A Critical Look at SFAS 34: Capitalization of Interest Cost

In 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that an increasing number of companies were capitalizing interest costs, and that this practice was not being adequately disclosed (FASB, 1979, par. 26). In light of the alternative practices concerning the accounting for interest and lack of adequate disclosure by companies that were already capitalizing interest, the SEC recommended that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) consider the issue of accounting for interest cost. As a result of the SEC's initiative, in 1979 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards [SFAS] No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Cost, which mandated uniform interest capitalization rules in accounting for interest costs associated with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. The purpose of this article is to examine SFAS 34 in terms of its financial statement impact, the congruence of its assumptions with economic behaviour, its effect on subsequent standards related to interest capitalization, and its implications on financial accounting standard setting. To explore these issues we first illustrate the extent to which interest capitalization affects financial statements. We then empirically analyse the measure employed in SFAS 34 for the capitalization of interest cost in cases where debt is not directly linked with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. In addition, we critically examine the treatment accorded interest cost in subsequent FASB standards. Our research suggests that SFAS 34′s rationale for interest capitalization is incompatible with firm behaviour, and that the rules for interest capitalization as reflected in various accounting standards are inconsistent. These findings suggest that in the case of interest capitalization the benefits of comparability in financial reporting are not realized. A policy recommendation is then offered to alleviate some of these difficulties. The recommendation is to disallow the capitalization of interest cost in the absence of a direct link between the debt and the acquisition of qualifying assets.     

Reference Variables,Factor Structure,and the Approximate Multibeta Representation

The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) implies that if asset returns have a factor structure, then an approximate multibeta representation holds with respect to the factors as reference variables. This paper assumes that asset returns satisfy a factor structure and derives a condition under which the approximate multibeta representation holds with respect to a set of reference variables which may not be the factors. This condition is that the regression matrix of the reference variables on the factors is nonsingular. Implications for the testability of the APT are also discussed.     

Trading Mechanisms and Stock Returns: An Empirical Investigation

This paper examines the effects of the mechanism by which securities are traded on their price behavior. We compare the behavior of open-to-open and close-to-close returns on NYSE stocks, given the differences in execution methods applied in the opening and closing transactions. Opening returns are found to exhibit greater dispersion, greater deviations from normality and a more negative and significant autocorrelation pattern than closing returns. We study the effects of the bid-ask spread and the price-adjustment process on the estimated return variances and covariances and discuss the associated biases. We conclude that the trading mechanism has a significant effect on stock price behavior.     

Ordering Uncertain Options under Inflation: A Note

Stochastic dominance rules (SD) have been extended to the case where investors are allowed to borrow and lend at the riskless interest rate. Stochastic dominance rules with a riskless asset (SDR) are much more effective than SD rules. However, it seems that this benefit is eliminated by an uncertain inflation, since riskless assets become risky once uncertain inflation is considered. We prove in this paper that SDR criteria are valid also in the face of uncertain (and independent) inflation. Moreover, while the mean-variance (MV) efficient set increases with uncertain inflation, the stochastic dominance efficient sets decrease.     

The Effects of Beta,Bid-Ask Spread,Residual Risk,and Size on Stock Returns

Merton's [26] recent extension of the CAPM proposed that asset returns are an increasing function of their beta risk, residual risk, and size and a decreasing function of the public availability of information about them. Associating the latter with asset liquidity and following Amihud and Mendelson's [2] proposition that asset returns increase with their illiquidity (measured by the bid-ask spread), we jointly estimate the effects of these four factors on stock returns.     

Liquidity,Maturity, and the Yields on U.S. Treasury Securities

The effects of asset liquidity on expected returns for assets with infinite maturities (stocks) are examined for bonds (Treasury notes and bills with matched maturities of less than 6 months). The yield to maturity is higher on notes, which have lower liquidity. The yield differential between notes and bills is a decreasing and convex function of the time to maturity. The results provide a robust confirmation of the liquidity effect in asset pricing.     

What is the Economic Cost of the Investment Home Bias?

Overinvesting domestically is well known as an investment home bias (IHB). We define an economic home bias (EHB), whereby the IHB measures the investment weights and the EHB measures the economic cost induced by the IHB. We may have a large IHB and a negligible EHB. With the increase in the average correlation between foreign markets from 0.4 for the decade ending in 1988 to about 0.9 for more recent decades, the U.S. EHB is becoming negligible despite the domestic investment of 77.5%. Since 2009, the correlations have decreased, indicating that the HB puzzle is emerging once again.