17
than under most other EU countries’ domestic GAAP. Also, UK GAAP, like
IFRS
,
required the increases in fair value of
PPE
to be recognized
in a revaluation reserve in
equity (i.e., similar to the accounting treatment under IAS 16 previously described). Fair-
value estimates of long-lived assets such as
PPE
are likely to
be less reliable than
historical cost (Ball 2006; Holthausen and Watts 2001; Kothari et al. 2010; Watts 2006).
Hence, upward revaluations of
PPE
previously recognized in a revaluation reserve in
shareholders’ equity create slack that self-interested managers can opportunistically use
to offset impairment losses among assets and delay the recognition
of impairment losses
in earnings.
17
Furthermore, prior literature (e.g., Brown 1997; Hirst and Hopkins 1998;
Mains and McDaniel 2000) suggests that investors regard changes in equity (e.g.,
changes in a revaluation reserve) among the least useful components of the annual report
and that changes in equity are less effective than earnings in communicating corporate
and management performance. On
the other hand, when historical cost accounting with
impairment
testing is used, self-interested managers will have no ability to use previous
upward revaluations in the revaluation reserve in equity to absorb
or conceal impairment
losses. Hence, I expect the disciplinary implications of recognizing asset impairments in
earnings will be greater when historical cost accounting with
impairment testing is used
than when fair-value accounting is used. Therefore, I test the following hypothesis (stated
in alternative form):
Dostları ilə paylaş: