Advanced Financial Accounting: What Was The Primary Cause Of

Advaced Financial Accountingq What Was The Primary Cause Of The Curr

Critically evaluate the statement that fair value accounting played a central role in the 2008 financial crisis, discussing its strengths and limitations through literature review. Identify two ASX-listed companies and analyze their use of fair value measurement and alternative measurement methods in their financial reports. Discuss the future development of fair value measurement in financial reporting based on your analysis.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The global financial crisis of 2008 marked a pivotal point in financial history, exposing vulnerabilities within the financial system and raising debates over the accounting standards that underpin financial reporting. Central to this debate was fair value accounting, also known as mark-to-market accounting, which was accused of exacerbating the crisis. Critics, including Steve Forbes and economists like Brian Wesbury, argued that fair value accounting, especially during periods of market distress, can distort asset valuations and contribute to systemic instability. Conversely, proponents assert that fair value measurement offers transparency and timely information essential for market participants. This paper critically evaluates the assertion that fair value accounting was instrumental in the 2008 crisis by exploring its strengths and limitations through academic and industry literature. Additionally, it examines how two Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) companies utilize fair value and alternative measurement methods, and discusses the future evolution of fair value measurement in financial reporting.

Part A: The Role of Fair Value Accounting in the Financial Crisis

Fair value accounting, governed by standards such as IFRS 13 and FASB ASC 820, seeks to provide a realistic valuation of assets and liabilities by reflecting current market conditions. Its strengths lie in transparency, relevance, and timeliness, allowing investors and regulators to assess a firm’s financial health based on up-to-date information (Barth, 2006). However, during the 2008 financial crisis, these qualities became contentious due to the nature of the market conditions.

Critics argued that fair value accounting, especially when markets are illiquid, tends to reflect distressed prices rather than intrinsic value, leading to asset write-downs that can trigger or deepen financial instability (Pozen, 2009). For example, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) experienced drastic price drops due to rapid market devaluation, not necessarily indicative of their underlying worth. This phenomenon, sometimes called the "fire sale" effect, can propagate losses throughout the financial system, as firms are forced to recognize enormous losses on holdings that are physically sound but temporarily devalued (Cifuentes, 2010).

However, it is essential to recognize that faulting fair value accounting exclusively overlooks its benefits. During the crisis, it provided immediate recognition of losses, forcing banks and financial institutions to acknowledge risks that might have remained hidden under amortized cost methods. This transparency aimed to improve market discipline, but in volatile circumstances, it also amplified panic and led to asset fire sales, exacerbating the downturn (Brecht & Bornholt, 2010).

The debate hinges on whether fair value accounting was merely a symptom or a cause of the financial crisis. Some scholars argue that the core issues stemmed from excessive leverage, poor risk management, and inadequate regulation, with fair value accounting merely magnifying these problems due to its design (Jaynes & McNay, 2007). Others contend that the standards themselves need revision to better handle distressed markets, with proposals for incorporating levels of valuation certainty or alternative measurement bases during illiquid conditions (FASB, 2010).

Thus, the literature reveals a nuanced picture: fair value accounting's strengths in promoting transparency and market discipline become limitations when markets are illiquid and volatile. Its role in the crisis is therefore context-dependent, with critics emphasizing its exacerbating effects and proponents highlighting its contribution to transparency.

Part B: Application of Fair Value Measurement in ASX-listed Companies

To illustrate the practical application of fair value measurement, two Australian companies—Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) and BHP Billiton—are analyzed based on their recent annual reports.

1. Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)

CBA extensively discloses the use of fair value in valuing financial instruments, derivatives, and investment securities. In their 2022 annual report, the bank reports that financial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL) or other comprehensive income (OCI), depending on the classification (CBA Annual Report, 2022). For instance, derivative instruments used for hedging purposes are measured at fair value, with changes recognized in the profit and loss statement. The bank adheres to IFRS 13, providing disclosures on valuation techniques and inputs, emphasizing Level 1 (market prices), Level 2 (observable inputs), and Level 3 (unobservable inputs) fair value hierarchies (CBA, 2022).

However, CBA also employs alternative measurement methods, such as amortized cost for loans and receivables, reflecting its emphasis on the operational stability of credit assets where fair value might be less meaningful due to illiquidity or measurement complexity. This dual approach ensures a balance between transparency and practicality, aligning with the Australian accounting standards and prudential regulations (APRA, 2022).

2. BHP Billiton

BHP’s financial reports indicate the use of fair value for certain financial instruments and investment properties. In its 2022 annual report, BHP discloses fair value measurements for derivatives used in hedging activities, with disclosures on valuation techniques, inputs, and reasons for fair value hierarchies (BHP Annual Report, 2022). The company also evaluates its investment properties at fair value—using independent valuations—while reporting other assets at historical cost where appropriate.

Besides fair value, BHP utilizes cost-based methods such as depreciation and amortization for tangible assets and inventory valuation, providing a comprehensive view of measurement approaches. This strategic combination reflects the need for reliable, relevant, and cost-effective measurement, especially given the nature of its asset base (BHP, 2022).

Part C: Future Development of Fair Value Measurement

The analysis indicates that fair value measurement remains a vital component of modern financial reporting, offering transparency and timeliness. However, the limitations revealed during crises highlight the necessity for ongoing refinement.

Future developments may include the increased use of Level 2 and Level 3 measurements with enhanced disclosures on valuation techniques, inputs, and assumptions to improve understanding and comparability. Standard setters like IASB and FASB are exploring frameworks that incorporate “expected credit loss” models, which blend fair value with other measurement bases to better capture credit risks and market conditions (IASB, 2019; FASB, 2020).

Additionally, technological advances such as artificial intelligence and data analytics promise to refine valuation models and predict market dynamics more accurately, reducing reliance on subjective inputs. Regulatory reforms aimed at stress-testing and transparency will likely reinforce fair value measurement’s role in safeguarding financial stability (Obstfeld, 2018).

Nevertheless, challenges related to measuring fair value during periods of illiquidity persist, necessitating a balanced approach that combines fair value with other robust measurement techniques to foster stability and transparency in the financial system (International Accounting Standards Board, 2021).

Conclusion

The debate over fair value accounting’s role in the 2008 financial crisis underscores the complex trade-offs between transparency and stability. While fair value enhances relevance and timely reporting, its application during stressed market conditions can exacerbate systemic risks. Empirical evidence and company disclosures reveal that organizations employ a mix of measurement approaches tailored to their assets and liabilities, balancing transparency with practical considerations. Looking forward, reforms focusing on enhanced disclosures, valuation techniques, and technological integration will shape the evolution of fair value measurement, aiming to optimize its benefits while mitigating its risks for global financial stability.

References

  • Barth, M. E. (2006). Market-based accounting standards? The Journal of Accounting Research, 44(3), 501–537.
  • Brecht, A., & Bornholt, G. (2010). Fair Value Accounting and Its Impact on Financial Markets. International Journal of Accounting and Finance, 45(2), 231–250.
  • CBA Annual Report (2022). Commonwealth Bank of Australia. https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/investors/reports/annual-reports.html
  • BHP Annual Report (2022). BHP Group Limited. https://www.bhp.com/investors/annual-reporting
  • FASB (2020). CECL and Expected Credit Loss Models. Financial Accounting Standards Board.
  • IASB (2019). IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. International Accounting Standards Board.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. (2021). Exposure Draft on Measurement for Financial Instruments. IASB Publication.
  • Obstfeld, M. (2018). Financial Stability and Systemic Risks: Challenges for Policymakers. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 122–147.
  • Pozen, R. C. (2009). Is It Fair to Blame Fair Value Accounting for the Financial Crisis? Harvard Business Review, 87(2), 84–92.
  • Jaynes, J., & McNay, M. (2007). Fair Value Accounting and Financial Stability: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(12), 3434–3444.

Related Assignments