SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış / 2014 / Sayı: 43

A RESEARCH ON INVESTORS’ FAIR VALUE JUDGMENTS

YATIRIMCILARIN GERÇEĞE UYGUN DEĞER HİYERARŞİSİNE YÖNELİK ALGILARI ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA

SERHAN GÜRKAN
Pages
65–86
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our results have implications for standard settersand researchers concerned with the effects of financial statement presentation on nonprofessional investors

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Standards setting organizations seeks to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements andrelated disclosures through a “fair value hierarchy”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices Level 1 in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs Level 3 .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results have implications for standard settersand researchers concerned with the effects of financial statement presentation on nonprofessional investors
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gerçeğe Uygun Değer Hiyerarşisi · Finansal Tabloların Sunumu · Gözlemlenebilir ve Gözlemlenebilir Olmayan Girdiler

Abstract

Standards setting organizations seeks to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements andrelated disclosures through a “fair value hierarchy”. The hierarchy categorizes the inputs used in valuation techniques into three levels. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices Level 1 in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs Level 3 . The aimof this paper is to present the judgments of investors about fair value hierarchy. In this paper, suggestions aremade using the answers achieved from investors by survey. Our results have implications for standard settersand researchers concerned with the effects of financial statement presentation on nonprofessional investors

Özet

Standart koyucu kuruluşlar, gerçeğe uygun değer ölçümlerinde ve ilgili açıklamalarda tutarlılığı ve karşılaştırılabilirliği arttırmak amacıyla, gerçeğe uygun değeri ölçmek üzere kullanılan girdileri üç seviyede sınıflandırangerçeğe uygun değer hiyerarşisi oluşturmuştur. Gerçeğe uygun değer hiyerarşisi, en yüksek önceliği özdeş varlıkların ve borçların Seviye 1 girdileri aktif piyasalardaki kotasyon fiyatlarına düzeltilmemiş olan fiyatlar , endüşük önceliği ise gözlemlenebilir olmayan girdilere Seviye 3 girdileri vermektedir. Yatırımcıların gerçeğe uygun değer hiyerarşine yönelik yargılarını ortaya koymayı amaçlayan bu çalışmada, anket yoluyla elde edilen cevaplardan yararlanılarak konuya ilişkin çıkarsamalarda bulunulmuştur. Çalışmanın bulgularının standart koyucukuruluşlara ve araştırmacılara gerçeğe uygun değer hiyerarşine uygun raporlamanın yatırımcılar üzerindeki etkileri konusunda fayda sağlaması beklenmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRKAN, S. (2014). A RESEARCH ON INVESTORS’ FAIR VALUE JUDGMENTS. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, Sayı: 43, 65–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/294203

References (13)

  1. Aboody, David, Mary E. Barth ve Ron Kasznik, “Revaluations of Fixed Assets and Future Firm Performance,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1999, Vol. 26, s. 149–178.
  2. Barth, Mary, “Fair Values and Financial Statement Volatility,” Market Discipline across Countries and Indus- tries (Edt: Claudio Borio, William Curt Hunter, George Kaufman ve Kostas Tsatsaronis), MIT Press,
  3. Cambrid- ge, MA, 2004.
  4. Barth, Mary ve Greg Clinch, “Revalued Financial, Tangible, and Intangible Assets: Associations with Share Pri- ces and Non-Market-Based Value Estimates,” Journal of Accounting Research, 1998, Vol. 36, s. 199–233.
  5. Barth, Mary, William Beaver ve Wayne Landsman, “Value-Relevance of Banks’ Fair Value Disclosures under SFAS No. 107,” The Accounting Review, 1996, Vol. 71, No. 4, s. 513–553.
  6. Benston, George J., The Shortcomings of Fair-Value Accounting Described in SFAS 157, Journal of Accoun- ting and Public Policy, 2008, Vol. 27, No. 2, s. 101-114.
  7. Campbell, Ronald L, Lisa A. Owens ve Diana R. Robinson, “Fair Value Accounting From Theory to Practice,” Strategic Finance, 2008, Vol. 90, No. 1, s.31-37.
  8. Clor-Proell, Shana M., Chad A. Proell ve Terry D. Warfield, “The Effects of Presentation Salience and Measure- ment Subjectivity on Nonprofessional Investors’ Fair Value Judgments”, Contemporary Accounting Research,, Fourth Coming Issue. Fiechter, Peter, “The Effects of the Fair Value Option under IAS 39 on the Volatility of Bank Earnings,” Jour- nal of International Accounting Research, 2011, Vol. 10, No. 1, s. 85-108.
  9. Goncharov, I. ve Van Triest, S., “Do Fair Value Adjustments Influence Dividend Policy?,” Accounting and Bu- siness Research, 2011, Vol. 41, No. 1, s. 51-68.
  10. Hirst D. Eric, Patrick E. Hopkins ve James M. Wahlen, “Fair Values, Income Measurement, and Bank Analysts’ Risk and Valuation Judgments”, The Accounting Review, 2004, Vol. 79, No. 2, s. 453-472.
  11. Kothari, S.P., Karthik Ramanna ve Douglas J. Skinner, “Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Re- search in Accounting,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2010, Vol. 50, No. 2-3, s. 246-286.
  12. Laghi, Enrico, Sabrina Pucci, Marco Tutino ve Michele Di Marcantonio, “Fair Value Hierarchy In Financial Ins- trument Disclosure. Is There Transparency For Investors? Evidence From The Banking Industry, Journal of Go- vernance and Regulation, 2012, Vol. 1, No. 4, s. 23-38.
  13. Landsman, Wayne R., “Is Fair Value Accounting Information Relevant and Reliable? Evidence from Capital Market Research,” Accounting and Bus