利润表中的投资性房地产在公允价值模式下的变化来自于香港的证据外文翻译精品.docx

1、利润表中的投资性房地产在公允价值模式下的变化来自于香港的证据外文翻译精品中文2900字本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译外文题目 Value-relevance of presenting changes in fair value of investment properties in the income statement: evidence from Hong Kong 外文出处 Accounting and Business Research 外文作者 Stella So and Malcolm Smith 原文：Value-relevance of presenting chang

2、es in fair value of investment properties in the income statement: evidence from Hong KongIAS 40 (2000) represents the first time that the IASB permits a fair value model for non-financial assets (IASCF, 2008c). Under the fair value model, investment properties are carried at fair values and changes

3、 in fair value, whether up or down, are included in the profit or loss for the period and presented in the income statements. Supporters of the fair value model believe that fair values give users of financial statements more useful information than other measures, such as depreciated cost, and chan

4、ges in fair value are inextricably linked as integral components of the financial performance of an investment property and are therefore presented in the income statements (IASCF, 2008c). Although IAS 40 (2000) permits entities to choose between a fair value model or a cost model, the Basis for Con

5、clusions on IAS 40 (2000) states clearly that it is highly unlikely that a subsequent change from the fair value model to the cost model can be made on the grounds of more appropriate presentation (IASCF, 2008c). However, Penman (2007) does not entirely agree; he evaluates historical cost and fair v

6、alue accounting from two perspectives-equity valuation and stewardship and concludes that while fair value accounting is a plus at a conceptual level, the minuses add up with fair value implemented as exit price (whether estimated or observed in active markets) and the problems with historical cost

7、accounting remains unresolved. Singleton-Green (2007) summarises the problems of fair value accounting as: (1) the lack of active markets for most assets and liabilities, which means that most fair value measurements are estimates and are highly subjective and potentially unreliable; (2) costly info

8、rmation, especially for smaller companies; and (3) the recognition of profits based on fair values, which mean that unrealised profits or losses from changes in fair value are recognised, and result in greater volatility and unpredictability. This study focuses on the third issue, the presentation o

9、f changes in fair value of investment properties, in the income statement versus the revaluation reserve. Empirical studies assessing the relevance and reliability of fair value accounting versus historical cost-based accounting focus on financial instruments, and the results from these studies are

10、generally mixed. Barth (1994) finds that, for a sample of US banks with data from 19711990, disclosed fair value estimates of investment securities provide significant incremental explanatory power for bank share prices beyond that provided by historic costs. Fair value gains and losses of investmen

11、t securities (constructed from two annually disclosed fair value estimates) are, however, found to have no significant incremental explanatory power for annual returns (changes in share price), due to the increased measurement errors (Barth, 1994). Similar results are obtained in Barth et al. (1995)

12、, Barth et al. (1996), Eccher et al. (1996) and Nelson (1996), all using bank data. Results from Carroll et al. (2003) differ; instead of using bank data, they sample closed-end mutual funds which typically have investment securities (report-ed at fair values) comprising virtually all their assets a

13、nd with negligible liabilities and other assets. This is an advantage because the potential problem introduced by measuring some assets and liabilities at fair value but others at historical cost, is eliminated. Significant association between share prices and the fair value of investment securities

14、, as well as between share returns and fair value securities gains and losses are found. To examine whether differences in the reliability of the fair value of investment securities affect investors assessments of the usefulness of the information, Carroll et al. (2003) examine the association betwe

15、en share prices and fair values across different fund types and find that in all cases, including those traded in thin markets, there is a significant association between the share prices and fair values. In contrast, Danbolt and Rees (2008), using UK data, report no support for full fair value acco

16、unting. While fair value income is considerably more value-relevant than historic cost income, the higher relevance disappears in the presence of changes in fair value accounting balance sheet values. Danbolt and Rees (2008) interpret their results as evidence of the absence of an obvious advantage

17、from adopting fair value income accounting if fair value balance sheet values are available to the user. Value-relevance research studies the association between fair value estimates and share prices or returns. Sloan (1999) comments that while this association provides evidence that investors find

18、fair value estimates to be relevant, the inferences regarding reliability are indirect and limited by the fact that share prices reflect many factors other than the fair value estimates. Dietrich et al. (2001) subsequently use a direct approach to investigate the reliability of mandatory annual fair

19、 value appraisal estimates by chartered surveyors for UK investment properties and find that appraisal estimates understate actual selling prices but are considerably less biased and more accurate measures of selling price than respective historical costs. Dietrich et al. (2001) also find that the r

20、eliability of appraisal estimates increases when monitored by external appraisers and Big Six auditors. The New Zealand (hereafter NZ) SSAP No. 17 Accounting for Investment Properties and Properties Intended for Sale (NZSA, 1989) previously allowed NZ companies the choice of recognising unrealised g

21、ains or losses either in the income statement, or as movements in an investment property revaluation reserve, unless the total of the reserve was insufficient to cover a deficit, in which case the amount of deficit was to be charged in the income statement as part of operating results. The NZ equiva

22、lent of IAS 40 came into effect on 1 January 2005, resulting in the elimination of the choice of recognising unrealised gains in the revaluation reserve. Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006) investigate the relative value-relevance of the two alternative accounting treatments for unrealised gains on investme

23、nt properties, based on a sample of NZ companies over the period 1990 to 1999, when the choice was still available. Their results show that recognition of unrealised gains in the income statement is not superior to recognition of unrealised gains in the revaluation reserve in terms of their value-re

24、levance. However, Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006) include only companies with positive changes in the value of their investment properties. Taken together, findings from prior studies of firms in the US, UK and Australian capital markets during the 1990s suggest that investors have been provided with fa

25、ir value information (whether recognised or disclosed) that is generally reliable and relevant (whether fair value estimated by management or independent valuer). More research should be undertaken to test empirically whether relevance and reliability improve after the implementation of the fair val

26、ue standards on financial instruments (e.g. IAS 39) and with the extension of fair value accounting to non-financial assets (i.e. IAS 40). Like Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006), this study examines the extension of fair value accounting to investment properties and the presentation of their fair value ch

27、anges in the income statements (rather than in the revaluation reserve) in particular. Unlike Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006), this study employs data from accounting periods when the related fair value accounting standard HKAS 40 is implemented. Comparison is then made with those from the immediate pre

28、-implementation accounting periods when SSAP 13 (2000) was in effect. Also, unlike Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006), this study includes companies with both increases and decreases in fair values and uses a return model adapted from Easton and Harris (1991), Amir et al. (1993) and the earnings capitalisa

29、tion approach from Barth (1994). Empirical resultsAlthough HKAS 40 (2004) allows a free choice between cost and fair value models, all 92 companies in the initial sample chose to adopt the fair value model.All the 92 companies are retained for data analysis,with extreme variable values verified agai

30、nst their sources. Since no procedural errors or extraordinaryevents are identified, all the data collected for the 92 companies are retained for the subsequent analysis. Each company is evaluated twice, in two consecutive accounting years before and after the adoption of HKAS 40 (2004).Table 1 desc

31、ribes the distribution of accounting year-ends, years of last-time following of SSAP 13 (2000) and years of first-time adoption of HKAS 40 (2004) for the 92 companies in this study.Appendix A details their identities. Most companies have March 31 or December 31 accounting year-ends, and adopt HKAS 4

32、0 (2004) for the first time in 2005 or 2006. While HKAS 40 (2004) mandates adoption for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005, 17 companies choose to adopt HKAS 40 (2004) early.13 Tables 2A and 2B contain descriptive statistics for the 92 sample companies in the study during the year(s

33、) when HKAS 40 (2004) is adopted for the first time compared to the year(s) when SSAP 13 (2000) is adopted for the last time.On the whole, when companies apply HKAS 40 (2004) for the first time, they are experiencing higher earnings and higher market values and offering their investors higher abnormal returns; this may be attributabl