Subido por ozgurmadran

fair value

Anuncio
YEDITEPE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
FAIR VALUE THEORY
Kaan Çalışkan
20190501110
Submitted to: Mehmet Nurin ÖNORTAÇ
Istanbul, 2021
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
1. REVIEW OF THE FAIR VALUE CONCEPT ..................................................................... 5
1.1. Definition ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2. Determination of fair value ............................................................................................. 6
1.3. Measurement methods used ............................................................................................ 8
1.4. Opportunity in which the concept of fair value is used ................................................ 10
1.5. Revelations.................................................................................................................... 10
1.6. Recognition of value differentials ................................................................................. 11
1.7. Relationship of the concept of fair value and impairment ............................................ 12
2. EFFECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR VALUE .......................................... 14
2.1. User satisfaction ............................................................................................................ 14
2.2. Prudent or Conservative Criterion ................................................................................ 14
2.3. Fair value reliability ...................................................................................................... 16
2.4. Heritage model to maintain........................................................................................... 17
2.5. Statement of income and variations due to fair value adjustments ............................... 18
2.6. Distributable results ...................................................................................................... 19
2.7. Administrative costs linked to the revaluation model .................................................. 19
2.8. Enforcement of compliance with standards .................................................................. 20
2.9. Taxes and use of fair value ........................................................................................... 21
3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 22
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 24
2
INTRODUCTION
In the current regulations issued by the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB), the concept of fair value is incorporated in approximately 72% of the standards;
1 however, these provide disparate and sometimes limited guidance on how to measure
fair value. In Conceptual Framework 2For the preparation and presentation of financial
statements (IASC, 1989) the concept is only stated a couple of times, in addition, when
referring to the measurement of the elements of financial statements, it does not include
it in the measurement bases and it has been planned to generate a draft on this point for
the second half of 2011 (IASB, 2010b). In the same year, the standard that establishes
how the entity should measure fair value and disclose the information of its calculation
will be issued (IASB, 2009a).
In September 2005 the IASB added to its agenda a project to clarify the meaning of fair
value and provide guidance for its application in International Financial Reporting
Standards (IASB, 2009b) and has taken into account FAS 157 Fair Value Measurements
3 as a basis for the joint work that the IASB and the FASB have developed and that
seeks to improve the comparability of financial statements prepared in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles of the United States (IASB). , 2010a).
The objective of this work is to briefly address different aspects related to fair value:
definition, considerations and measurement criteria used in its determination, timing in
which it is used, required disclosures and recognition of the value differentials that are
generated by its use.
This study is mainly based on the revision of the current regulations issued and revised
by the IASB, as well as on the documents that correspond to the drafts of the standard
on the measurement and disclosure of fair value. It is justified to specifically address
this matter because the complexity of the valuation processes increases "with the
introduction of fair value, the central axis of valuation in international regulations"
(Mejía, Montes and Montilla, 2008, p.76).
3
The presentation of this work is structured in three sections. The first presents the
compilation of the matters included in the review of the concept of Fair Value. In the
second section, a brief reflection is made on the different scopes produced by the use of
fair value. The third and final section sets out the limitations of the study, the
conclusions and briefly presents future lines of research that may arise on the matter
addressed in the document.
4
1. REVIEW OF THE FAIR VALUE CONCEPT
The bodies responsible for issuing international (IASB) and national (FASB) financial
reporting standards have taken on the task of clarifying and systematizing the use and
application of fair value.
The IASB has set the same objectives as the FASB in FAS 157 (FASB, 2006) to
generate a standard referring to measurement using this concept:
(i) Establish a single guide for fair value measurements required in the different
standards,
(ii) Clarify the definition of fair value and establish guidelines in order to communicate
more clearly the measurement objective,
(iii) Expand fair value disclosures.
The reason for generating a specific standard is because different accounting elements
need to be measured at fair value, however, the methodology to measure them is
dispersed through different standards, which adds difficulty for valuation and affects the
quality of the information disclosed. in the financial statements. By specifying the
criteria to be applied when determining fair value, multiple interpretations and
applications that could even lead to the manipulation of the results are avoided.
1.1. Definition
Fair value is the price that would be received when selling an asset or paid when
transferring a liability in a regular transaction between market participants on the
measurement date (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b). This definition states that the fair value
measurement is at an exit price, from the perspective of a market participant who
controls the asset or owes the liability. The definition preserves the notion of exchange
price contained in the definition of fair value existing in IFRS, the most complete being
that stated in IFRS 2 on share-based payment: the amount for which an asset could be
5
exchanged , a liquidated liability, or an equity instrument granted could be exchanged,
between interested and duly informed parties, in a transaction carried out under
conditions of mutual independence. However, it does not specify whether the company
is acting as a buyer or a seller, it does not explicitly indicate whether the exchange takes
place on the measurement date or on some other date (IASB, 2009b). The new IASB
definition limits and corrects these aspects.
An exit price of an asset or liability reflects the expectations of future cash flows
associated with the asset or liability from the perspective of market participants at the
measurement date; whether the intention of the company is to obtain these flows either
through the use of the asset or through its sale. An exit price is always considered to be
a relevant definition of fair value (IASB, 2010a).
The price is established from the perspective that the transaction in which it is set
(whether it is the sale of an asset or the transfer of a liability) is hypothetical on the
measurement date (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b) .
1.2. Determination of fair value
The fair value measurement is based on the market measurement and not on the
measurement of a specific entity. Therefore, a fair value measurement uses the
assumptions that market participants would use when valuing the asset or liability
(FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b).
In developing these assumptions, the reporting entity should identify the characteristics
that generally distinguish market participants, considering the specific factors relating to
(1) the asset or liability, (2) the primary (or most advantageous) market for the asset. or
liabilities and (3) the market participants with whom the reporting entity would trade in
that market. An important contribution of this regulation is its characterization of the
market, clearly distinguishing between the main market and, in its absence, the most
advantageous market for the asset or liability (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b, 2010a).
6
When referring to valuation techniques, it is indicated that valuation techniques
consistent with the market approach, with the income approach and / or with the cost
approach should be used to measure fair value (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b).
In the fair value regulation, a distinction is made between the assumptions that market
participants would use in setting the prices of assets or liabilities, including assumptions
about risk, clearly differentiating between observable input data and input data not
observable . The valuation techniques used to measure fair value will maximize the use
of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs (FASB, 2006; IASB,
2009b).
Faced with the difficulty in determining the fair value of assets and / or liabilities and to
increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related
disclosures, the fair value hierarchy is explicitly established according to the input data
used in the techniques valuation of this, distinguishing three levels that must be
expressed and carefully disclosed in notes to the financial statements. At Level 1, there
is the highest hierarchy that gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in
active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 contains quoted prices for
similar assets or liabilities in active markets, or quoted prices for identical or similar
assets or liabilities in markets that are not active.
An active market for the asset or liability is a market in which transactions for the asset
or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide price information on
an ongoing basis (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b).
It also notes that a price quoted in an active market provides the most reliable evidence
to measure fair value and will be used when available (FASB, 2006; IASB, 2009b).
At the IASB, the concept of an active market is expressly defined in three IASB
standards (IAS 36, IAS 38 and IAS41). An active market is a market in which all the
following conditions exist: (a) the goods or services exchanged in the market are
homogeneous, (b) buyers or sellers for a given good or service can be found at all times,
and (c) the prices are available to the public.
7
In intangible assets (IAS 38), the possibility of using the valuation at fair value as a
subsequent measurement procedure is reduced and in cases made impossible by the
indications of the standard itself, which states that only the application of this value is
allowed when there is an active market for the intangible in question, that is, a market
with enough buyers and sellers, in which the assets traded are substantially
homogeneous and the prices are known. Few will fulfill this condition, due to their
specific nature and in some cases unique (González and Herreros, 2002).
Another very significant aspect to take into account when determining fair value is risk,
for example, the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair
value (such as a pricing model) and / or the risk inherent in the input data of the
valuation technique, these can be observable or unobservable:
to. The observable inputs data are those that reflect the assumptions that market
participants would use in setting asset or liability prices, developed based on market
data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity.
b. Unobservable inputs are data that reflect the reporting entity's own assumptions about
the estimates that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability,
developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (FASB, 2006;
IASB, 2009b).
The following are the methods indicated in the measurement of each asset item, in
which the application of fair value is prescribed. Only the asset items will be analyzed
since they are elements that present the greatest difference according to their nature.
1.3. Measurement methods used
When assets are valued at fair value, the application of this concept can be done through
the application of various measurement methods, among the most used is the market
value of an asset or the discounted value of the flows expected to generate said asset.
asset (present value).
8
Regarding the measurement methods used, it is observed that depending on the type of
asset, the use of the following criteria is recommended: (i) market value, (ii)
replacement cost (8% of cases), (iii ) present value of expected future flows (60% of
cases), and (iv) net realizable value (20% of cases).
The replacement cost (when there is no evidence of an appraised market value) is
recommended as a measurement method for applying the concept of fair value when it
comes to property, plant and equipment.
Market value is recommended as a measurement method for applying the concept of
fair value when it comes to intangible assets and investment properties. The fair value
of an investment property will reflect market conditions on the balance sheet date.
The present value of expected future flows (present value) is recommended as a
measurement method for applying the concept of fair value when it comes to financial
assets and liabilities, leasing, investment properties and realizable assets.
For the particular case of biological assets and agricultural products, the regulations
indicate five possible methods: a) active market, b) price of the most recent transaction
in the market, c) market prices of similar assets, adjusted to reflect existing differences,
d) sector references, and e) present value of expected net cash flows of the asset,
discounted at a pre-tax rate defined by the market.
It can be seen that the measurement method adopted will depend on the nature of the
asset and the possibility that said asset has an active market. Therefore, the application
of these methods is subject to the interpretation of the person preparing the information,
which in some cases may be subjective. The latter justifies the existence of a specific
regulation regarding the use and application of fair value.
9
1.4. Opportunity in which the concept of fair value is used
In International Financial Reporting Standards, it is mandatory to apply the concept of
fair value in the valuation of certain accounting elements and in others it can be applied
as an optional valuation method.
In some cases it is established that fair value should be applied to the accounting
elements included in the respective standard at the time of the initial measurement,
however, for others, it is recommended as an alternative treatment, at the time of
subsequent measurement.
For example, the concept of fair value is used in the initial measurement of: finance
leases (from the lessee's point of view), ordinary income, government grants, financial
instruments, biological assets, agricultural products. As can be seen, these are income,
financial assets, and realizable assets. In other cases, it is used in the subsequent
measurement, as an alternative treatment, of: property, plant and equipment, intangible
assets, investment properties. They are then immobilized assets.
1.5. Revelations
In the Conceptual Framework (IASC, 1989), paragraph 14, it is stated that the financial
statements also show the results of the administration carried out by the management, or
give account of the responsibility in the management of the resources entrusted to it. He
adds that users who want to evaluate the administration or the responsibility of the
management, do so to make economic decisions, such as, for example, keep or sell the
investment and keep or replace the administrators in charge of the management in the
entity.
The disclosure of reliable, comparable information, useful for decision-making, is
increasingly necessary and required, in fact if one considers Principle V on Corporate
Governance formulated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD, 2004), refers to transparency and disclosure of information, and
requires, among other things, that the financial situation and results of the company be
10
included. It establishes that the information must be prepared and disclosed in
accordance with high-quality standards in accounting and disclosure of financial and
non-financial information. The importance of complying with these requirements is due
to the fact that the Financial Stability Forum 5 has incorporated, in the compendium of
standards, the principles of the OECD as one of the twelve key areas of standards to
have healthy financial systems.
The foregoing fully justifies the disclosure requirements present in the International
Financial Reporting Standards.
Cases such as Enron, Worldcom, to point out the most emblematic, will make users
doubt the veracity of the information, and in cases where there is no evidence of the
value used in the measurement, such as when it arises from assumptions or valuation
techniques (Silva and Azúa, 2006). Both the IASB regulations and the requirements
established by FAS 157 aim to consider greater disclosures about measurements based
on fair value and to give more confidence to the users of the information.
1.6. Recognition of value differentials
Changes in the valuation of assets and liabilities based on fair value, occurring between
one measurement and another, have an impact on equity. This differential can also
occur when, at the time of the initial measurement of an asset, its acquisition or
production cost has been used, and later it has been chosen to use the revaluation
method.
It is possible to distinguish three modalities of recognition of the differences in value:
(i) with a charge or credit to income, (ii) with a charge or credit to an equity account, or
(iii) a mixed modality in which a profit or loss account or an equity account. For
example, the first modality would be indicated for the accounting treatment of increases
or decreases in the book value of assets that are held for trading (financial assets) or to
obtain income and / or capital gains (investment property). Regarding the second
modality, it would be indicated for the accounting treatment of financial assets available
for sale. As for the third modality, it would be indicated for the accounting treatment of
11
increases or decreases in the book value of fixed assets, such as: property, plant and
equipment and intangible assets. The IASB is in favor of not affecting the results of the
period, because of the recognition as gains of the increases in value, due to the holding
of the fixed assets. Considering, then, that these increases constitute recognized but
unrealized results that should be shown by increasing equity and not distributable
results.
In IAS No. 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, it is required that the variations in
equity that originate in the application of certain standards and that have been
recognized with a charge or credit to equity accounts, be presented separately in a
Comprehensive Income Statement (IASB, 2009a).
1.7. Relationship of the concept of fair value and impairment
This compilation on fair value, which obviously can be expanded, should not be closed
without first making a scope and distinction in relation to three concepts that are
regularly confused: depreciation, fair value decreases and impairment.
The three concepts are related and affect the value of a fixed asset, however they have
different meanings. Depreciation corresponds to the distribution of the cost or value of a
fixed asset, whatever the valuation model is used (at cost or at fair value) during the
periods in which its potential life is consumed, whether recognized as an expense for the
period or as the cost of the manufactured product. In this way, the adequate
correspondence between income and expenses indicated in paragraph 95 of the
Conceptual Framework for the preparation and presentation of financial statements of
the IASC (1989) can be achieved, that is, linking the achievements made in the
transactions and operations of the company. company with the efforts developed to
obtain them. Through depreciation, Fair value write-offs, in this case of fixed assets, are
recognized with a charge to loss unless an increase in value paid to the revaluation
reserve has been recognized before, since in that case it is charged up to the amount of
the write-off or the amount of the reserve account balance (if less than the impaired
amount) leading the difference to a loss. The fair value at which the fixed asset is valued
must be the appraised value and if this cannot be determined, it will be at the amortized
12
replacement cost; however, it refers to a market-determined value given by market
participants willing to pay for this asset if it were sold (hypothetical transaction).
Exchange impairment is raised vis-à-vis the specific entity and impairment will be
recognized when the book value (whatever the valuation model, at cost or at fair value)
is greater than the recoverable value, and this is considered between the sale price net
and its value in use (present value of future cash flows), whichever is greater.
In any case, it should be clarified that fair value decreases and impairment can also be
recorded for other assets. The subject has not been exhausted, it has only been intended
to be a wake-up call.
The relationship between the use of fair value and certain matters is analyzed below.
13
2. EFFECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR VALUE
2.1. User satisfaction
The analysis is carried out from the perspective of preparing information under current
values and not under historical values. Do information users achieve greater satisfaction
of their requirements? When considering what is stated in the IASB's Conceptual
Framework (paragraph 26):
To be useful, the information must be relevant to the decision-making needs of users.
Information has the quality of relevance when it exerts significant influence on the
economic decisions of those who use it, helping them to evaluate past, present or future
events, or to confirm or correct evaluations previously carried out. (IASC, 1989, p.80)
In a globalized world, in which new ways of doing business are emerging every day,
and where the requirements for information referred as closely as possible to the events
that generate it are increasing, it could be thought that the incorporation of fair value
provides more information. relevant to users of financial statements because it considers
the assumptions that market participants would use.
However, as noted in the same Conceptual Framework, the information can be relevant,
but unreliable in nature, so its recognition can potentially be a source of
misunderstandings (IASC, 1989). Therefore, when using this valuation concept, one
must be sure that the information it generates will be free from bias, material error or
prejudice, so that users can trust that it is the true image of what it purports to represent,
or of what it can reasonably be expected to represent (Silva and Azúa, 2006). The IFRS
on fair value defines the scope and subjectivity of its application.
2.2. Prudent or Conservative Criterion
Valuation through fair value seems to break in some cases with a concept so deeply
rooted in the accounting systems of different countries: the Prudent or Conservative
Criterion. For many years the spirit contained in the statement that losses are recorded
as soon as they are aware of them and the gains only when they are realized has been
14
reflected in the valuation of assets and liabilities, taking care not to reflect greater equity
when it does not derive of a real aggregation of new resources.
Under certain IASB regulations and applying fair value, increases are recognized in
profit or loss or in equity items that originate exclusively in a valuation procedure in the
face of a market, to the assumptions made by market participants, or to the techniques
of valuation used, without there really being new resources that guarantee this increase
in assets. Will this mean a departure from the Prudent Criterion and a recognition of
capital increases that have not been realized?
If it is agreed that the concept of prudence, as defined by the IASB's Conceptual
Framework (paragraph 37) is:
The inclusion of a certain degree of precaution, in the exercise of judgments necessary
to make estimates required under conditions of uncertainty, so that assets or income are
not expressed in excess and that obligations and expenses are not expressed in default.
(IASC, 1989, p.82)
One might think that when applying the fair value, according to the criterion of the
value obtained from an active market, there would be no uncertainty regarding it at the
time of the valuation, in such a way that it would not be necessary to apply the Prudent
Criterion in the valuation of actives and pasives.
However, if IAS 16, referring to property, plant and equipment, is taken as an example,
when the optional criterion of measurement at fair value is applied, that is, if the value
of an asset is increased as a result of a revaluation, the The increase must be credited to
a revaluation surplus account, within equity. The defenders of this practice would argue
that there should not be the risk of an overvaluation of equity, since the revaluation
would be given by a value obtained in an active market. However, given that the risk of
overvaluation exists, the use of this revaluation criterion could be questioned by the
defenders of the Prudent Criterion (Silva and Azúa, 2006).
15
On the other hand, the same IAS 16 indicates that the increase should be recognized as a
profit for the period when it corresponds to the reversal of a decrease due to devaluation
of the same asset, which was previously recognized as a loss (paragraph 39). When it
comes to a decrease in the book value of an asset, as a consequence of a devaluation,
such decrease should be recognized as a loss for the period. However, the decrease
should be charged directly against the revaluation surplus if it has been previously
recorded in relation to the same asset, provided that it does not exceed the balance of the
aforementioned equity account (paragraph 40) (IASB, 2009c). This difference in
treatment could indicate that, in general,
Valuation prudence loses its prevalence over other accounting principles, it is simply
one more, since otherwise the Fair Value would never apply, since it is more prudent to
do the opposite. (Canibano, 2007, p.14)
2.3. Fair value reliability
What is the reliability offered by the use of fair value in the valuation of the company's
assets and liabilities? If it is considered that, generally, this type of valuation is based on
those values that are determined in organized markets for goods, rights and financial
instruments (active markets), the degree of reliability of the fair value should be related
to the operating conditions of the market that determine it (Silva and Azúa, 2006).
In this way, it could be thought that if the markets work well, bias-free prices are
established, which will be known to all interested in a timely manner. The use of this
concept to value assets and liabilities provides useful information for making decisions,
perhaps more useful than that provided by the Historical Cost Model that provides
values from the past.
On the contrary, if the markets do not function well or there is no active market, the
different revised regulations indicate that fair value can be obtained through the use of
valuation techniques based on estimates or appraisals. In this case, there is a risk of
obtaining a subjective value that leads to the information for making decisions not being
reliable, nor free from bias, and therefore not useful to the user (Silva and Azúa, 2006).
16
2.4. Heritage model to maintain
Fair value implies the use of current values that are typical of an operating equity
model. The question arises whether a change in the equity model to maintain is
required, from a financial equity approach to operating equity.
The company's choice of the appropriate concept of equity should be based on the
information needs of the users of its financial statements. Thus, a concept of financial
equity should be adopted when such users are primarily interested in preserving the
invested equity (nominal or constant purchasing power). Instead, if the primary interest
of users is in the operational capacity of the company, the concept of operational or
physical equity should be used (IASC, 1989, paragraph 103).
The standards issued by the IASB are aimed at measuring the result of the management,
in a period, under the financial equity approach, obtaining a profit only if the financial
amount (or money) of the net asset at the end of the period, exceeds the amount
financial (or money) of net assets at the beginning of the period, excluding any
distribution and contributions from owners during the period. In this way, increases or
decreases in the valuation of assets and liabilities recognized under the concept of fair
value, during the period, will produce a result that has not been the result of the
management of its administrators, nor generated in the development of its normal cycle.
of operations.
In an operating equity approach, a profit is obtained only if the physical productive
capacity (or operational capacity) of the company (the resources or funds that are
needed to reach such capacity) at the end of the period, exceed the physical productive
capacity at the beginning. of the period, excluding all distribution and contributions
from the owners during the period. Under this approach, the recognition of price
variations that affect assets and / or liabilities during a period, under the concept of fair
value, would allow adjusting the operating capacity of the company, provided that such
variations are charged or credited to equity and not to results. In this case, only asset
17
inflows in excess of the amounts required to conserve equity can be considered useful
(Silva and Azúa,
The financial statements show the results of the management carried out by the
administrators with the resources entrusted to them (IAS 1, paragraph 7) (IASB, 2009a).
Thus, it can be affirmed that it is intended that the good or bad administration of
resources is reflected in the financial statements and their notes, for this the nature of
the resources and market prices must be taken into account (Silva and Azúa, 2006).
2.5. Statement of income and variations due to fair value adjustments
Where should equity changes that do not arise from transactions but from changes in the
value of assets and liabilities be shown? The value of the company is the result of its
ability to generate equity increases derived from its work, measured periodically based
on the recognition of its income less the expenses incurred for services and resources
consumed to obtain them, whatever the method used to measure it. , be it cost,
replacement cost, net realizable value, among others. Therefore,
The application of fair value can cause net results to vary for reasons that are beyond
the control of the company, thus becoming volatile and distorting equity (Silva and
Azúa, 2006).
The use of fair value allows equity variations to be recorded (charged or credited
directly to equity, or charged or credited to income for the year) for the sole possession
of assets and / or liabilities. This would make it necessary to distinguish in the
information presented through the income statement, the unrealized gains and losses
generated by changes in the value of assets and liabilities.
The changes incorporated in January 2008 by the IASB to IAS 1 (Presentation of
Financial Statements) largely converge with FAS 130 (FASB, 1997) and incorporate the
concept of comprehensive income ( total comprehensive income , as translated into
English), which includes, in addition to gains and losses, the identification and
separation of other comprehensive income, for its English translation). The latter
18
correspond to changes in equity that originate from the application of specific IFRS,
with recognition directly in equity items. However, in profit and loss for the period
there are variations that arise from value adjustments due to the use of fair value (for
example, in the case of investment properties or financial assets held for trading) and
that are not presented separately from the result generated in the transactions and
operations of the company.
When it is indicated that the price differentials when valuing at fair value, in some cases
are incorporated into the result, the question arises, will these results be distributable?
2.6. Distributable results
Neither the Conceptual Framework nor the International Financial Reporting Standards
qualify whether or not the result can be distributed (Tua, 2004). Companies should
differentiate the distributable and non-distributable part of the profit achieved in an
exercise (Gonzalo Angulo, 2003).
The problem will not be the items that are presented separately in other comprehensive
income, which are publicly known that have been recorded in equity, and which are
adjustments resulting from the application in the case of specific regulations. When
appropriate (by law or company statutes), or it is resolved to distribute profits, it will be
necessary to identify the items charged or credited to results arising from adjustments
and revaluations, since there is a danger that the assets of the company will be It is
detrimental when distributing profits recognized but not yet realized, or that the
beneficiaries of these distributions (dividends, bonuses) receive less than the real profits
due to charges to results that reduce them. In addition, the result will vary from period
to period,
2.7. Administrative costs linked to the revaluation model
When faced with a valuation that needs to be reviewed periodically or at some later
period, the question is immediately raised, how much will the administrative costs be
affected by the continuous review of fair value that must be carried out?
19
Compared with the historical cost concept, the use of the fair value concept would
imply incurring higher administrative costs given the continuous review of the fair
value of the different assets and / or liabilities to verify the revaluations or impairments
of value (Silva and Azúa, 2006 ). The depth required in the information to be disclosed
requires maintaining adequate information and control systems.
It is necessary to design and implement systems capable of generating all the reports
required by auditing entities, by administrators and internal users of the information, as
well as by external users. Companies are currently working on implementing reports in
Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) format. Charles Hoffman, an
accounting expert and auditor, proposed this system to simplify the automation of the
exchange of financial information through the use of XML (Hoffman, 1998; cited in
Baue, 2007).
2.8. Enforcement of compliance with standards
In order for the purpose underlying the spirit of the regulation to be fulfilled, that is, to
promote a faithful reflection of the economic reality to offer reliable information to
users and especially to investors, there must be regulatory force on the part of the
supervisory bodies of your application.
There is a positive relationship between the growth and profitability of the company and
the greater information that is delivered to the market through good corporate
governance practices (Khurana, Pereira and Martin, 2006). The logic presented by these
authors is that if the market receives more information, it will react positively, assign
less risk to the company and therefore demand less for the funds invested; This will
generate an increase in the acceptance of the projects that the company had in its
portfolio (decrease in the capital cost rate, Net Present Value-NPV- positive) and an
increase in the profitability that it had, favorably impacting the investment level of the
company. capital market.
20
The International Financial Reporting Standards should not be incorporated ex post, that
is, after the events have occurred, but before making the decisions that will give rise to
the assets and / or liabilities in the entity. Another aspect to consider in IFRS is that
although each of them refers to specific issues and cases of assets and / or liabilities, it
is equally or more important to evaluate their application when appropriate to
understand the framework and scope that it defines, and This contributes to the analysis
of the introduction and the bases of conclusions issued for each standard by the IASB.
The most useful financial statements for the user are those that make the relationship
between the entity's business strategy and the figures that appear as a consequence of it
more transparent in the figures displayed by the accounting elements (Gonzalo Angulo,
2003).
Therefore, it is necessary that the supervisory bodies require the publication of notes to
the financial statements that really allow the user of the same to understand the criteria
used in the application of the concept of fair value, which require compliance with this
obligation both in terms of the form (content) and the substance (usefulness and veracity
of the content), otherwise the credibility of the information disclosed in these
documents will be put at risk.
2.9. Taxes and use of fair value
When capital increases that may be taxable are recognized, the question immediately
arises whether this will mean paying more taxes. Depending on the tax law of each
country, at least two types are distinguished: one that establishes the accounting result
as the taxable base for the tax, and another that establishes it independently of the
accounting result, which must be reconciled to determine the tax in accordance with tax
regulations. The first way has the disadvantage against increases in fair value that
companies will end up paying more taxes for recognized and unrealized gains, and the
second has the disadvantage that the company must reconcile the accounting result to
determine the basis for calculating the taxes.
21
3. CONCLUSIONS
Through the study, a compilation of the valuation model based on fair value is achieved.
In this model, the use of historical cost is changed for the valuation of assets and
liabilities, based on the considerations and expectations that market participants have at
the date of their measurement, in addition, the perspective from the entity that has the
assets / rights or obligations.
The reader should consider that the compilation of the different aspects that comprises
the Fair Value Model has been prepared from the documents and drafts prepared by the
IASB and the FASB and that the final regulation has not yet been issued and also it is
subject to future changes to adjust to the reality of business, capital markets and users of
financial accounting information.
The use of fair value constitutes a paradigm shift, the justification for the objectivity of
the cost model is insufficient to provide adequate information to its users, which in a
globalized world requires more and more transparency to the market and greater speed
to obtain the information . The Fair Value Model contains risks, however,
measurements and disclosures require these to be made explicit. Using this valorization
model allows to reflect the essence on the form. Compliance with the regulations that
uses it will be the guarantee of more faithful information, therefore the role that
corresponds to the participants of the legal systems and the financial information
auditing entities is to enforce these regulations and they must be invested with sufficient
legal force, independence in their actions and adequate human and financial resources.
The auditing companies will have the social responsibility of certifying the delivery of
quality information by the reporting entities.
This topic has not been exhausted and therefore, it is possible to carry out other studies,
for example, in relation to the discretion and management of the results using this
valuation model, or to analyze the effect of the information disclosed in the
development of corporate governance more efficient, or study the degree of compliance
with the fair value disclosures and the effects on the transparency index (in the context
22
of the principle of Data Disclosure and Corporate Governance Transparency indicated
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD).
23
REFERENCES
Baue, B. (2007). If You Tag It, It Will Be Used: Sustainability Reporting in XBRL. SRF
World
Group.
Retrieved
from http://www.sba.pdx.edu/faculty/kristiy/kyaccess/GRIXBRL.pdf
Canibano, L. (2007). The accounting reform will imply changes in depth and the need
for training of professionals. Double Game, 181, 10-14.
Financial Accounting Standards Board – FASB. (1997). SFAS No 130 Reporting
Comprehensive Income .
Financial Accounting Standards Board – FASB. (2006). SFAS N° 157 Fair Value
Measurements. Financial Accounting Series, September, 1-99.
González, I. and Herreros, J. (2002). Fair Value and White Paper: Practical
Repercussions. Double Game , 136, 78-89.
Gonzalo Angulo, JA (2003). IFRS: Accounting and Control. The hidden face of
international standards. AECA Magazine , 65, 3-12.
Institute of Accounting and Auditing. (2002). Report on the current situation of
Accounting in Spain and basic lines to address its reform. White Book for the
accounting
reform
in
Spain . Madrid:
Retrieved
from http://serviciosweb.minhac.com/apps/icac/nic/LIBROBLA.PDF
International Accounting Standards Board – IASB. (2009a). International Accounting
Standard
1.
Presentation
of
Financial
Statements. Retrieved
from http://eifrs.iasb.org/eifrs/files/135/bv2010_ias01_part a_130.pdf
International Accounting Standards Board – IASB. (2009b). Fair Value Measurement.
Basis
for
Conclusions (Exposure
Draft
24
ED/2009/5).
Available
online
at,
http://www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/D55E0BA1-5420-456B-8CCCEB488BAD5B80/0/EDFairValueMeasurementBC_website.pdf
International Accounting Standards Board - IASB. (2009c). International Accounting
Standard
16.
Property,
Plant
and
Equipment . Retrieved
from,
from http://eifrs.iasb.org/eifrs/files/135/bv2010_ias16_part a_141.pdf
International Accounting Standards Board – IASB. (2010a). Comprehensive Project
Summary. Developing common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements in
IFRS and US GAAP. Retrieved from http://www.ifrs.org/NR/rdonlyres/5179C9D9F7D8-4742-939C-2B6677F75FF7/0/FVMprojectsummaryJuly2010.pdf
International Accounting Standards Board - IASB. (2010b). Work Plan. Retrieved
from http://www.ifrs.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/IASB+Work+Plan.htm
International Accounting Standards Board - IASB. (2010c). The Conceptual Framework
for
Financial
Reporting
2010 . Retrieved
from http://eifrs.iasb.org/eifrs/files/122/spanmarcoconceptual%202010_188.pdf
International Accounting Standards Committee - IASC. (1989). Conceptual Framework
for
the
Preparation
and
Presentation
of
Financial
Statements. Retrieved
from http://eifrs.iasb.org/eifrs/files/119/07_framework_bv2009_119.pdf
Khurana, I., Pereira, R. y Martin, X. (2006). Firm Growth and Disclosure: An Empirical
Analysis. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 41(2), 357-380.
Mejía, E., Montes, C. and Montilla, O. (2008). Theoretical foundations of the common
accounting model for Latin American SMEs: an alternative to the international
accounting regulation IASB. Management Studies , 24 (107), 59-85. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecadigital.icesi.edu.co/biblioteca_digital/bitstream/item/1754/1/3mod
elo_contable_comun.pdf
25
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD. (2004). OECD
Corporate
Governance
Principles . Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/37191543.pdf
Silva, B. and Azua, D. (2006). Scope of the concept of Fair Value. CAPIC Review , 4,
61-74.
Tua, J. (2004). The Conceptual Framework, support of International Standards. AECA
Magazine , 66, 4-10.
26
Descargar