Are Level 3 Fair Value Remeasurements Useful? Evidence from FAS 157 Rollforward Disclosures

Exploiting detailed disclosures mandated by Accounting Standard Codification (ASC) 820, we provide evidence for the return relevance of Level 3 fair value remeasurements for a comprehensive sample of U.S. listed banks. We find that Level 3 remeasurements recognized in earnings are more return relevant than those recognized in other comprehensive income (OCI). Our results suggest that Level 3 remeasurements in OCI partially reflect transitory illiquidity discounts that are less relevant when banks have the ability to hold the underlying assets. The regulatory capital treatment of OCI also affects the return relevance of Level 3 remeasurements in OCI. Importantly, we find no differences in the return relevance of realized versus unrealized Level 3 remeasurements in earnings, allaying concerns that investors perceive unrealized Level 3 remeasurements of lesser quality. Overall, our findings support the usefulness of the segregated disclosures of Level 3 fair value remeasurements.

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

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.”

Common Sense As Corporate Culture

A discussion of the problems associated with the implementation of FAS 157 and inherent risk for small- to-medium sized firms in the mortgage industry. Emphasis is placed on components of corporate culture and an example is provided using Network Funding, L.P., a Houston-based mortgage banking firm.

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

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.