THE ACCOUNTING ASSESSMENT
Vol. eighty six, No . 6
American Accounting Connection
DOI: 12. 2308/accr-10134
Judging the Relevance of Reasonable Value to get
The School of Arizona at Austin
Karen T. Nelson
Catherine M. William shakespeare
University of Michigan
FUZY: We conduct three tests to test in the event investors' sights about reasonable value will be contingent upon whether the monetary instrument under consideration is a property or liability, whether reasonable values create gains or perhaps losses, and whether the item will or perhaps will not be sold/ settled quickly. We draw on counterfactual reasoning theory from mindset, which suggests these factors are likely to influence whether investors consider fair worth as featuring information about forgone opportunities. These, in turn, is definitely predicted to influence investors' fair benefit relevance decision. Results are generally supportive from the notion that judgments about the relevance of good value are contingent. Endeavors to influence investors' fair value significance judgments by providing them with information regarding forgone chances are met with mixed success. In particular, the results are very sensitive to the sort of information offered and show the difficulty of overcoming investors' (apparent) good beliefs regarding fair benefit.
Keywords: good value; significance; forgone possibilities; counterfactual thinking. Data Supply: Contact the authors.
My spouse and i. INTRODUCTION
or some time, a argument has existed on the significance of good value for the valuation of ﬁnancial instruments. Supporters argue that ﬁnancial statement measures based on prices that reﬂect the current market assessment—and therefore lead to fair value benefits and losses—inform investors regarding forgone opportunities arising from management's decision to keep to hold property or are obligated to repay liabilities. These kinds of forgone opportunities are considered as pertinent, because they allow management's previous decisions to be evaluated and the worth of the ﬁrm to be We all thank two anonymous gurus, Laureen Maines (editor), and workshop participants at The College or university of The state of alabama, The University or college of Texas, Cornell University or college, Emory School, Nanyang Technological University, Tx A& M University, as well as the 2009 ABO Conference in Seattle for their helpful feedback. Editor's notice: Accepted simply by Laureen Maines.
Submitted: Come july 1st 2009
Acknowledged: April 2011
Published On-line: July 2011
Koonce, Nelson, and Shakespeare
reassessed. 1 The premise of your study is that individuals' landscapes about the relevance of fair worth are not unwavering, but rely upon the speciﬁc context in which they occur. We execute multiple tests to investigate whether and how investors' judgments of fair benefit relevance pertaining to ﬁnancial devices are sensitive to three contexts: whether reasonable values bring about losses compared to gains; if fair principles are put on assets versus liabilities; and whether administration intends to sell/settle rapidly versus keep to maturity. We pull on counterfactual reasoning theory (Roese 1997) to posit that these situations capture three underlying constructs—namely, the desirability of the final result, the mutability of the item, and the perceived closeness in the outcome, respectively—that are likely to inﬂuence whether investors consider forgone opportunities and, thus, their fair worth relevance judgments. Understanding how buyers judge the relevance of fair worth is important for several reasons. Initial, although the Financial Accounting Requirements Board (FASB) has embraced fair value as a way of measuring attribute, a couple of the use of reasonable values is definitely debated (Laux and Leuz 2009). The recent financial crisis has escalated the focus on fair worth accounting, providing impetus pertaining to the FASB to address the accounting style for ﬁnancial instruments in the recent Recommended Accounting Requirements Update in accounting intended for ﬁnancial musical instruments (FASB 2010). As part of this kind of effort, the FASB is usually considering, pertaining to...
References: Agresti, A. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Steve Wiley.
Arkes, A. 1991. Costs and beneﬁts of judgment problems: Implications pertaining to debiasing. Internal Bulletin
one hundred ten (3): 486–498.
Barth, Meters. E. 1994. Fair value accounting: Evidence from purchase securities plus the market valuation of
Barth, Meters. E., T. H. Beaver, and T. R. Landsman. 1996. Value-relevance of banks' fair value disclosures
beneath SFAS 107
Barth, Meters. E., L. Hodder, and S. Stubben. 2008. Good value accounting for debts and own credit risk. The
Accounting Review 83 (3): 629–665.
Blankespoor, Elizabeth., T. Linsmeier, K. Petroni, and C. Shakespeare. 2010. Fair Benefit Accounting to get Financial
Devices: Does It Enhance the Association among Bank Leveraging and Credit rating Risk? Doing work
Clor-Proell, T., C. Proell, and T. Warﬁeld. 2010. Financial assertion presentation and nonprofessional
investors' interpretation of fair worth information
Eccher, E. A., K. Ramesh, and S. R. Thiagarajan. 1996. Good value disclosures by financial institution holding businesses.
Financial Accounting Standards Table (FASB). 93. Accounting for many Investments in Debt and
Financial Accounting Criteria Board (FASB). 1998. Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2004. Share-Based Payment. Statement of Financial
Accounting Requirements No
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2006a. Accounting for Servicing of Financial assets—An
Amendment of FASB Declaration No
Monetary Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2006b. Good Value Measurements. Statement of Financial
Accounting Specifications No
Economic Accounting Criteria Board (FASB). 2007a. Business Combinations. Assertion of Financial
Accounting Standards Simply no
Financial Accounting Standards Table (FASB). 2007b. The Fair Value Approach to Financial Assets and
Financial Accounting Requirements Board (FASB). 2008. Conceptual Framework pertaining to Financial Confirming:
The Objective of Monetary Reporting and Qualitative Attributes and Restrictions of DecisionUseful Financial Credit reporting Information
Economic Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2010. Accounting for Monetary Instruments and Revisions
to the Accounting for Derivatives and Hedging Actions
Gaynor, M., L. McDaniel, and To. Yohn. 2011. Fair value accounting intended for liabilities: The role of disclosures in
unraveling the counterintuitive cash flow statement effect from credit rating risk changes
Gleicher, Farreneheit., D. Mat, S. Baker, A. Strathman, S. Richman, and S i9000. Sherman. 1990. The function of
counterfactual thinking in judgments of affect
Hague, I., and D. Willis. 1999. Older price or perhaps new? CALIFORNIA Magazine (February): 47–49.
Hodder, L., L. Hopkins, and J. Wahlen. 2006. Risk-relevance of fair-value income procedures for business
Hopkins, P. 1996. The effect of ﬁnancial declaration classiﬁcation of hybrid ﬁnancial instruments about ﬁnancial
analysts' stock cost judgments
Koonce, L., M. Lipe, and M. McAnally. 2008. Buyer reaction to offshoot use: Fresh evidence.
Laux, C., and C. Leuz. 2009. The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making feeling of the new debate.
Libby, R., R. Bloomﬁeld, and M. Nelson. 2002. Fresh research in ﬁnancial accounting. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society 27 (8): 775–810.
McGill, A., and A. Tenbrunsel. 2000. Mutability and tendency in causal selection. Journal of Individuality
and Sociable Psychology 79 (5): 677–689.
Meyers-Levy, L., and M. Maheswaran. 1992. When time matters: The inﬂuence of temporal distance on
customers' affective and persuasive answers
Nelson, K. K. mil novecentos e noventa e seis. Fair worth accounting pertaining to commercial banking companies: An empirical analysis of SFAS 107. The
Accounting Review 71 (2): 161–182.
Roese, D. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Mental Bulletin 121 (1): 133–148.
Roese, And., and T. Olson, eds. 1995. What Might Have Been: The Social Mindset of Counterfactual
Sanna, L., T. Stocker, and N. Schwarz. 2002. Once debiasing backﬁres: Accessible articles and
ease of access experiences in debiasing hindsight
Zion, M., A. Varshney, and C. Cornett. 2008. Focusing on fair value. Credit Suisse (June 27).