2009年--外文翻譯--投資性房地產(chǎn)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的相關(guān)性

1、<p>　　中文5500字，3400單詞，18500英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Selas D N G C. The value relevance of investment property fair value[D]. NSBE-UNL, 2009.</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　THE

2、VALUE RELEVANCE OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY FAIR VALUE</p><p>　　Selas DNGDC</p><p>　　ABSTRACT This paper examines if the use of the fair value model is value relevant in companies where the investme

3、nt properties are not their core business. An analysis is also made into whether the disclosed fair value of investment property is perceived by investors. The sample includes Portuguese listed companies subject to the m

4、andatory adoption of IAS/IFRS since 2005. The results achieved indicate that investors price shares differently when companies choose either the cost model or the fair</p><p>　　Keywords: Fair value, investme

5、nt property, value relevance, IAS 40</p><p>　　1.INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　On 1st January 2005, International Accounting Standards (IAS)/International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by I

6、nternational Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was adopted in Portugal, as in the European Union (EU), to promote higher quality financial reporting information and a consequent reduction of information asymmetry and to

7、improve comparability and transparency.</p><p>　　After initial recognition there is still no consensus in how to measure investment property. International Accounting Standard (IAS) 40 – Investment Property

8、allows companies to choose between the cost model and fair value model. According to the standard, the cost model requires to an entity to disclose the fair value of its investment property in the notes. Under the fair

9、value model, any investment property should be measured at fair value, with changes being recognised as profits or losses.</p><p>　　The significant question behind this issue is whether fair value provides m

10、ore relevant information without losing reliability. In fact, the choice between fair value and historical cost is a key issue in the current debate on accounting.</p><p>　　This study investigates the value

11、relevance of applying the fair value model in Portuguese companies where investment properties do not represent their core business. Hence, three main issues should be analysed: if investors valuate the historical cost a

12、nd the recognised fair value differently when pricing shares; whether they consider differences between the historical cost and disclosed fair value in the notes for companies adopting the cost model; finally, if recogni

13、sing the fair value in the</p><p>　　With the purpose of knowing whether investors price shares differently when companies apply either the cost model or the fair value model to measure investment property, i

14、t was conducted an analysis based on the Lourenço and Curto (2008) research. This model is based on similar studies on the value relevance of accounting data for share pricing, namely Ohlson (1995) and Landsman et a

15、l. (2006).</p><p>　　Using a sample of Portuguese listed companies in the period after the mandatory IFRS adoption, the results obtained indicate that adopting the cost model or the fair value model affect sh

16、are pricing but they do not show evidence that investors significantly valuate differences between the historical cost and disclosed fair value in the notes for companies adopting the cost model. Thus, as in the real est

17、ate industry also in companies where investment properties are not the core business, fair va</p><p>　　This paper adds relevant contribution to the existing literature in several ways. Actually, the current

18、literature strictly focuses on the choice between the cost model and the fair value model in real estate industry. Therefore, this work intends to generalise those results to other industries where investment properties

19、are not the core business (in this particular case Portuguese listed companies). Thus, it aims at filling in the existing gap on this matter, trying to achieve relevant results</p><p>　　The paper proceeds as

20、 follows. Section 2 concerns the literature related with this study. Section 3 provides a regulatory background. Section 4 discusses the methodology applied that is used as the basis for empirical tests. Section 5 descri

21、bes the sample selection and descriptive statistics. Section 6 presents the empirical results and section 7 concludes the study.</p><p>　　LITERATURE REVIEW</p><p>　　The value relevance of invest

22、ment property fair value has been tested in several studies, especially in real estate industry. This paper contributes to the literature by addressing this issue in industries, in particular for the Portuguese market.&l

23、t;/p><p>　　Several papers study the recognition versus disclosure of the fair value with many of them concluding that they are not substitutes. Muller et al. (2008) find that lower information asymmetry and gre

24、ater liquidity are consequences for firms that choose the fair value model comparing to those choosing the cost model, suggesting that market participants do not view disclosure of fair value as equivalent to the recogni

25、tion in the balance sheet of these amounts. Landsman (2006) provides evidence tha</p><p>　　Two recent studies examine the relation between fair value and investment property. Avallone (2008) conducted a valu

26、e relevance study for some European real estate companies. He concludes that the greater the weight of property investment the larger the need for future prospects of the property to be disclosed, which leads the company

27、 to choose the fair value to decrease information asymmetry. Similarly, Nikolaev and Christensen (2009) investigated which companies implemented the fair value acco</p><p>　　Nevertheless, what companies may

28、gain in relevant information by adopting the fair value model may eventually loose in reliability (Dietrich et al., 2000).</p><p>　　Watts (2006) considers that the fair value approach may compromise the reli

29、ability of financial statements because managements’ estimations could never incorporate the information of the whole financial market and are vulnerable to their own manoeuvring. With a different perspective, Schipper (

30、2005) provides evidence that is not necessary an extant market to fair value measurement be realistic and consequently reliable.</p><p>　　Lourenço and Curto (2008), suggest that investors make differenc

31、e between the recognised cost, the recognised fair value and the disclosed fair value of investment property in listed real estate in four European countries with dissimilar characteristics.</p><p>　　In fact

32、, building on the existing literature the goal of this work is to generalise the results in real estate industry to Portuguese companies where investment properties do not represent their core business. This study aims t

33、o contribute to the current debate over fair value versus historical cost evaluating if it is worth to apply those standards in companies where the investment property does not represent a very significant share of the c

34、ompany's assets and where the effects may be limited </p><p>　　REGULATORY BACKGROUND</p><p>　　In July 2002, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers of EU approved regulation req

35、uiring all publicly traded European companies to apply IAS/IFRS instead of national Generally Accounting Accepted Principles (GAAP) as the basis for presenting their consolidated financial statements for fiscal years beg

36、inning on or after 1 January 2005. 1Comparability, relevance and understandability were the main objectives of this regulation.</p><p>　　This meant some changes to the domestic standards in Portugal to date.

37、 Before the IASB, investment property in Portugal was as well considered a financial investment. The domestic standard of Portugal required that investment property was accounted for under the cost model, not allowing th

38、e use of fair value model.</p><p>　　IAS 40 defines investment property as property (land or a building or part of a building or both) held to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both (IAS 40.5). An i

39、nvestment property, whether purchased or constructed, is initially measured at cost including transaction costs and subsequent IAS 40 allows firms to choose between cost and fair value model (IAS 40.30). Moreover, the me

40、thod chosen must be adopted for all investment properties of the company. Actually it is possible for compani</p><p>　　If a firm chooses the cost model, firms must proceed according IAS 16. Investment proper

41、ty is carried at its cost less any accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses on the balance sheet (IAS 16.30). Nevertheless, firms are required to disclose the respective fair value in the footnotes.

42、</p><p>　　Under the fair value model, after initial recognition investment property is remeasured at fair value, amount that shall reflect market conditions at the reporting date (IAS 40.38). The best eviden

43、ce of fair value is given by current prices for a similar property in the same location and conditions. Quoting IASB “fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties

44、in an arm’s length transaction”. In this model any depreciation is required. All ch</p><p>　　In 2003, IASB considered in the revision of IAS 40 the elimination of the cost model making the fair value the uni

45、que alternative. They left this option mainly because two reasons:</p><p>　　“to give preparers and users time to acquire experience before using a fair value model and time for countries with less-developed

46、property markets and valuation professions to mature”. In future they plan to reconsider again the use of cost model.</p><p>　　In short, choosing either the cost model or the fair value model companies are r

47、equired to disclose the fair value, either in the notes or recognize directly on the balance sheet.</p><p>　　METHODOLOGY</p><p>　　In order to infer if investors valuate shares differently when c

48、ompanies use either the cost model or the fair value model to measure investment property, it was conducted an analysis based on the Lourenço and Curto (2008) research. Their analysis follows similar studies on the

49、value relevance of accounting data for share pricing, namely Ohlson (1995) and Landsman et al. (2006). Thus, throughout this paper it is conducted a comparison between coefficients of several balance sheet components, ba

50、s</p><p>　　where P represents the share price4 , as of three months after the fiscal year-end;</p><p>　　ASSETS is the total assets of the company minus the total investment property

51、 figure; IP corresponds to the recognised amount of investment property; LIABILITIES is the total liabilities of the company; and NI represents the net operating income. All of these variables divided by the total number

52、 of shares outstanding. As the value of assets, investment property and net income represent the firm’s wealth, they are expected to have a positive effect in the share price (i.e. positive coefficients)</p><p

53、>　　Historical cost versus recognised fair value</p><p>　　With the purpose of distinguishing between companies recognising the historical cost and the fair value of the investment property, the variable IP

54、 must be divided into two different terms, each one multiplied by a dummy variable. The dummy COST equals one when the company recognises the cost of investment property and zero otherwise. On the other hand, the dummy

55、FAIR VALUE corresponds to one when the company recognises the fair value of the investment property and zero otherwise. The described</p><p>　　Hence, in order to analyse the impact in share prices of recogni

56、sing the historical cost or the fair value, it must be tested the equality between β2 and β3 in equation (2). If the equality does not hold, one may conclude that investors price shares differently as a result of firms

57、adopting one model or the other.</p><p>　　Historical cost versus disclosed fair value</p><p>　　In order to verify whether investors consider differences between the historical cost and the fair

58、value disclosed in the notes for firms accounting their investment property under the cost model, a new variable was added in equation (2). This variable reflects the difference between the disclosed fair value and the h

59、istorical cost (IP_DFV_COST), resulting in the subsequent equation:</p><p>　　Thus, the aim at this point is to test whether the parameter 𝛽4 is statistically significant.</p><p>　　If tha

60、t turns out to be the case, it means that, when pricing shares, investors take into consideration the difference between the information provided in the balance sheet and disclosed in the notes</p><p>　　Reco

61、gnised fair value versus disclosed fair value</p><p>　　Given that investors always have access to the fair value of the investment property (i.e. either disclosed in the balance sheet or in the notes), the t

62、hird issue under analysis in this paper is whether investors valuate where this information is provided. In order to perform this, econometric regression similar to (2) needs to be constructed where IP x COST is replaced

63、 by the fair value disclosed in the notes by those firms adopting the cost model (IP_DISCLOSED FV), originating the regression b</p><p>　　Similarly to what has been done in regression (2), one must test if &

64、#120573;2 and 𝛽3 are equal. If this hypothesis is rejected, it can be concluded that investors price differently shares of companies disclosing the fair value of their investment property in the balan

65、ce sheet or in the notes (i.e. different valuation of shares of companies using the cost model and the fair value model).</p><p>　　SAMPLE SELECTION AND DATA</p><p>　　The Study focuses on a sampl

66、e of Portuguese listed companies belonging to the index PSI Geral, the general stock market of the Lisbon stock exchange, during the period 2005 to 2008. The selection of the time period reflects the date after which IAS

67、 40 became effective, and therefore the date after which the fair values need to be disclosed by companies. Since 2005, listed companies should use the IASB standards instead the Portuguese standards. Throughout this per

68、iod some companies have left the</p><p>　　From this initial sample were excluded football clubs because of their different accounting period. Then were also excluded all other firms for which there were not

69、data available. Then, in order to detect outliers, all observations where the absolute value of the Rstudent was larger than two were removed. This results in a final sample of 75 firm year observations representing 21 f

70、irms. From the total number of observations, 39 correspond to firms applying the cost model and 36 to those using t</p><p>　　Subsequently, all variables were divided by the number of shares outstanding at ye

71、ar-end in order to mitigate against heterosce dasticity (Barth, 1994).</p><p>　　All accounting data were hand-collected from the website of Comissão de Mercado de Valores Mobiliários (CMVM). The sh

72、are prices were obtained from Yahoo! Finance database. The descriptive statistics of all data collected that later will be used in the regression models is presented in Table 2. As stated before, it can be observed that

73、investment property corresponds to a very small fraction of the total assets of the companies under analysis. In fact, the mean value of the assets (excluding the </p><p>　　EMPIRICAL RESULTS</p><p

74、>　　Historical cost versus recognised fair value</p><p>　　In table 3, it is shown the estimated econometric model (2) and it can be observed that all coefficients are statistically significant. However, th

75、e IP x COST coefficient is only statistically relevant at a significance level of 5%, while all the other coefficients are relevant at a significance level of 1%. It has been obtained an adjusted R-squared of 0,7321, whi

76、ch means that around 73% of the variability of share prices is explained by the independent variables of the model.</p><p>　　As expected, all coefficients are positive apart from the liabilities’ coefficient

77、 which naturally has a negative sign. Regarding IP x COST and IP x FAIRVALUE coefficients (β2 and β3 , respectively), it can be concluded that they are both positive and relevant. In addition, the Wald test was carried o

78、ut to analyse the equality between those coefficients. As it can be observed in Table 3, the associated p-value led us to reject the null hypothesis, i.e. the equality between β2 and β3 does not hol</p><p>　

79、　Historical cost versus disclosed fair value</p><p>　　Table 4 illustrates the values obtained through the econometric regression (3) which has an adjusted R-squared of 0,7148. The new variable added from equ

80、ation (2) to (3), IP_DFV_COST, is not statistically relevant at a significance level of 10%. As the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, one cannot discard the fact that information regarding the fair value of investment

81、property disclosed in the notes may have a negligible impact in share prices for companies using the cost model. The remaining </p><p>　　Recognised fair value versus disclosed fair value</p><p>

82、　　Finally, table 5 represents the econometric regression (4) and the respective estimated coefficients. It can be observed that the adjusted R-squared is 0,7475 and that all coefficients are significant and have the expe

83、cted sign. Concretely, the IP_DISCLOSED_FV and IP x FAIRVALUE coefficients (β2 and β3 , respectively) are positive and significant. Actually, the fact that β2 is statistically significant does not contradict the previous

84、 conclusion obtained from regression (3). While in the previou</p><p>　　Additionally, the Wald test was conducted in order to check whether investors valuate differently whether the fair value is recognised

85、in the balance sheet or disclosed in the notes. The test shows that the hypothesis that β2 equals β3 can be rejected and therefore the place in the financial statements where the fair value is disclosed is relevant to in

86、vestors.</p><p>　　CONCLUSION</p><p>　　Under IAS 40, firms are allowed to choose between fair value model and cost model. Hence, this paper examines if there is any value relevance to applying th

87、e fair value model in</p><p>　　companies where investment properties are not the core business.</p><p>　　This question is addressed by estimating valuation regressions to determine whether inve

88、stors price shares differently when companies use one particular model over the other.</p><p>　　Results reveal that investors account for those differences in the measurement of investment properties when th

89、ey valuate shares. In fact, it was found evidence that recognising the historical cost or the fair value in the balance sheet has different impacts in the share price. This fact implies that fair value has value relevanc

90、e even in companies where investment properties are not considered the core business. Moreover, results show evidence that, when pricing shares, investors do not equally</p><p>　　However, results failed to p

91、rove that, for companies using the cost model, differences between the historical cost recognised in the balance sheet and the fair value disclosed in the notes are considered significant by investors when pricing shares

92、.</p><p>　　Finally, one should notice that the analysis and results in this study are based upon observations of companies in one single country. As a consequence, results may not be totally generalised to o

93、ther countries and therefore it would be interesting extending this analysis to other countries in future researches.</p><p><b>　　翻譯：</b></p><p>　　投資性房地產(chǎn)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的相關(guān)性</p><p&g

94、t;　　作者：Selas D N G D C. </p><p>　　來源：NSBE–UNL，2009.</p><p>　　摘要：本文研究了公允價(jià)值模式的使用在投資性房地產(chǎn)不是其核心業(yè)務(wù)的公司中是否具 有價(jià)值。分析了投資者對投資性房地產(chǎn)的公允價(jià)值是否被披露的問題。該樣本包括自 2005 以來要求采納 IAS/IFRS 的葡萄牙上市公司。結(jié)果表明,當(dāng)企業(yè)選擇成本模式或公允 價(jià)值模式時,投資

95、者的股價(jià)是不同的。然而,結(jié)果并沒有顯示出投資者重視對采用成本模 式的公司的歷史成本和附注上披露的公允價(jià)值的差異的評估。 </p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：公允價(jià)值，投資性房地產(chǎn)，價(jià)值相關(guān)性，IAS40</p><p><b>　　一、緒論</b></p><p>　　2005年1月1日，國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會（ISAB）頒布的國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（IAS）/國

96、際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則（IFRS）在歐盟成員國葡萄牙通過，以提升財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告信息質(zhì)量，并由此減少信息不對稱,提高可比性和透明度。</p><p>　　在初始確認(rèn)后,如何計(jì)量投資性房地產(chǎn)仍未達(dá)成共識。國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（IAS）40號——投資性房地產(chǎn)允許公司在成本模式和公允價(jià)值模式之間進(jìn)行選擇。根據(jù)準(zhǔn)則，成本模式要求會計(jì)主體在附注中披露投資性房地產(chǎn)的公允價(jià)值。在公允價(jià)值模式下，投資性房地產(chǎn)以公允價(jià)值計(jì)量，其變動計(jì)入當(dāng)期損益。<

97、/p><p>　　這個問題下的重要點(diǎn)是公允價(jià)值是否提供了更多相關(guān)信息而不喪失可靠性。事實(shí)上,公允價(jià)值模式與成本模式的選擇是當(dāng)前會計(jì)爭論中的一個關(guān)鍵問題。</p><p>　　本研究探討了那些核心業(yè)務(wù)不是投資性房地產(chǎn)的葡萄牙公司應(yīng)用公允價(jià)值模式的價(jià)值相關(guān)性。因此，應(yīng)分析三個主要問題：投資者在給股票定價(jià)時，是否評估了成本模式和確認(rèn)的公允價(jià)值模式；采用成本模式的公司是否考慮到歷史成本和附注上披露的公

98、允價(jià)值之間的差異；最后，在資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表上確認(rèn)的公允價(jià)值或在附注上披露的公允價(jià)值是否同樣被投資者理解。</p><p>　　為了了解投資者在公司運(yùn)用成本模式或公允價(jià)值模式來計(jì)量投資性房地產(chǎn)時,是否對股價(jià)有不同的影響，在Lourenço和Curto（2008）的研究基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了分析。該模型以O(shè)hlson(1995)和Landsman(2006)在會計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)的價(jià)值相關(guān)性上對股票定價(jià)的類似研究為基礎(chǔ)。</p&