Investment property: Fair value or cost model? Recent evidence from the application of IAS 40 in Europe

IF 1.2 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Maria Elena Olante, Ugo Lassini
{"title":"Investment property: Fair value or cost model? Recent evidence from the application of IAS 40 in Europe","authors":"Maria Elena Olante,&nbsp;Ugo Lassini","doi":"10.1016/j.adiac.2021.100568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of this study is to shed light on the management choice between fair value and cost for investment property under IAS 40 in Europe. Using a multi-motivation approach, we explore what drives this choice across countries and across industries<span> after ten years have passed from the first adoption of IAS 40. Following the theoretical framework developed by the accounting choice theory, we hypothesize that there are several classes of reasons possibly leading managers to commit to fair value: contractual efficiency motives, asset pricing incentives tied to information asymmetries, country institutional factors, and industry factors. In order to test these hypotheses, we select a sample of publicly-traded firms operating in the real estate, manufacturing and banking industries, and located in nine European countries where national pre-IFRS standards mandated either fair value or historical cost for investment property. We test our hypotheses running our model both on the full sample (real estate, manufacturing, and banking) and on a subsample that excludes real estate firms.</span></p><p>We find that all the proposed rationales included in our model play a role in explaining the choice between fair value and cost. Particularly, with regard to asset pricing incentives, the ratio of market to book value, as a proxy for information asymmetries, has a negative association with fair value. As for contractual motives, firm size, as a proxy for political costs is negatively related with the choice of fair value, although the firm's reliance on debt (measured by leverage) seems not to affect the choice. Firms with a higher ratio of investment property over total assets are much more likely to opt for fair value than firms for which IAS 40 assets are less significant. Finally, the comparison of choices made by firms in our sample at the first adoption of IFRS<span> in 2005 with those made after ten years provides evidence of a learning process. The fair value choice however appears to be strongly related to country institutional factors, particularly the development of capital markets and legal origin, with firms operating in countries where markets are more developed being more likely to choose fair value.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":46906,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611021000560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to shed light on the management choice between fair value and cost for investment property under IAS 40 in Europe. Using a multi-motivation approach, we explore what drives this choice across countries and across industries after ten years have passed from the first adoption of IAS 40. Following the theoretical framework developed by the accounting choice theory, we hypothesize that there are several classes of reasons possibly leading managers to commit to fair value: contractual efficiency motives, asset pricing incentives tied to information asymmetries, country institutional factors, and industry factors. In order to test these hypotheses, we select a sample of publicly-traded firms operating in the real estate, manufacturing and banking industries, and located in nine European countries where national pre-IFRS standards mandated either fair value or historical cost for investment property. We test our hypotheses running our model both on the full sample (real estate, manufacturing, and banking) and on a subsample that excludes real estate firms.

We find that all the proposed rationales included in our model play a role in explaining the choice between fair value and cost. Particularly, with regard to asset pricing incentives, the ratio of market to book value, as a proxy for information asymmetries, has a negative association with fair value. As for contractual motives, firm size, as a proxy for political costs is negatively related with the choice of fair value, although the firm's reliance on debt (measured by leverage) seems not to affect the choice. Firms with a higher ratio of investment property over total assets are much more likely to opt for fair value than firms for which IAS 40 assets are less significant. Finally, the comparison of choices made by firms in our sample at the first adoption of IFRS in 2005 with those made after ten years provides evidence of a learning process. The fair value choice however appears to be strongly related to country institutional factors, particularly the development of capital markets and legal origin, with firms operating in countries where markets are more developed being more likely to choose fair value.

投资性房地产:公允价值模式还是成本模式?来自国际会计准则第40号在欧洲应用的最新证据
本研究的目的是阐明在国际会计准则第40号下,欧洲投资性房地产的公允价值和成本之间的管理选择。采用多动机方法,我们探讨了在首次采用IAS 40十年后,是什么推动了各国和各行业的这一选择。根据会计选择理论发展的理论框架,我们假设有几类原因可能导致管理者承诺公允价值:合同效率动机、与信息不对称相关的资产定价激励、国家制度因素和行业因素。为了检验这些假设,我们选择了房地产、制造业和银行业的上市公司样本,这些公司位于9个欧洲国家,这些国家的国家前国际财务报告准则要求投资性房地产的公允价值或历史成本。我们在完整样本(房地产、制造业和银行业)和不包括房地产公司的子样本上运行我们的模型来测试我们的假设。我们发现,我们的模型中包含的所有建议的基本原理都在解释公允价值和成本之间的选择方面发挥了作用。特别是,在资产定价激励方面,作为信息不对称的代表,市场与账面价值的比率与公允价值呈负相关。至于契约动机,作为政治成本代理的企业规模与公允价值的选择呈负相关,尽管企业对债务的依赖(以杠杆率衡量)似乎并不影响公允价值的选择。投资物业占总资产比例较高的公司比资产不那么重要的公司更有可能选择公允价值。最后,我们的样本公司在2005年首次采用国际财务报告准则时所做的选择与十年后所做的选择的比较提供了学习过程的证据。然而,公允价值的选择似乎与国家制度因素密切相关,特别是资本市场的发展和法律渊源,在市场更发达的国家经营的公司更有可能选择公允价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Accounting
Advances in Accounting BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting continues to provide an important international forum for discourse among and between academic and practicing accountants on the issues of significance. Emphasis continues to be placed on original commentary, critical analysis and creative research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信