This article examines equity market perceptions of fair value reporting for tangible assets. We identify six events—four designated as increasing, two as decreasing—affecting the likelihood of U.S. adoption of fair value reporting for investment property (i.e., real estate) assets, one of the largest asset classes in the world. Fair value adoption in the United States would facilitate convergence of one of the widest remaining disparities between U.S. reporting and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): accounting for tangible investment property assets, where the United States (IFRS) requires depreciated historical cost (recognized or disclosed fair values). Using a sample of U.S. investment property firms, we document an average positive market reaction for movement toward fair value reporting. We further find predictable cross-sectional variation, with the market reaction increasing for firms with greater commitment to high-quality reporting, greater investor demand for fair values, higher financial risk, and staler asset values. Overall, the results are consistent with U.S. equity markets perceiving net benefits to movement toward a fair value reporting approach for this asset class.
ArmstrongC.BarthM.JagolinzerA.RiedlE. (2010). Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review, 85, 31–61.
2.
BarthM. E. (1994). Fair value accounting: Evidence from investment securities and the market valuation of banks. The Accounting Review, 69, 1–25.
3.
BarthM. E.ClinchG. (1998). Revalued financial, tangible, and intangible assets: Associations with share prices and non-market-based value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 199–233.
4.
BeattyA.ChamberlainS.MaglioloJ. (1996). An empirical analysis of the economic implications of fair value accounting for investment Securities. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, 43–77.
ChristensenH.NikolaevV. (2013). Does fair value accounting for non-financial assets pass the market test?Review of Accounting Studies, 18, 734–775.
7.
CornettM.RezaeeZ.TehranianH. (1996). An investigation of capital market reactions to pronouncements on fair value accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, 119–154.
8.
DefondM.HuX.HungM.LiS. (2011). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on foreign mutual fund ownership: The role of comparability. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51, 240–258.
9.
EastonP.EddeyP.HarrisT. (1993). An investigation of revaluations of tangible long-lived assets. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 1–38.
10.
European Public Real Estate Association. (2006, November). Best practices policy recommendations.
11.
FamaE.MacBethJ. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 607–636.
12.
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2002, September). Memorandum of understanding: The Norwalk agreement.
HendricksK. B.HoraM.SinghalV. R. (2015). An Empirical Investigation on the Appointments of Supply Chain and Operations Management Executives. Management Science, 61(7), 1562–1583.
21.
JiangJ.WangI. Y.XieY. (2015). Does it matter who serves on the Financial Accounting Standards Board? Bob Herz’s resignation and fair value accounting for loans. Review of Accounting Studies, 20, 371–394.
22.
JoosP.LeungE. (2013). Investor perceptions of potential IFRS adoption in the United States. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 577–609.
23.
KhanU.LiB.RajgopalS.VenkatachalamM. (2018). Do the FASB’s standards add shareholder value?The Accounting Review, 93(2), 209–247.
24.
LawrenceA.RyansJ.SunE.LaptevN. (2018). Earnings announcement promotions: A Yahoo finance field experiment. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 66, 399–414.
25.
LeuzC.VerrecchiaR. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 91–124.
26.
LiangL.RiedlE. (2014). The effect of fair value versus historical cost reporting model on analyst forecast accuracy. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 1151–1177.
27.
MullerK.RiedlE. (2002). External monitoring of property appraisal estimates and information asymmetry. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(3), 865–881.
28.
MullerK.RiedlE.SellhornT. (2011). Mandatory fair value accounting and information asymmetry: Evidence from the European real estate industry. Management Science, 57(6), 1138–1153.
29.
MüllerM.RiedlE.SellhornT. (2015). Recognition versus disclosure of fair values. The Accounting Review, 90(6), 2411–2447.
NelsonK. (1996). Fair value accounting for commercial banks: An empirical analysis of SFAS no. 107. The Accounting Review, 71, 161–182.
32.
PetersenM. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.
33.
RiedlE.SerafeimG. (2011). Information risk and fair values: An examination using equity betas. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 1083–1022.
34.
SongC.ThomasW.YiH. (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.
35.
ZhangI. (2007). Economic consequences of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44, 74–115.
