Download Measurement in Financial Reportingabac_309 104..110

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2010.00309.x
ABACUS, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2010
GEOFFREY WHITTINGTON
Measurement in Financial Reporting
abac_309
104..110
OVERVIEW OF THE CENTRAL THESIS
Much of the current thinking of accounting standard setters about measurement
seems to be based on an idealized view of markets as being complete and in perfectly
competitive equilibrium. In such conditions, there is a unique market price based on
full information for every asset and liability, and there is an obvious attraction in
using this price as the measure for accounting.This explains the apparent enthusiasm
for single ideal measurement methods based on market price, such as fair value
(FV), defined in SFAS 157 as a market selling price.
In reality, markets are imperfect and incomplete, so that ideal unique market
prices are not available for all assets and liabilities. This is why SFAS 157 (FASB,
2006) has to resort to a Fair Value Hierarchy, the lower levels of which require
estimation of what a market price might be if one existed. The liquidity problems
evident in the GFC have demonstrated the limitations of markets and the difficulty
of estimating market prices, even for financial instruments.
An important source of imperfection in markets is the existence of information
asymmetry, which means that not all market participants are equally well informed.
The alleviation of information asymmetry through the exercise of accountability is
the principal reason why accounts are needed.
Measurement methods should be selected with the market context in mind. Having
a single preselected measurement method may not best reflect market conditions or
meet users’ needs. Accounting provides information as input to users’ own decision
models, rather than providing a decisive valuation.
THE STANDARD SETTERS’ SEARCH FOR THE ‘BEST’
MEASUREMENT BASIS
The current project of the IASB and the FASB to develop a joint conceptual
Framework (CF) started by following the approach of the 2005 IASB Discussion
Paper (IASB, 2005, prepared by staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board)
in attempting to identify the single measurement basis that best conforms with
criteria such as relevance and representational faithfulness that are prescribed by
the CF. These measurement bases are ‘pure’ bases of measurement such as historical
cost, replacement cost, value-in-use or fair value. The objective would always be to
estimate the selected measurement basis, other bases being allowed only as proxies
Geoffrey Whittington ([email protected]) is an Emeritus Professor at CFAP, Judge Business School,
Cambridge University.
104
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
MEASUREMENT IN FINANCIAL REPORTING
where direct measurement was impossible. An example of the use of proxies is the
Fair Value Hierarchy adopted by the FASB in SFAS 157, where fair value (selling
price) is the measurement basis, but estimates using other information are permitted
when selling prices cannot be observed directly.
This approach does not favour mixed measurement approaches, such as the traditional ‘historical cost or market value, whichever is the lower’ or the more recent
deprival value method which provides an algorithm for selecting from a range of
current values, because these mix different ‘pure’ measurement bases, albeit in a
systematic way. This mixing of different measurement methods is believed to create
mismatch problems, where different items in the same set of accounts are measured
on a different basis, so that aggregation is misleading. However, as Mary Barth
indicates, the two Boards’ recent deliberations have considered a new approach
which might allow mixed measurements.
THE CASE FOR A SINGLE IDEAL MEASUREMENT BASIS
The single method approach would certainly promote consistency within accounts,
avoiding mismatches and allowing more meaningful aggregation, although aggregation problems are also present within each ‘pure’ approach: The whole can rarely be
measured as the sum of the parts.
This approach would also improve comparability across entities, although comparability is of limited value if the data being compared are not relevant to the user.
In the case of fair value, which has tended to be favoured as a pure measure, in
standard setters’ deliberations the claim has been made that this method does have
the property of relevance because it measures the market’s expectation of future
cash flows (see Barth, 2006, 2007; Hague, 2007: the former author was an IASB
Board member and the latter one of the team that developed the 2005 Discussion
Paper). It is also claimed that it has the property of objectivity, reflecting the market’s view rather than the entity-specific views of managers (IASB, 2005, Discussion
Paper, Ch. 4).
THE CASE AGAINST A SINGLE IDEAL MEASUREMENT BASIS
The adoption of a single measurement method is predicated on the belief that such
a measure will be always the most relevant and will be reliably measurable. This will
be the case if markets are complete and in perfectly competitive equilibrium. In such
a situation, a unique market value can be attributed to every asset and liability, so a
single measurement method, consistent with FV (but without the need to discuss the
choice between entry and exit values, because the two are now identical under the
‘law of one price’) is appropriate. Such properties as consistency and comparability
can then be achieved in a very precise sense.
Unfortunately, in reality, markets are not perfect and complete, so that this ideal
information is not available. Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) have demonstrated that
information asymmetry, which is pervasive in markets and whose partial relief is a
fundamental object of accounts, is a fundamental barrier to market perfection:
105
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
A BAC U S
‘because information is costly, prices cannot perfectly reflect the information which
is available, since, if it [sic] did, those who spent resources to obtain it would receive
no compensation’ (p. 405).
In a similar vein, Beaver and Demski (1979) have pointed out that, in a world of
perfect and complete markets, accounting would not be required, because everybody would be fully informed, so that the very existence of accounting implies a
degree of market imperfection. Beaver and Demski’s response to this dilemma is to
suggest that, in a realistic setting of market imperfection, we should regard accounts
as providing useful information for decision-making rather than definitive measurements. In practical terms, this means abandoning the standard setters’ search for the
single ideal measure and adopting instead the objective of identifying the information that is most likely to serve the needs of users’ decision models. In particular, the
informational approach is not concerned to value the business, or a part of it, by
measuring the present value of the future cash flows, but rather to provide information that will help users such as financial analysts to perform their own valuations, for
example, by providing information that will assist the prediction of future cash flows.
The nature of such information is likely to be more eclectic and more dependent on
specific circumstances than that implied by the ‘single ideal’ approach. However, it
does not preclude the universal use of a single measure if that is justified by users’
information needs and by the practical constraints of accounting. For example,
Edwards and Bell’s (1961) replacement cost model can be regarded as adopting an
informational approach (Whittington, 2008).
The recent GFC has provided a vivid illustration of the practical importance of
market imperfection and incompleteness. Financial markets were believed by standard setters to be commonly ‘deep and liquid’ and financial instruments were therefore selected, in IAS 39 (IASB, 2008), as being, in many cases, suitable for FV
measurement. However, in the course of the crisis, the markets for many financial
instruments have become very illiquid and, in some cases, non-existent, leading the
FASB and the IASB to relax their FV reporting requirements.
THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF FAIR VALUE
Fair value epitomizes the concept of an ideal single measurement objective which is
believed to be intrinsically superior to others. This belief is predicated on the
assumption of an idealized complete perfect market equilibrium, where market
prices are readily observable for all assets and liabilities (markets are complete) and
reflect the cash flows expected to be obtained by the fully informed marginal trader
(perfectly competitive equilibrium).
The market prices required by fair value are non-entity specific, that is, they do not
reflect the specific circumstances and economic opportunities facing the entity
holding the items being measured. Advocates of fair value regard this as a virtue,
because entity-specific measurement may introduce into measurement the subjective estimates of management. However, the belief that such subjective estimates
will have to be made does contradict the assumption that markets are perfect, and
therefore fully informed. In reality, accounts are concerned with reporting the state
106
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
MEASUREMENT IN FINANCIAL REPORTING
of a specific entity, in order to fulfil the accountability function to users who are not
fully informed. In this context, reporting the opportunities available to the specific
entity seems to be desirable and probably more useful than reporting the hypothetical opportunities available in a theoretically constructed market (as in the lower
levels of the Fair Value Hierarchy).
Fair value as defined in SFAS 157 has, in consequence of its underlying perfect
market assumptions, a number of deficiencies from the perspective of capturing the
actual economic opportunities available to the reporting entity. Most obviously, its
emphasis on selling price rather than net realizable value (selling price less cost to
sell) fails to measure the item in terms of the actual cash flow stemming from it. The
use of exit (selling) rather than entry prices precludes the possibility that entry
(purchase) prices may be more relevant in some circumstances. For example,
replacement costs may better capture the cost of using assets, and therefore lead to
more useful measures of profit margins, in a going concern business, in which
replacement is the norm.Another potentially useful measure precluded by fair value
is value-in-use, an entity-specific measure of the present value of the cash flows
realizable by continued holding of the item.1 This measure can be informative where
it represents the most profitable use of the item from the entity’s perspective, for
example, where financial markets are illiquid so that the most profitable use of an
asset such as a loan portfolio is to hold it to maturity. Of course, if markets were
really perfect and complete, the question of illiquidity would not arise, and neither
would the difference between entry and exit prices. If markets were also frictionless
(no transaction costs) the issue of choosing price rather than value would also be
irrelevant.
FOUNDATIONS OF AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
An informational approach to measurement, as advocated above, has two broad
implications.
First, where markets are imperfect, accounting data aid decision making by users
but are not alone sufficient to determine users’ decisions. They provide inputs to
users’ models but do not provide complete information. This proposition is consistent
with the fact that investors, who are important users of accounts, will have regard to
a wide range of economic data and other non-accounting information in valuing
their investments. It would be an unusual situation in which an appropriate valuation
of an entire entity could be obtained simply by observing the fair value of the
underlying assets and liabilities (Penman, 2007).
Second, just as ‘different costs for different purposes’ has long been accepted as
being appropriate for assisting management decisions (Clark, 1923), so ‘different
measures for different purposes’ is appropriate for financial accounting. For example,
as Penman (2007) demonstrates, cost measures may provide useful margins on
turnover for predicting operating cash flows in a going concern business, whereas
1
Mary Barth explains in a footnote that value-in-use, as defined in IAS 36, is not acceptable as fair value.
107
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
A BAC U S
fair values may be a more direct and reliable means of valuing a portfolio of
marketable investments.
LIMITING THE ALTERNATIVES
Many alternative measures might be potentially useful as information to some user,
but it would be impractical, expensive and possibly confusing to report many alternative measures. For this reason, multiple-column reporting, advocated by Stamp
(1979) and others, has never found favour in practice. There is therefore a need to
provide some principle that will limit the range of the measures required under an
informational approach.
A first step towards this would to be to define a measurement objective more
broadly than is often the case by allowing it to encompass different measurement
methods in different circumstances.A method here is assumed to be a ‘pure’ measure
embracing only one approach, such as historical cost, fair value or replacement cost.
Thus, although only one method of measurement would be associated with a particular item, different items would, or could, be measured using different methods, if
those methods best represented the economic properties of the particular item. In
the context of the current FASB and IASB conceptual frameworks, such an objective should be designed to provide the information that is most relevant to assessing
the current economic position and financial performance of the entity.
Deprival value is a measurement objective that falls within this broad requirement, offering a more precise definition of how the objective should be achieved. It
attempts to measure the economic opportunities facing the entity, by reporting the
result of the opportunity that a profit-maximizing firm would select, in the specific
circumstances facing it.
DEPRIVAL VALUE
Deprival value is therefore proposed here as a possible measurement objective,
overcoming some of the possible objections to fair value and other ‘ideal’ measurement approaches. Richard Macve discusses deprival value in more depth. Here, we
are concerned more with advocating an informational approach rather than a pure
measurement approach, on the ground that a realistic market setting implies the
former rather than the latter. Deprival value is consistent with our preferred
approach but is not necessarily the best solution, although it is certainly the best
developed in the existing literature.
It should be acknowledged in particular that deprival value has its own problems
of implementation. It requires three different measures for each item, including the
highly subjective value-in-use. It also has some difficult aggregation problems (Edey,
1974). Moreover, the essence of the informational approach is that the appropriate
measurement is dependent on the use, the circumstances (including market opportunities that are actually available) and the model of the user, so that no particular
measurement objective can be expected realistically to meet all needs in all circumstances. Hence, the choice of measurement objective in this world of imperfect
108
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
MEASUREMENT IN FINANCIAL REPORTING
markets and asymmetric information is bound to involve a degree of subjective
judgment. Therefore, we should be modest in our claims for specific solutions and
realistic about the inevitable limitations of financial reporting.
POSTSCRIPT
Richard Macve and Andrew Lennard have attached to their papers appropriate
comments on the IASB Exposure Draft, Fair Value Measurement, which appeared
after the symposium (28 May 2009). As they report, this repeats the deficiencies of
the earlier Discussion Paper and, in some respects, reinforces them. In the context of
the arguments presented earlier, the following three key points are worthy of particular note:
1. The Exposure Draft retains the assumption that fair value is an exit value. It
makes this more confusing by the reference to the use of replacement cost,
justified by ‘the economic principle of substitution’, for tangible fixed assets (BC,
para. 63). This sounds very much like deprival value, but BC, paras 65–6 attempt
to dispel this view by stating that the Exposure Draft’s proposals, unlike deprival
value, are based on the non-entity-specific views of ‘market participants’.
2. Unfortunately, in the absence of perfect markets from which to observe exit
values, the concept of a ‘market participant’ requires the assumption that such
individuals are fully informed and endowed with identical resources to those of
the reporting entity, that is, they are effectively identical to the entity. This makes
nonsense of the idea that the resulting measure is non-entity specific. In particular, by assuming that the market participant is fully informed, it ignores the
importance of information asymmetry as the motivation for financial reporting:
the whole point is that market participants are not fully informed.
3. Fair value is still defined, in the Exposure Draft, as a price rather than a value that
can be realized, because transaction costs are excluded. The reason given for their
exclusion (BC, para. 47) is that transaction costs, unlike transport costs which
would be included, are characteristics of the transaction rather than the asset.This
is apparently inconsistent with the fact that fair value is defined as the price
resulting from a sale transaction, and is therefore also a characteristic of the
transaction. The contradiction is also apparent in the Exposure Draft’s acceptance of transaction costs being deducted from selling price when identifying the
‘most advantageous market’ (8), although once the market is selected, fair value
is the price unadjusted for selling costs.
references
Barth, M., ‘Including Estimates of the Future in Today’s Financial Statements’, Accounting Horizons, Vol.
20, No. 3, 2006.
——, ‘Standard-Setting Measurement Issues and the Relevance of Research’, Accounting and Business
Research, Special Issue: International Accounting Policy Forum, 2007.
Beaver, W. H., and J. S. Demski, ‘The Nature of Income Measurement’, The Accounting Review, January
1979.
109
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney
A BAC U S
Clark, J. M., Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs, University of Chicago Press, 1923.
Edey, H. C., ‘Deprival Value and Financial Accounting’, in H. Edey and B. S. Yamey (eds), Debits, Credits,
Finance and Profits, Sweet & Maxwell, 1974.
Edwards, E. O., and P. W. Bell, The Theory and Measurement of Business Income, University of California
Press, 1961.
Financial Accounting Standards Board, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements, FASB, 2006.
Grossman, S. J., and J. E. Stiglitz, ‘On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets’, American
Economic Review, Vol. 70, No. 3, 1980.
Hague, I. P. N., ‘The Case for Fair Value’, in P. Walton (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Fair Value and
Financial Reporting, Routledge, 2007.
International Accounting Standards Board, Discussion Paper, Measurement Bases for Financial
Accounting—Measurement on Initial Recognition, IASB, 2005.
——, International Accounting Standard 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement
(revised November 2008, originally issued March 1999), IASB, 2008.
——, Exposure Draft, Fair Value Measurement, IASB, 2009.
Penman, S. H., ‘Financial Reporting Quality: Is Fair Value a Plus or a Minus?’, Accounting and Business
Research, Special Issue: International Accounting Policy Forum, 2007.
Stamp, E., ‘Financial Reports on an Entity: Ex Uno Plures’, in R. R. Sterling and A. L. Thomas (eds),
Accounting for a Simplified Firm Owning Depreciable Assets, Scholars Book Co., 1979.
Whittington, G., ‘What the “Old Guys” Can Tell Us: Edwards and Bell’s The Theory and Measurement of
Business Income’, Irish Accounting Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2008.
110
© 2010 The Author
Journal compilation © 2010 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney