Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis
We investigate how investors price the fair value estimates of assets as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157) since the financial crisis in 2008. We observe that Level 3 fair value estimates are typically priced lower than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value estimate...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/254 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/1253/viewcontent/market_pricing_of_banks_fair_value_assets.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.soa_research-1253 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.soa_research-12532017-03-24T02:57:00Z Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis GOH, Beng Wee LI, Dan NG, Jeffrey OW YONG, Keng Kevin We investigate how investors price the fair value estimates of assets as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157) since the financial crisis in 2008. We observe that Level 3 fair value estimates are typically priced lower than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value estimates between 2008 and 2011. However, the difference between the pricing of the different estimates reduces over time, suggesting that as market conditions stabilize in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, reliability concerns about Level 3 estimates dissipated to some extent. Next, we examine whether Level 3 gains affect the pricing of Level 3 estimates because managers have discretion to use Level 3 gains to manage earnings and asset values upwards. We find that differences in Level 3 gains do not lead investors to price Level 3 estimates differently. Finally, we find evidence that the pricing of the Level 1 and Level 2 fair value estimates of assets is lower for banks with lower capital adequacy. Overall, our study contributes to an improved understanding of the relation between valuation and fair value information. 2015-03-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/254 info:doi/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2014.12.002 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/1253/viewcontent/market_pricing_of_banks_fair_value_assets.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Accountancy eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University SFAS 157 valuation fair value mark-to-market liquidity audit quality Accounting Finance and Financial Management Portfolio and Security Analysis |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
SFAS 157 valuation fair value mark-to-market liquidity audit quality Accounting Finance and Financial Management Portfolio and Security Analysis |
spellingShingle |
SFAS 157 valuation fair value mark-to-market liquidity audit quality Accounting Finance and Financial Management Portfolio and Security Analysis GOH, Beng Wee LI, Dan NG, Jeffrey OW YONG, Keng Kevin Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
description |
We investigate how investors price the fair value estimates of assets as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157) since the financial crisis in 2008. We observe that Level 3 fair value estimates are typically priced lower than Level 1 and Level 2 fair value estimates between 2008 and 2011. However, the difference between the pricing of the different estimates reduces over time, suggesting that as market conditions stabilize in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, reliability concerns about Level 3 estimates dissipated to some extent. Next, we examine whether Level 3 gains affect the pricing of Level 3 estimates because managers have discretion to use Level 3 gains to manage earnings and asset values upwards. We find that differences in Level 3 gains do not lead investors to price Level 3 estimates differently. Finally, we find evidence that the pricing of the Level 1 and Level 2 fair value estimates of assets is lower for banks with lower capital adequacy. Overall, our study contributes to an improved understanding of the relation between valuation and fair value information. |
format |
text |
author |
GOH, Beng Wee LI, Dan NG, Jeffrey OW YONG, Keng Kevin |
author_facet |
GOH, Beng Wee LI, Dan NG, Jeffrey OW YONG, Keng Kevin |
author_sort |
GOH, Beng Wee |
title |
Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
title_short |
Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
title_full |
Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
title_fullStr |
Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
title_sort |
market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under sfas 157 since the 2008 financial crisis |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2015 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/254 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soa_research/article/1253/viewcontent/market_pricing_of_banks_fair_value_assets.pdf |
_version_ |
1770568715396448256 |