Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Review of Accounting Studies
Published in: Review of Accounting Studies 4/2019

30-08-2019

Reliability and relevance of fair values: private equity investments and investee fundamentals

Authors: Petrus H. Ferreira, Roman Kräussl, Wayne R. Landsman, Maria Nykyforovych Borysoff, Peter F. Pope

Published in: Review of Accounting Studies | Issue 4/2019

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We directly test the reliability and relevance of investee fair values reported by listed private equity funds (LPEs). In our setting, disaggregated fair value measurements are observable for funds’ investees; and investee accounting fundamentals are also publicly disclosed. We find that LPE fair value measurements reflect equity book value and net income in a manner consistent with stock market pricing of listed companies. However, LPE fair value measurements appear to distinguish between Level 1 and Level 3 inputs – they reflect investee net income to a lesser extent for Level 3 inputs. Further evidence based on the stock market pricing of LPE funds indicates that the discretion exercised by LPE fund managers when determining investee valuations is perceived as reliable.
previous article Director compensation and related party transactions
next article Integrated ownership and managerial incentives with endogenous project risk

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
See Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (FASB 2006), and IFRS 7, Financial Instruments: Disclosures (IASB 2005).
 
2
See, for example, Barth (2004), Penman (2007), Landsman (2007), Benston (2008), and Ryan (2008) for discussions of costs and benefits of FVM.
 
3
The literature is extensive and is not covered comprehensively here. Several review papers and critiques are available. See, for example, Landsman (2007).
 
4
Lawrence et al. (2016) further replicates and extends the Song et al. (2010) study for a set of banks and find evidence that the differences between value relevance of Level 3 fair values and those of Levels 1 and 2 are insignificant after controlling for an omitted variable.
 
5
We note that the unit of account concept is potentially important in all FVM. For example, is a fair value estimate of an investment holding based on the value of a single share in a company, or is it a proportion of the estimated value for which a company could be sold? The resulting FVMs can differ. Clear guidance on this issue as it applies to private equity firms is not available from existing accounting standards. However, because representational faithfulness is a primary qualitative characteristic aimed at representing economic substance, valuation guidelines in the private equity sector usually focus on the investee company as the appropriate unit of account (see, for example, International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation Guidelines, International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation Board 2012).
 
6
Even if fair value estimates exploit private information held by corporate management, there is still uncertainty in fair value estimates because of latent business uncertainty.
 
7
Since 2005, firms listed in the European Union are required to report under IFRS if they report consolidated financial statements. However, listed firms that do not produce consolidated financial statements are permitted to report under domestic accounting standards.
 
8
Since 2012, the authoritative body issuing U.K. GAAP standards is the Financial Reporting Council, and U.K. GAAP have been consolidated under Financial Reporting Standard 102 (FRC 2013).
 
9
See, for example, Hayn (1995) and Barth et al. (1998).
 
10
A common indication that a Level 1 input has been applied is when the investee is traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). AIM is a trading platform set up in 1995 by the London Stock Exchange that is designed to permit a wide range of businesses including early stage, venture capital-backed, and more established companies to seek access to capital. Currently, over 3,600 firms have their shares traded on AIM.
 
11
Following Petersen (2009), when estimating Equations (1) and (2), we include year fixed effects but do not cluster by year, because the number of clusters (years) is only 10. However, we also estimated versions of the equations clustering by year; untabulated findings result in the same inferences as those based on tabulated findings.
 
12
When constructing Res_ratio1 and Res_ratio3, we use the version of Equation (2) that includes only year fixed effects. Including fund fixed effects would remove the average discretion applied by each fund manager over the sample period. For our analysis, it is important to assess each fund’s discretion applied relative to that applied by the others, not the fund’s annual discretion relative to its average.
 
13
Means are based Res_ratio1 and Res_ratio3 after winsorizing at the 5th and 95th percentiles; by construction, winsorization does not affect median values that are used when estimating Equations (4) and (5).
 
14
We set Res_ratio1it and Res_sign1it (Res_ratio3it and Res_sign3it) to zero if fund i in year t does not have any Level 1 (Level 3) investments.
 
15
IFRS 7, Financial Instruments: Disclosures (IASB 2005) explicitly identifies Levels 1, 2, and 3 fair value inputs and is effective for annual accounting periods starting after Jan. 1, 2009. Although LPE funds did not disclose explicitly the level of their fair value estimates, they did disclose information that enables us to infer the levels for sample years before 2010.
 
16
Throughout we use a 5% significance level under a one-sided alternative when we have a signed prediction, and under a two-sided alternative otherwise.
 
17
For example, Table 5, Panel D of Barth et al. (1998) reports average equity book value and net income coefficients of 0.89 and 6.57 for a sample of financially healthy publicly listed firms.
 
18
We also estimated versions of Equation (1) for a subsample of observations of Level 1 investments, using both estimated investee fair value, FV, and investee equity market value, MVE, as the dependent variable. Untabulated findings reveal that equity book value and net income coefficients are 0.86 and 8.63 (0.88 and 9.01) in the FV (MVE) estimation. Although the coefficients are essentially the same in both estimations, the primary reason they differ is that we calculate FV based on the percentage of investee’s equity held by the fund. Hence, it appears that LPE fund managers appropriately use Level 1 inputs when estimating fair values for listed investees.
 
19
Although Equation (2) includes BVE, which can be viewed as a size proxy, it is possible that difference between Level 1 and Level 3 investee net income coefficients reflects size differences between publicly traded and non-public investees. As an additional means to address this possibility, we estimate Equation (2) separately for subsamples above and below the median BVE. Untabulated regression summary statistics reveal that inferences relating to the difference between the Level 1 and 3 investee net income coefficients are the same as those based on tabulated findings, i.e., the Level 1 NI coefficient is significantly larger than the Level 3 net income coefficient in both estimations.
 
20
We also cluster standard errors by investee when estimating Equation (8).
 
21
Although winsorizing continuous variables should mitigate the effects of outliers, we also checked for influential observations using the Cook’s distance measure, eliminating the most influential observations. Untabulated findings reveal the same inferences as those based on tabulated findings.
 
22
More generally, young funds also appear to be valued differently by their investors. In particular, both of the BVE_FV3 coefficients are smaller than for older funds, as is one of the BVE_FV1 coefficients, and both of the NI coefficients are significantly negative.
 
23
We calculate earnings persistence using a version of Equation (8) that excludes the Level 3 interaction terms.
 
24
In particular, we replace \( \frac{\mid Res{1}_j\mid }{\mid FV\_{fit}_j\mid } \) and \( \frac{\mid Res{3}_j\mid }{\mid FV\_{fit}_j\mid } \) with the absolute value of percentage change in investee j fair value.
 
25
In particular, we replace Res1j and Res3j with percentage change in investee j fair value.
 
Literature
Aboody, D., Barth, M. E., & Kasznik, R. (1999). Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26(1), 149–178.CrossRef
Accounting Standards Board (ASB). (2004). Financial Reporting Standard 26: Financial instruments: Recognition and measurement. London, UK: ASB.
Barth, M. E. (1994). Fair value accounting: Evidence from investment securities and the market valuation of banks. The Accounting Review, 69(1), 1–25.
Barth, M. (2004). Fair values and financial statement volatility. In C. Borio, W. C. Hunter, G. G. Kaufman, & K. Tsatsaronis (Eds.), The market discipline across countries and industries (pp. 323–334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barth, M. E., Beaver, W. H., & Landsman, W. R. (1998). Relative valuation roles of equity book value and net income as a function of financial health. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25(1), 1–34.CrossRef
Barth, M. E., & Clinch, G. (1996). International differences in accounting standards: Evidence from UK, Australian, and Canadian firms. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(1), 135–170.CrossRef
Barth, M. E., & Clinch, G. (1998). Revalued financial, tangible, and intangible assets: Associations with share prices and non-market-based value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(Supplement), 199–233.CrossRef
Benston, G. J. (2008). The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27(2), 101–114.CrossRef
Bergmann, B., Christophers, H., Huss, M., & Zimmermann, H. (2011). Listed private equity. In D. Cumming (Ed.), Private equity: Fund types, risks and returns, and regulation (pp. 53–70). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRef
Carroll, T. J., Linsmeier, T. J., & Petroni, K. R. (2003). The reliability of fair value versus historical cost information: Evidence from closed-end mutual funds. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 18(1), 1–24.CrossRef
Datar, V. T., Naik, N. Y., & Radcliffe, R. (1998). Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(2), 203–219.CrossRef
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2006). Fair value measurements. Statement of financial accounting standards no. 157. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
Financial Reporting Council. (2013). Financial reporting standard 102: The financial reporting standard. London, U.K.
Goh, B. W., Li, D., Ng, J., & Yong, K. O. (2015). Market pricing of banks’ fair value assets reported under SFAS 157 since the 2008 financial crisis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(2), 129–145.CrossRef
Hayn, C. (1995). The information content of losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(2), 125–153.CrossRef
Hodder, L., Hopkins, P., & Schipper, K. (2014). Fair value measurement in financial reporting. Foundations and Trends in Accounting, 8(3–4), 143–270.CrossRef
International Accounting Standards Board. (2004). IAS 39: Financial instruments: Recognition and measurement. London, U.K.
International Accounting Standards Board. (2005). IFRS 7 financial instruments: Disclosures. London, U.K.
International Accounting Standards Board. (2015). Conceptual framework for financial reporting: Exposure draft 2015/3. London, U.K.
Kolev, K. (2009). Do investors perceive marking-to-model as marking-to-myth? Early evidence from FAS 157 disclosure. Quarterly Journal of Finance, forthcoming.
Landsman, W. R. (2007). Is fair value accounting information relevant and reliable? Evidence from capital market research. Accounting and Business Research, 37(Supplement), 19–30.CrossRef
Lawrence, A., Siriviriyakul, S., & Sloan, R. G. (2016). Who’s the fairest of them all? Evidence from closed-end funds. The Accounting Review, 91(1), 207–227.CrossRef
Maines, L. A., & Wahlen, J. M. (2006). The nature of accounting information reliability: Inferences from archival and experimental research. Accounting Horizons, 20(4), 399–425.CrossRef
Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Earnings, equity book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 661–687.CrossRef
Penman, S. H. (2007). Financial reporting quality: Is fair value a plus or a minus? Accounting and Business Research, 37(Supplement), 33–44.CrossRef
Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRef
Ryan, S. G. (2008). Fair value accounting: Understanding the issues raised by the credit crunch. Council of Institutional Investors white paper.
Song, C. J., Thomas, W. B., & Yi, H. (2010). Value relevance of FAS no. 157 fair value hierarchy information and the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1375–1410.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reliability and relevance of fair values: private equity investments and investee fundamentals
Authors
Petrus H. Ferreira
Roman Kräussl
Wayne R. Landsman
Maria Nykyforovych Borysoff
Peter F. Pope
Publication date
30-08-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Review of Accounting Studies / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1380-6653
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7136
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-019-09509-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Review of Accounting Studies 4/2019 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Changes in analysts’ stock recommendations following regulatory action against their brokerage

OriginalPaper

Integrated ownership and managerial incentives with endogenous project risk

OriginalPaper

Key performance indicators as supplements to earnings: Incremental informativeness, demand factors, measurement issues, and properties of their forecasts

OriginalPaper

Bank asset transparency and credit supply

Correction

Correction to: Auditor benchmarking of client disclosures

OriginalPaper

The readability of company responses to SEC comment letters and SEC 10-K filing review outcomes