proposed standards perpetuate the mismeasurement of interest rate risk for commercial banks. Under IAS 39 banks that have a balanced position, that is, no interest rate risk, counterfactually could show large changes in income through interest rate changes. An alternative accounting treatment, full fair value reporting of financial assets and liabilities, including all loans and deposits, is offered. Presently fair value data are mandated as footnote disclosure.     

The mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting: implications for market pricing

In this study, we examine the pricing of cash flow hedge adjustments reported in other comprehensive income (OCICF), under the mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Our OCICF pricing investigation integrates empirical research on the derivatives use that gives rise to such mark-to-market adjustments with the accounting information pricing literature. Based on this integration, we generalize mispricing theory for the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model and predict both the direction and magnitude of OCICF pricing. Screening on U.S. multinationals with ex ante exposure to currency risk, we provide evidence of OCICF mispricing in the expected direction, consistent with the notion that SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting results in a mixed attribute problem (Gigler et al. in J Account Res 45:257–287, 2007). Moreover, we find that both OCICF gains and losses are inversely related to future cash flows and of the expected magnitude, consistent with our predictions based on valuation theory (for example, Ohlson in Rev Account Stud 4:145–162, 1999). Our results support the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s concern that the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model does not provide the information necessary for investors to understand the net economic effects of derivatives use (FASB in Accounting for financial instruments and revisions to the accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. FASB, Norwalk, 2010).     

GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two Alternative Definitions of Earnings

Managers, security analysts, investors, and the press rely increasingly on modified definitions of GAAP net income, known by such names as "operating" and "pro forma" earnings. We document this phenomenon and discuss competing explanations for the recent rise in the use of such modified earnings numbers and implications for the interpretation of related accounting research. Our results show that over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in the frequency and magnitude of cases where "GAAP" and "Street" earnings differ. Further, there is a very strong bias toward the reporting of a Street earnings number that exceeds the GAAP earnings number. We also show that the market response to the Street earnings number has displaced GAAP earnings as a primary determinant of stock prices. Finally, through an analysis of earnings releases, we show that management has taken a proactive role in defining and emphasizing the Street number when communicating to analysts and investors.     

Morgan Stanley Roundtable on Enterprise Risk Management and Corporate Strategy

In a roundtable hosted by Morgan Stanley, a group of corporate risk officers, consultants, and bankers discuss the state of corporate risk management. The discussion focused on a number of questions: What is the primary goal of risk management, and how does it add value for shareholders? What risks do companies “get paid” to bear (for example, should oil companies hedge oil price risk or banks hedge interest rates)? And, given the accounting obstacles that FAS 133 has put in the way of would be hedgers, should companies continue to hedge exposures—and, to the extent their hedges produce “artificial” earnings volatility, how should they communicate the aims and accomplishments of their risk management program to rating agencies and investors?     

Usefulness of comprehensive income reporting in Canada

In January 2005 the Canadian Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) issued three new accounting standards that require Canadian firms to mark-to-market certain financial assets and liabilities and recognize the holding gains and losses related to these items as other comprehensive income or as part of net income. The Board’s objectives for issuing the new standards are (i) to harmonize Canadian GAAP with US and International GAAP, (ii) to enhance the transparency and usefulness of financial statements, and (iii) to keep pace with changes in accounting standards in other countries that are moving towards fair value accounting. This paper investigates empirically whether requiring Canadian companies to report comprehensive income and its components provides the securities market with incremental value-relevant information over the traditional historical-cost earnings approach.Previous empirical studies provide mixed evidence on the value relevance of other comprehensive income and its components. This mixed evidence may be attributed partially to the use of as if methodology to construct an ex-ante measure of other comprehensive income prior to the implementation of SFAS 130, which introduces measurement error. In contrast, this study uses actual data on other comprehensive income for a sample of Canadian firms cross-listed in the US in the period 1998–2003. We find evidence that available-for-sale and cash flow hedges components are significantly associated with price and market returns. We also find that aggregate comprehensive income is more strongly associated (in terms of explanatory power) with both stock price and returns compared to net income. However, we find that net income is a better predictor of future net income relative to comprehensive income. Our findings suggest that mandating all Canadian firms to adopt the new accounting standards is expected to enhance the usefulness of financial statements. Our findings, therefore, should be of interest to Canadian accounting policy makers as they provide ex-ante evidence on the potential usefulness of mandating firms to report comprehensive income and the components of other comprehensive income in their financial statements.     

公允价值会计对保险公司财务报告的影响

主要探讨公允价值会计对财务报告体系和结构的影响。公允价值会计对财务报告的各要素都产生重大影响,从而影响保险公司财务报告本身。其中关键的因素是保险负债的评估,虽然保险责任准备金没有直接的市场价格,但是,只要构成保险责任准备金的各种要素反映了市场价格,就可以认为保险责任准备金具备了公允价值。在假设层面上,行业假设是假设市场...