Non-Professional Investors' Judgments of the Reliability of Fair Value Estimates - The impact of Investor Mood

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Chen ◽  
Noel Harding ◽  
Wen He
Keyword(s):  
Fair Value ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Value Hierarchy ◽  
The Impact

We study whether investor mood affects non-professional investors' judgments of the reliability of fair value estimates. In two experiments, we find that investor mood, which is a factor that is unrelated to the assessment of reliability across the fair value hierarchy, is associated with differences in the extent to which Level 1 fair values are perceived to be more reliable than Level 3 fair values. As mood becomes more positive, investors perceive greater differences in the extent to which Level 1 fair values are more reliable than Level 3 fair values. Importantly, we find that including brief definitions in the headings under which fair values are reported reduces the influence of mood over perceptions of reliability, and likely improves the effectiveness of fair value disclosures.

Fair value's effects on closed-end funds' discounts and premia: is level 3 the sole perpetrator?

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1001-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Fortin ◽  
Ahmad Hammami ◽  
Michel Magnan
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Information ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Closed End Funds ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Value Hierarchy ◽  
Valuation Uncertainty ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 2

PurposeThis study examines the long-term link between fair valuation uncertainty and discounts/premia in closed-end funds. This study argues that, in exploring the close-end funds puzzle, prior research generally omits to consider the uncertainty surrounding the measurement of funds' financial disclosure, as reflected in the fair value hierarchy, when investment specialty differs across funds.Design/methodology/approachRegressions were employed to explore how the fair value hierarchy affects closed-end funds' discounts/premia when investment specialty differs. The authors also examine the effects pre- and post-2012 to explore if that relationship changes due to the additional disclosure requirements enacted at the end of 2011.FindingsThe authors find that the three levels of the fair value hierarchy have effects that vary according to a fund's specialty. For equity specialized funds, Level 3 significantly increases discounts and decreases premia, suggesting the impact of valuation uncertainty that underlies Level 3 estimates; this relationship disappears (decreases in severity) for premia (discount) experiencing funds post-2012. In contrast, Level 1 and Level 2 do not have any significant effect on discounts or premia except that post-2012, Level 2 begins to display discount decreasing effects. For bond specialized funds, no significant association was noted between premia and any of the fair value levels except that post-2012, Level 3 begins to display premium increasing effects. However, results are different for discounts. The authors note that Level 1 valuations significantly increase discounts, but only post-2012; Level 2 valuations significantly decrease discounts (pre- and post-2012), consistent with such estimates incorporating unique and relevant information; and Level 3 valuations do not have a significant effect on discounts.Originality/valueThe results of this study revisit prior evidence and indicate that results about the effects of fair value measurement and the closed-end funds' puzzle are sensitive to the period length being considered and the investment specialty of the fund. The authors also note that additional disclosure regarding Level 3 valuation inputs decreases market concern for valuation uncertainty and increases the liquidity benefits of investing in Level 3 carrying funds.

scholarly journals Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional Terhadap Relevansi Nilai Informasi Hierarki Nilai Wajar

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 3012-3028
Author(s):  
Desni Ramadhani ◽  
Nurzi Sebrina
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sampling Method ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Institutional Ownership ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Value Hierarchy ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Level 2

The purpose of this research is to examine the relevance of fair value hierarchy information and the effect of institutional ownership on the relevance of fair value hierarchy information. This research is a causal associative research with a quantitative approach. Research conducted on banking companies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange period 2015-2018, which were determined by purposive sampling method so that 37 companies were selected as samples. The hypotheses were tests using multiple regression. The results indicate that the fair value level 2 is more relevant than the level 1 and 3, this research proves that the fair value level 2 is relevant for decision making of investor. In subsequent tests, institutional ownership does not have a positive effect on the relevance of fair value level 1, level 2 and level 3.

Managerial ability and fair value accounting: evidence from nonfinancial firms

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wray Bradley ◽  
Li Sun
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Managerial Ability ◽  
Fair Value Accounting ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Nonfinancial Firms ◽  
Level 2

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the relation between managerial ability and fair value inputs (measured as fair value intensity) for nonfinancial firms. Design/methodology/approach This study uses regression analysis to investigate the impact of managerial ability on the level of fair value inputs. Findings This study finds significant and positive relations between managerial ability and use of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value inputs. On the other hand, this study finds an insignificant relation between managerial ability and Level 3 inputs. Originality/value The findings contribute to two research streams. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is perhaps the first study that directly examines the link between managerial ability and fair value inputs.

Illiquid Assets and the Opacity Discount in Banks’ Valuation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Anselmi
Keyword(s):  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Relative Weight ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Book Value ◽  
Valuation Technique ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Level 2 ◽  
Illiquid Assets

The paper investigates the impact of fair value accounting for illiquid assets (so-called ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 3’ assets by accounting rules) on banks’ valuation and focuses on the change in relative weight of Level 3 (the most opaque and illiquid assets) with respect to Level 2 assets. The boundary between Level 3 and Level 2 assets is blurred and less clear than the one between Level 1 and Level 2 assets. Such unclear borderline entails corporate governance issues and provides room for opportunistic behavior by managers to opt for less transparent instruments. The paper proposes the change in Level 3-to-Level 2 assets ratio as a new measure to capture deviations in the opacity of bank assets and suggests a negative relationship between this ratio and bank’s price-to-book value. The rationale behind this relationship is that market participants interpret growth in Level 3-to-Level 2 assets ratio as an increase in bank’s opacity, since Level 3 assets might be as illiquid as Level 2 assets with the benefit of a less transparent model-based valuation technique. Based on a sample of 33 European banks from 2009 to 2018, I find that an increase of 100[Formula: see text]bps in Level 3-to-Level 2 assets ratio is linked to a decrease of about 74[Formula: see text]bps in the price-to-book value. Results are robust for different measures of firm relative valuation and using a different measure of illiquidity in fair value assets holdings (Level 2-to-Level 1 assets ratio).

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

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 1375-1410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Joon Song ◽  
Wayne B. Thomas ◽  
Han Yi
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Value Relevance ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Governance Mechanisms ◽  
Corporate Governance Mechanisms ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Fair Value Measurements ◽  
Level 2

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.

Fair Value Measurements and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Banking Industry

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Ettredge ◽  
Yang Xu ◽  
Han S. Yi
Keyword(s):  
Positive Association ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Cost Efficiencies ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Fair Value Measurements ◽  
Level 2

SUMMARY: Using publicly traded bank holding company data from 2008 through 2011, this paper documents that the proportions of fair-valued assets held by banks are positively associated with audit fees. The positive association between audit fees and the proportions of total assets that are fair-valued using Level 3 inputs is greater than its positive association with the proportions of total assets that are fair-valued using Level 1 or Level 2 inputs. These results are consistent with a hypothesized scenario in which audit effort increases in the difficulty of verifying asset fair values. We also document that bank specialist auditors, defined as in Behn, Choi, and Kang (2008), charge lower audit fees to bank clients on average, suggesting cost efficiencies passed to clients as lower fees. However, bank expert auditors charge more for auditing the proportions of total assets that are fair-valued. Overall, the results support concerns expressed by some observers that greater use of fair value measurements for financial instruments will trigger increased audit fees. Data Availability: All data used in this study are publicly available from the sources identified in the text.

scholarly journals The Impact of Benchmark Set Composition on Auditors' Level 3 Fair Value Judgments

2019 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 91-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudip Bhattacharjee ◽  
Kimberly K. Moreno ◽  
Nicole S. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Discount Rate ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
Contrast Effects ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Benchmark Data ◽  
Evaluation Task ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Investment Experience ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Auditors frequently use benchmarking analysis to evaluate the appropriateness of a client's estimates. Client management may strategically select benchmark data, making an auditor's evaluation task more difficult. Psychology research suggests that the composition of the benchmark set can lead to contrast effects, because evaluations of an option in a choice set can change based on the inclusion of other options in the set. In Experiment 1, we examine and find that auditors' judgments of the reasonableness of a client-preferred discount rate for a Level 3 investment are inappropriately influenced by the set of peer companies provided by the client as justification. In Experiment 2, audit managers performing the same task similarly exhibited contrast effects. However, as managers' investment experience increased, the influence of contrast effects from the benchmark set decreased. Given the widespread use of benchmark data, contrast effects from benchmark set composition have implications for accounting and auditing contexts.

Do Investors Perceive Marking-to-Model as Marking-to-Myth? Early Evidence from FAS 157 Disclosure

2019 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 1950005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalin S. Kolev
Keyword(s):  
Stock Price ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Market Prices ◽  
Early Evidence ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Fas 157 ◽  
Net Assets ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 2

Capitalizing on the disclosure mandated by FAS 157, I examine the equity market’s perception of the reliability of internally generated fair value estimates. For the sample of S&P 1,500 financial institutions for the first three quarters of 2008, I document a significantly positive association between stock price and fair values measured using unadjusted market prices (FAS 157 Level 1), other observable inputs (Level 2), and significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), with valuation coefficients generally increasing in the observability of the measurement inputs. Using the reconciliation of the change in Level 3 net assets, I then directly examine the periodic re-measurement of the fair value estimates and document a significantly positive association between Level 3 net gains and quarterly returns. This result manifests even among observations with thin capital cushion, poorer information environment, and weaker corporate governance. Collectively, the findings are consistent with the conjecture that investors perceive the management-provided, mark-to-model, fair value estimates sufficiently reliable to use in firm valuation and do not discard them as “markings-to-myth.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document