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 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.     

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.     

The financial reporting of fair value based on managerial inputs versus market inputs: evidence from mortgage servicing rights

This research examines whether the fair value of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) based on managerial inputs (Level 3) better reflects the cash flow and risk characteristics of the underlying assets than the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). Using mortgage servicing fees as a proxy for the underlying cash flows, we find that the valuation multiples for MSRs based on Level 3 inputs are more positively associated with the persistence of future servicing fees compared with the fair value of MSRs based on Level 2 inputs. We also document that only the valuation multiples based on Level 3 fair values are negatively associated with proxies for risk factors. Our results suggest that, although unobservable inputs are subject to managerial discretions, managers can generate higher quality fair value estimates than market inputs due to their information advantage, especially when the market for the underlying asset is inactive.     

How have US banks adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Level 3 fair value disclosure rules?

We examine how banks have complied with the Financial Accounting Standards Board's disclosure rules on Level 3 recurring fair value measurements. We document widespread noncompliance with the basic disclosure requirements. We also find that the noncompliant banks are smaller in size and are associated with lower audit quality, lower institutional ownership and less effective internal controls. Our results should be of use to regulators, auditors and audit committees in the United States, Australia and other countries for assessing the likelihood of noncompliance with fair value disclosure rules and improving the quality of fair value disclosures provided to investors.     

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.     

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.     

Discussion of “The financial reporting of fair value based on managerial inputs versus market inputs: evidence from mortgage servicing rights”

Contrary to the guidance provided by regulators and industry associations suggesting that mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) be recorded as Level 3 assets, Altamuro and Zhang identify that 25 % of banks classify them as Level 2 assets. This variation in the asset classification of a single asset type provides a unique setting to examine the role of inputs in the fair value measurement process. Altamuro and Zhang find that the fair value of MSRs based on managerial inputs (Level 3) better reflects the economics of the underlying assets than the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). This discussion examines the institutional features of the MSR market, particularly the market concentration and the illiquidity of the market, that are important when considering this result. The discussion also raises a number of questions about the inputs used in the fair value process and calls for further research on this topic.     

Value Relevance of Fair Values—Empirical Evidence of the Impact of Market Volatility

This study examines empirically the effects of market volatility on the value relevance of fair values. Using the modified Ohlson model ( 1995 ) and a sample of U.S. financial companies for the period of 2008 to 2013, this study shows that fair values are priced at a significant discount when market volatility is high. Song ( 2013 ) shows analytically that the effectiveness of fair value accounting is negatively affected by market volatility. Findings of the current study suggest that investors understand the effects of market volatility on fair values and price them accordingly. The study extends the research on the determinants of the usefulness of fair values by looking beyond factors associated with the reliability of estimated fair values (Level 2 and Level 3 fair values). This study has practical implications: current accounting standards for fair value measurement acknowledge the limitations of the market as a source of fair values by offering a three‐level fair value hierarchy with provisions for fair values to deviate from market prices. Findings of this study shed light on a previously little studied factor, that is, market volatility, on the usefulness of fair values.     

Valuation scepticism,liquidity benefits and closed‐end fund premiums/discounts: evidence from fair value disclosures

Closed‐end fund investors may view assets valued using level 2 and 3 inputs more sceptically because of the subjectivity of these inputs (valuation scepticism), or these assets could be viewed favourably because they allow small investors to access illiquid securities (liquidity benefit). We find that funds holding level 3 assets have higher value when funds trade at a premium, but lower value when funds trade at a discount. Both of these effects are magnified for funds with higher levels of unrealized appreciation. Our results suggest that liquidity benefit (valuation scepticism) is more important when funds trade at a premium (discount).     

Bank Failure,Mark‐to‐market and the Financial Crisis

This paper is concerned with the allegation that fair value accounting rules have contributed significantly to the recent financial crisis. It focuses on one particular channel for that contribution: the impact of fair value on the actual or potential failure of banks. The paper compares four criteria for failure: one economic, two legal and one regulatory. It is clear from this comparison that balance sheet valuations of assets are, in two cases, crucial in these definitions, and so the choice between ‘fair value’ or other valuations can be decisive in whether a bank fails; but in two cases fair value is irrelevant. Bank failures might arise despite capital adequacy and balance sheet solvency due to sudden shocks to liquidity positions. Two of the most prominent bank failures cannot, at first sight, be attributed to fair value accounting: we show that Northern Rock was balance sheet solvent, even on a fair value basis, as was Lehman Brothers. The case study evidence is augmented by econometric tests that suggest that mark‐to‐market accounting has had only a very limited influence on the perceived failure risk of banks.     

Asset value management in the Portuguese real estate sector

This paper analyzes whether real estate investment fund managers use asset valuation discretion strategically to achieve financial reporting objectives. Portuguese real estate investment funds represent a unique opportunity to investigate executive behavior regarding accounting choice, as fund managers may choose to use historical cost, fair value or a mixed system (historical cost with internal revaluations) to value fund properties. We also investigate the factors that influence this strategic behavior. Empirical results confirm that fund managers manage asset valuations in order to avoid net asset value declines, particularly in a period of financial distress. We also observe that funds with a higher level of past unconditional conservatism are more likely to manage asset values. With respect to corporate governance issues, we conclude that audit quality reduces managerial discretion and that the conflicts that may arise between fund management company shareholders and fund participants due to management fees do not seem to have impact on fund managers’ opportunistic behavior.     

The link between the share of banks’ Level 3 assets and their default risk and default costs

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - We empirically explore the risk relevance of Level 3 fair value estimates. Thereby we focus on banks’ default risk as well as banks’...     

The Effect of Fair Value Adjustments on Dividend Policy Under Mandatory International Financial Reporting Standards Adoption: Australian Evidence

Using a sample of firms from the financial sector of the Australian Securities Exchange, we examine the effect of the fair value adjustments of financial instruments on firms’ dividend distributions in the context of mandatory International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. We find a positive relationship between the fair value adjustments of financial instruments and firms’ dividend payouts, suggesting that the frequent use of fair value adjustments of financial instruments by financial firms following mandatory IFRS adoption has the potential to increase the proportion of transitory earnings in reported earnings and cause changes in dividend policies. Our results add to the ongoing debate on the unintended economic consequences of fair value accounting (FVA) and provide empirical support for regulators’ concerns that unrealized FVA gains from asset revaluation during booms may encourage the distribution of those unrealized gains.     

Fair Value Exposure,Changes in Fair Value and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Australian Real Estate Industry

This paper investigates the relationship between audit fees and both fair value exposure and changes in fair value of investment properties. The study is motivated by the limited and inconclusive evidence on the effect on audit fees of full fair value reporting for illiquid assets. Using hand‐collected data from the Australian real estate industry, we find a negative (positive) association between audit fees and fair value exposure (changes in fair value of investment properties). Our findings also indicate that the use of unobservable inputs in fair value estimates for investment properties does not significantly increase audit risk and audit fees. Further, we find that audit fees are higher for firms with fair values of investment – properties estimated by external and mixed valuers – compared to firms with fair values estimated by directors alone. This study enriches the audit fee literature by documenting auditors’ pricing decisions in an area that involves significant estimation and valuation risks.     

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.     

Measurement Model or Asset Type: Evidence from an Evaluation of the Relevance of Financial Assets

This study focuses on the operation of the Level 1, 2, and 3 measurement uncertainty hierarchy embedded in the SFAS 157 accounting for financial assets. Prior studies conclude the SFAS 157 fair value measurement model and prevailing financial market conditions are causal factors for the lower value relevance of the Level 3 financial assets. The contribution of our paper is to provide evidence on an additional, hitherto undocumented source of measurement uncertainty impacting the relevance of SFAS 157 financial assets to investors: the type of asset appearing in Level 3 financial assets as a result of asset securitizations and SFAS 140 securitization accounting. The paper also presents evidence that suggests the SFAS 166 amendments were unable to fully address informational transparency for financial assets arising from securitizations. The key contribution is evidentiary insights suggesting the prescribed measurement model has a relatively lower impact on measurement uncertainty and relevance of financial assets compared to the effects of the asset type.     

The impact of the institutional environment on the value relevance of fair values

Most prior studies attribute valuation discounts on certain fair valued assets to measurement error or bias. We argue that institutional differences across countries (e.g., information environment or market sophistication) affect investors’ ability to process and impound fair value information in their valuation. We predict that the impact of the institutional environment on value relevance is particularly pronounced for reported fair values of assets designated at fair value through profit or loss (hereafter, “FVO assets”), for which investor experience is lowest and complexity is highest. Using a global sample of IFRS banks, we find that FVO assets are generally less value relevant than held-for-trading assets (HFT) and available-for-sale assets (AFS). By partitioning countries into market- and bank-based economies to proxy for institutional differences, we find that the valuation discount on FVO assets is more pronounced in bank-based economies. Additional tests suggest that this valuation discount is attenuated by a richer firm-level information environment and the presence of institutional investors with fair value experience.     

Assessing the Impact of Fair‐Value Accounting on Financial Statement Analysis: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach

The historical‐cost and prudence principles have guided accounting for financial investments and tangible fixed assets in many jurisdictions around the globe. This situation might change as a consequence of the increasing number of countries adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which, to some extent, permit accounting on a fair‐value basis. It is unclear how such a change would affect the analysis of financial statements and to what extent it could modify analysts' perceptions of companies' condition and performance. This paper attempts to shed some light on this issue by restating the financial investments and tangible fixed assets of a sample of 85 Spanish insurance companies, applying fair value instead of historical‐cost‐based valuations and by simulating analyst perception of these companies' efficiency and profitability for both sets of data using data envelopment analysis (DEA). We find that the numbers on the face of the financial statements change considerably and observe that the magnitude of these changes varies between companies and classes of assets. However, only in a few cases does a change in the valuation basis lead to a relevant change in DEA scores; within our sample, the overall assessment of companies with regard to efficiency and profitability remains largely the same under both valuation bases. These findings seem to indicate that a change from historical‐cost to fair‐value accounting could alter analyst perceptions of a limited number of companies but likely will not have a major impact on the appraisal of the majority of them.     

Equity valuation in practice: The influence of net financial expenses

This study investigates the relevance of net financial expenses with respect to equity valuation in an IFRS accounting regime. According to the residual earnings valuation model, income related to balance sheet items that are recorded at fair value is not applicable for valuation purposes. There are no residual earnings associated with these items because the balance sheet provides ‘perfect’ value estimates for the items in question. In accordance with the contention that under IFRS, aggregate net financial liabilities are recorded at a book value that is close to fair value, this study demonstrates that net financial expenses are not associated with the market prices of stocks. The investigation discusses the empirical findings in light of the enduring controversies regarding the use of fair value accounting.