Measurement Model or Asset Type: Evidence from an Evaluation of the Relevance of Financial Assets

Freeman, W; Wells, P; Wyatt, A

Measurement Model or Asset Type: Evidence from an Evaluation of the Relevance of Financial Assets

Freeman, W Wells, P

Wyatt, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Abacus, 2017, 53 (2), pp. 180 - 210
Issue Date:: 2017-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Freeman_et_al-2017-Abacus.pdf	Published Version	252.57 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Freeman, W	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wells, P https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6822-4826	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wyatt, A	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Abacus, 2017, 53 (2), pp. 180 - 210	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0001-3072	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/124340
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney This study focuses on the operation of the Level 1, 2, and 3 measurement uncertainty hierarchy embedded in the SFAS 157 accounting for financial assets. Prior studies conclude the SFAS 157 fair value measurement model and prevailing financial market conditions are causal factors for the lower value relevance of the Level 3 financial assets. The contribution of our paper is to provide evidence on an additional, hitherto undocumented source of measurement uncertainty impacting the relevance of SFAS 157 financial assets to investors: the type of asset appearing in Level 3 financial assets as a result of asset securitizations and SFAS 140 securitization accounting. The paper also presents evidence that suggests the SFAS 166 amendments were unable to fully address informational transparency for financial assets arising from securitizations. The key contribution is evidentiary insights suggesting the prescribed measurement model has a relatively lower impact on measurement uncertainty and relevance of financial assets compared to the effects of the asset type.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Abacus	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/abac.12108	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Accounting	en_US
dc.title	Measurement Model or Asset Type: Evidence from an Evaluation of the Relevance of Financial Assets	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	53	en_US
utslib.for	1501 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability	en_US
utslib.for	1502 Banking, Finance and Investment	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Accounting Discipline
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCG - Centre for Corporate Governance
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	53	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 Accounting Foundation, The University of Sydney This study focuses on the operation of the Level 1, 2, and 3 measurement uncertainty hierarchy embedded in the SFAS 157 accounting for financial assets. Prior studies conclude the SFAS 157 fair value measurement model and prevailing financial market conditions are causal factors for the lower value relevance of the Level 3 financial assets. The contribution of our paper is to provide evidence on an additional, hitherto undocumented source of measurement uncertainty impacting the relevance of SFAS 157 financial assets to investors: the type of asset appearing in Level 3 financial assets as a result of asset securitizations and SFAS 140 securitization accounting. The paper also presents evidence that suggests the SFAS 166 amendments were unable to fully address informational transparency for financial assets arising from securitizations. The key contribution is evidentiary insights suggesting the prescribed measurement model has a relatively lower impact on measurement uncertainty and relevance of financial assets compared to the effects of the asset type.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/124340