Fair Value Accounting and Earnings Persistence: Evidence from International Banks

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daifei (Troy) Yao ◽  
Majella Percy ◽  
Jenny Stewart ◽  
Fang Hu
Keyword(s):  
Strong Association ◽  
Balance Sheet ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Earnings Persistence ◽  
Legal Enforcement ◽  
International Banks ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Fair Value Measurements ◽  
Level 2

ABSTRACT Using hand-collected data from a sample of 210 international banks during the period 2009 to 2013, we investigate whether fair value exposure, the proportion of financial assets measured at fair values, is associated with earnings persistence and whether the reliability of fair value measurements influences earnings persistence. We also examine whether the association between fair value measurements and earnings persistence is a function of institutional factors such as legal enforcement, the audit environment, and country-level auditor industry expertise. Results suggest that the use of fair values for balance sheet financial instruments enhances earnings persistence. Also, we find that the nondiscretionary fair value Level 1 assets (measured with observable inputs) are positively associated with earnings persistence, whereas the Level 2 assets (measured with indirectly observable inputs) and Level 3 assets (measured using unobservable inputs) are not associated with earnings persistence. We provide further evidence that there is a strong association between factors reflecting countrywide institutional structures and the predictive power of fair values based on discretionary measurement inputs (Level 2 and Level 3 assets) and we find that the moderating effect from these institutional factors is greater for Level 3 assets than for Level 2 assets. Additional tests suggest that the association between fair value estimates and earnings persistence is moderated by the classification of fair value assets (that is, through profit and loss versus other comprehensive income) and the reliability of fair value estimates.

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.

Who's the Fairest of Them All? Evidence from Closed-End Funds

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alastair Lawrence ◽  
Subprasiri Siriviriyakul ◽  
Richard G Sloan
Keyword(s):  
Value Relevance ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Omitted Variable Bias ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Closed End Funds ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Variable Bias ◽  
Fair Value Measurements ◽  
Level 2

ABSTRACT Prior research examining the ASC 820 fair value hierarchy concludes that Level 3 fair value measurements are significantly less value-relevant than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. We reevaluate this conclusion using the closed-end fund setting, in which fair value measurements are available for substantially all assets. Contrary to prior research, we find that Level 3 fair values are of similar value relevance to Level 1 and Level 2 fair values. Our findings suggest that the results in previous research are attributable to correlated omitted variable bias arising from the absence of fair value data for most assets. JEL Classifications: M41; G12; G29. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the article.

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, corporate governance, social responsibility disclosure and banks’ performance

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Zhang ◽  
Gin Chong ◽  
Ruixin Jia
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Firm Performance ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair Value Measurement ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Value Measurement ◽  
Fair Value Measurements ◽  
Corporate Disclosures

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the interaction between mandatory disclosures and voluntary disclosures of banks and the information content of corporate disclosures on firm performance. Design/methodology/approach Based on the US-listed banks from 2007 to 2015, this paper examines the interplay among the fair-value measurement, corporate governance disclosure and voluntary social responsibility disclosure. In addition, the paper examines the extent of such disclosure of mandatory items (fair-value measurement) versus voluntary items (corporate governance and social responsibility issues) on banks’ performance in terms of their return on equity and return on asset. Findings This paper finds that banks with a higher social responsibility disclosure score and stronger corporate governance tend to have lower percentages of Level 3 fair-value assets. Banks with a higher Level 3 fair-value asset disclosure have a lower financial performance. Practical implications This paper provides evidence of the interplay of various corporate disclosures by banks and implies that banks use fair-value measurements to disguise their poor performance. The findings provide insights for the policymakers, investors and regulators to assess banks’ disclosure. Originality/value This paper extends the study of banks’ fair-value measurements and is the first study to examine the interaction between voluntary and mandatory disclosures. This study sheds lights on the theories of performativity, agency and stakeholder by demonstrating the information contents of corporate disclosures on firm performance.

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 The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Fair Value Mandate: Are Level 3 Assets and Liabilities Being Measured Accurately?

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Robert J. Cochran
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Balance Sheet ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Financial Accounting ◽  
Mortgage Loan ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
Additional Argument ◽  
Level 3

This study asks the following question with respect to level 3 fair value assets and liabilities: are level 3 fair value assets and liabilities being measured accurately?  An argument is made that since level 3 markets do not exist (as defined in ASC 820), it is not possible to determine a level 3 value.  Data is examined, both pre- and post- SFAS No. 157 with respect to a specific level 3 asset that can be found on the balance sheet of most publically traded financial institutions, mortgage loan servicing rights.  The data suggests that the FASB’s attempt to clarify fair value had no effect on the levels of capitalization of mortgage loan servicing rights.  An additional argument is made that the language in ASC 820 undermines the requirement that level 3 fair values reflect a “market” value rather than an “investment” value.

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.

scholarly journals Credit Crisis with Focus on Level Three Valuations and FAS 157: Analysis and Recommendations for Change

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 255
Author(s):  
Arber Hoti
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Credit Crisis ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Market Conditions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Fas 157 ◽  
Value Measurement ◽  
Fair Value Measurements

The paper examines the effect of level three valuations and FAS 157 implications on investors, auditors’ work, valuation disclosures and gives recommendations for improvements based on best practices. The aim of this research is to demonstrate that the fair value measurements should not be suspended. The standards provide for measurement of fair value in all market conditions. Therefore, level 3 measurements or mark-to-model is an answer for many issuers that are not sure how to measure their assets and liabilities at the fair value. The paper concludes that fair value measurement has not caused the current crisis and has no pro-cyclical effect and suggests several recommendations for policy makers and regulators. 

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document