Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 833–858 | Cite as

The financial reporting of fair value based on managerial inputs versus market inputs: evidence from mortgage servicing rights



This research examines whether the fair value of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) based on managerial inputs (Level 3) better reflects the cash flow and risk characteristics of the underlying assets than the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). Using mortgage servicing fees as a proxy for the underlying cash flows, we find that the valuation multiples for MSRs based on Level 3 inputs are more positively associated with the persistence of future servicing fees compared with the fair value of MSRs based on Level 2 inputs. We also document that only the valuation multiples based on Level 3 fair values are negatively associated with proxies for risk factors. Our results suggest that, although unobservable inputs are subject to managerial discretions, managers can generate higher quality fair value estimates than market inputs due to their information advantage, especially when the market for the underlying asset is inactive.


Mortgage servicing rights Fair value Market inputs Managerial inputs FAS 157 

JEL Classification



  1. Aboody, D., Barth, M., & Kasznik, R. (1999). Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26, 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, S., Greenberg, W. R., & Payner, B. (2001). A capital markets view of mortgage servicing rights. The Journal of Fixed Income, 11, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altamuro, J., & Beatty, A. L. (2010). How does internal control regulation affect financial reporting? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth, M. (1991). Relative measurement errors among alternative pension asset and liability measures. The Accounting Review, 66, 433–463.Google Scholar
  5. Botosan, C., Carrizosa, R., & Huffman, A. (2011). Factors influencing banks’ use of level 3 valuation inputs during the financial crisis, working paper, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, S., Hayre, L. S., Lauterbach, K., Payne, R., & Zimmerman, T. (1992). Analysis of mortgage servicing portfolios. The Journal of Fixed Income, 2(3), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttimer, R., & Lin, C.-C. (2005). Valuing US and Canadian mortgage servicing rights with default and prepayment. Journal of Housing Economics, 14, 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, B., Collins, D., & Johnson, B. (1997). Valuation implications of reliability differences: The case of nonpension postretirement obligations. The Accounting Review, 72, 351–383.Google Scholar
  9. Cotter, J., & Richardson, S. (2002). Reliability of asset revaluations: The impact of appraiser independence. Review of Accounting Studies, 7(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietrich, R., Harris, M., & Muller, K. (2001). The reliability of investment property fair value estimates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emrick, C. (2006 May). New FASB statement requires initial fair value treatment for servicing assets and liabilities: Look for increases in gain on sale revenues at mortgage companies. Moody’s Investor Services.Google Scholar
  12. Goh, B. W., Ng, J., & Yong, K. O. (2009). Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 during the 2008 economic crisis, working paper, MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Kolev, K. (2009). Do investors perceive marking-to-model as marking-to-myth? Early evidence from FAS 157 disclosure. Working Paper: New York University.Google Scholar
  14. Laux, C., & Leuz, C. (2009). The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 826–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laux, C., & Leuz, C. (2010). Did fair value accounting contribute to the financial crisis? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maines, L., & Wahlen, J. (2006). The nature of accounting information reliability: Inference from archival and experimental research. Accounting Horizons, 20, 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muller, K. (1999). An examination of the voluntary recognition of acquired brand names in the United Kingdom. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfeiffer, R. (1998). Market Value and Accounting Implications of Off-Balance-Sheet Items. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riedl, E., & Serafeim, G. (2009). Information risk and fair value: An examination of equity betas and bid-ask spreads. Working paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  20. Ryan, S. G. (2008). Accounting in and for the subprime crisis. The Accounting Review, 83, 1605–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sloan, R. (1999). Evaluating the reliability of current value estimates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Song, J. C., Thomas, W., & Yi, H. (2010). Value relevance of FAS no. 157 fair value hierarchy information and the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. The Accounting Review, 85, 1375–1410.Google Scholar
  23. Urumoglu, U. (2010). Demystifying the valuation of mortgage servicing rights.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Accounting and MIS DepartmentThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations