Abstract
Using a balance sheet valuation model, this study examines if information on the fair value hierarchy of on-balance sheet financial assets and financial liabilities are incorporated in the market’s valuation of companies’ equities in Singapore. The results of the study show significant associations between as-reported Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measures of financial assets and market values. However, the results are not significant for Level 3 fair value measures of financial assets and each of the three levels of fair value measures of financial liabilities. The results also show that returns are more positively associated with as-reported gains and losses from Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measures than those from Level 3 fair value measures. Overall, the evidence suggests that information on the fair value hierarchy of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures are used by market participants in their pricing decisions. The market however appears to place greater weights on fair value changes taken to the income statement than those taken to OCI, notwithstanding the level of the fair value measure. While the fixation with income statement measures remains a puzzle, the results are consistent with prior studies that show that investors largely ignore OCI in their pricing of shares.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
[1] Aboody, D., M. E. Barth and R. Kasznik. 1999. Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics 26(1–3):149–178.
[2] Accounting Standards Council, IFRS Foundation Trustees and representatives from the Singapore Accounting Standards Council and local business community meet to discuss financial reporting matters, January 16, 2012.
[3] Accounting Standards Council, FRS 1: Presentation of Financial Statements, March 28, 2008.
[4] Accounting Standards Council, Amendments to FRS 107: Improving disclosures about financial instruments, April 8, 2009.
[5] Ahmed, A.S., E. Kilie and G.J. Lobo. 2006. Does recognition versus disclosure matter? Evidence from value-relevance of banks’ recognized and disclosed derivative financial instruments. The Accounting Review 81 (3): 567–588.
[6] Barth, M.E. 1994. Fair value accounting: evidence from investment securities and market valuation. The Accounting Review 69 (1): 1–25.
[7] Barth, M.E. and W.R. Landsman. 1995. Fundamental issues related to using fair value accounting for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons 9(4): 97–107.
[8] Barth, M.E., W.H. Beaver and W. R. Landsman. 1996. Value-relevance of banks' fair value disclosures under SFAS No. 107. The Accounting Review 71: 513–37.
[9] Barth, M.E. and G. Clinch. 1998. Revalued financial, tangible, and intangible assets: Associations with share prices and non-market-based estimates. Journal of Accounting Research 36: 199–233.
[10] Bhat, G. 2008. Risk relevance of fair value gains and losses, and the impact of disclosure and corporate governance. Working paper.
[11] Bublitz, B., T.J. Frecka and J.C. Mckeown. 1985. Market association tests and FASB Statement No. 33 disclosures: A reexamination. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 1–23.
[12] Chambers, D., T.J. Linsmeier, C. Shakespeare and T. Sougiannis. 2007. An evaluation of SFAS 130 comprehensive income disclosures. Review of Accounting Studies 12: 557–593.
[13] Dhaliwal, D., K. Subramanyam and R. Trezevant. 1999. Is comprehensive income superior to net income as a measure of firm performance? Journal of Accounting and Economics 26: 43–67.
[14] Easton, P.D., P.H. Eddey and T.S. Harris. 1993. An investigation of revaluations of tangible long-lived assets. Journal of Accounting Research 31: 1–38.
[15] Eccher, E., K. Ramesh and R. Thiagarajan. 1996. Fair value disclosures by BHCs. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22 (1–3): 79–117.
[16] International Accounting Standards Board, Amendments to IFRS 7: Improving disclosures about financial instruments, March 5, 2009.
[17] ___________________________, IAS 1: Presentation of Financial Statements, September 6,2007.
[18] Jennings, J. 1990. A note on interpreting “Incremental Information Content”. The Accounting Review 65(4): 925–932.
[19] Khurana, I.R. and M. Kim. 2003. Relative value relevance of historical cost versus fair value: Evidence from bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22: 19–42.
[20] Kothari, S.P. and R. Lester. 2011. The role of accounting in the financial crisis: lessons for the future. Working Paper.
[21] Landsman, W.R. 2007. Is fair value accounting information relevant and reliable? Evidence from capital market research. Accounting and Business Research Special Issue (International Accounting Policy Forum): 19–30.
[22] Mozes, H.A. 2002. The value relevance of financial institutions’ fair value of disclosures; A study in the difficulty of linking unrealized gains and losses to equity values. Abacus, 38.
[23] Nelson, K. 1996. Fair value accounting for commercial banks: an empirical analysis of SFAS No. 107. The Accounting Review 71(2): 161–182.
[24] O’Hanlon, J. and P. Pope. 1999. The value relevance of U.K. dirty surplus accounting flows. British Accounting Review 32: 459–482.
[25] Ohlson, J. 1995. Earnings, book values and dividends in security valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research 11(2): 661–87.
[26] Schrand, C.M. 1997. The association between stock-price interest rate sensitivity and disclosures about derivative instruments The Accounting Review 72 (1): 87–109.
[27] Song, C.J., W.B. Thomas and H. Yi. 2010. Value relevance of FAS No. 157 Fair Value Hierarchy Information and the Impact of Corporate Governance Mechanisms The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1375–1410.
[28] Venkatachalam, M. 1996. Value-relevance of banks’ derivatives disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22: 327–355.
[29] Wong, F.M.H. 2000. The Association between SFAS No. 119 derivatives disclosures and the foreign exchange risk exposure of manufacturing firms. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (2): 387–417.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Authors' profile
Dr Pearl Tan has a Ph D degree in accounting from the University of Queensland and a master’s degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has co-written two textbooks on IFRS and has taught extensively on IFRS at undergraduate and postgraduate level and in professional seminars for accountants.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, P. Fair Value Hierarchy Measures: Post-Implementation Evidence on IFRS 7. GSTF J Bus Rev 4, 13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40706-015-0013-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7603/s40706-015-0013-6