nach oben

Review of Accounting Studies

Erschienen in:

01.03.2013

The mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting: implications for market pricing

verfasst von: Stephen Makar, Li Wang, Pervaiz Alam

Erschienen in: Review of Accounting Studies | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this study, we examine the pricing of cash flow hedge adjustments reported in other comprehensive income (OCICF), under the mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Our OCICF pricing investigation integrates empirical research on the derivatives use that gives rise to such mark-to-market adjustments with the accounting information pricing literature. Based on this integration, we generalize mispricing theory for the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model and predict both the direction and magnitude of OCICF pricing. Screening on U.S. multinationals with ex ante exposure to currency risk, we provide evidence of OCICF mispricing in the expected direction, consistent with the notion that SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting results in a mixed attribute problem (Gigler et al. in J Account Res 45:257–287, 2007). Moreover, we find that both OCICF gains and losses are inversely related to future cash flows and of the expected magnitude, consistent with our predictions based on valuation theory (for example, Ohlson in Rev Account Stud 4:145–162, 1999). Our results support the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s concern that the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model does not provide the information necessary for investors to understand the net economic effects of derivatives use (FASB in Accounting for financial instruments and revisions to the accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. FASB, Norwalk, 2010).

Vorheriger Artikel Relative performance evaluation and peer-performance summarization errors

Nächster Artikel Agency-based demand for conservatism: evidence from state adoption of antitakeover laws

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In accounting for cash flow hedges under SFAS 133 a MAP arises when the derivative position is marked to market while the adjustments on the underlying hedged item is not recorded until the future transaction. This absence of information on the future transaction being hedged, along with the complexities inherent in cash flow hedge accounting, may give rise to OCICF mispricing. As Gigler et al. (2007) observe, cash flow hedges are “an extreme example of this mixed attribute problem … [and thus] it is unclear how outsiders would interpret any reported gains or losses on the derivative” (p. 259). More generally, the mixed attribute model allows some assets and liabilities to be recorded at cost, lower of cost or market, and fair value. The Federal Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting has expressed concern about the substantive complexities inherent in this model (Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting 2008). As discussed in Sect. 2, Exhibit 1 illustrates the mixed attribute model as well as the additional complexities inherent in the accounting for partial hedging.

As discussed in Sect. 2, the FXDs cash flow hedge net economic effect is systematic and varies with the firm’s hedge percentage. Specifically, this effect relative to OCICF equals 1 − (1/hedge percentage), assuming no ineffective hedging of a given exchange rate change and no premium paid or received on the derivative contract.

Indicative of the incomplete information on cash flow hedges under SFAS 133, Campbell (2010) provides evidence of delayed OCICF pricing for a sample of financial and nonfinancial firms. Unlike Campbell, we predict the direction of such mispricing for a sample of financial firms based on the integration of empirical and theoretical research on the use of FXDs and MAP mispricing under SFAS 133. Moreover, we generalize MAP mispricing theory, and predict both the direction and magnitude of OCICF pricing.

Additional mandatory disclosure that includes the extent of hedging may help mitigate the mixed attribute problem, but as Hughes et al. (2002) suggest, such disclosure also may reveal proprietary information to rival firms. During the recent financial crisis, and accompanying pressure from Congress, the FASB modified its mark-to-market guidelines for inactive markets and distressed transactions (FASB 2009). In its recent exposure draft, the FASB has proposed that cash flow hedges need not be highly effective to qualify for hedge accounting (FASB 2010). Rather, qualifying cash flow hedges only need be reasonably effective. This reasonably effective criterion could allow firms some flexibility in recognizing some hedging relationships as ineffective and thereby avoid the mixed attribute problem. However, we believe that the mixed attribute problem in cash flow hedge accounting is likely to persist. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) also recently issued an exposure draft entitled Hedge Accounting (IASB 2010), which concerns International Accounting Standard 39 (IAS 39) Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IASB 2004). In its 2010 exposure draft, the IASB intends to improve the alignment between hedge accounting and firms’ risk management activities. In response to this IASB exposure draft, the FASB issued a discussion paper entitled Selected Issues about Hedge Accounting (FASB 2011).

Indeed, a cornerstone of SFAS 133 is that “fair value is the most relevant measure for financial instruments and the only relevant measure for derivative instruments” (paragraph 3).

See Gastineau et al. (2001) for additional discussion of the complexities in derivatives use and SFAS 133 hedge accounting.

The MAP pricing implications summarized in Exhibit 1 assume a constant exchange rate after time t, for clarity. These implications are not affected by this assumption, because the MTM adjustment on the hedge (i.e., OCICF) is always less than the MTM on the hedged item (e.g., INV) in a partial hedge. For additional discussion, refer to Sect. 2.2, including “Appendix”.

Brav and Heaton (2002) provide a review of the empirical research that supports Merton’s (1987) theoretical model.

Consistent with our expectations, Campbell (2010) reports an inverse relationship between OCICF adjustments and future returns. He interprets such delayed pricing as evidence of a lack of transparency in SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting. Beyond Campbell, we also predict that the magnitude of this inverse relationship will be less than minus one.

The MAP pricing implications summarized in Exhibit 1 pertain to partial hedges, which are prevalent in FXDs use (e.g., Bodnar et al. 1998). In contrast, when a firm effectively hedges 100 % of its underlying exposure (i.e., a full hedge), the first implication no longer holds (i.e., |OCICF_t| = |∆INV_t+1| in full hedges). The second implication, however, continues to hold (i.e., ∆INV_t+1 = −f (OCICF_t) in full hedges).

This systematic relationship assumes no ineffective hedging of a given exchange rate change and no premium paid or received on the derivatives contract.

Exhibit 1 illustrates a 40 % partial hedge (i.e., US$60,000 FXDs hedge of US$150,000 hedged inventory item). As summarized in the exhibit’s last row, the net economic effect of this 40 % hedge is 1.5 times the magnitude of the OCICF adjustment. In particular, firm A (firm B) records a US$6 OCICF gain (US$3 OCICF loss) and experiences a US$9 net cash outflow (US$4.50 net cash inflow). Thus, the net future cash flow of a 40 % partial hedge equals −1.5 times the OCICF value.

Similarly, Marshall and Weetman (2007) document a lack of transparency by comparing survey evidence of currency risk management practices to disclosures of such practices. Li et al. (2009) report that the mark-to-market adjustments on energy contracts are not value relevant.

As introduced in Sect. 1 and illustrated in Exhibit 1, the mixed attribute problem is inherent in OCICF adjustments, where the derivative position is marked to market, but the adjustment on the underlying hedged item is not recorded until the future transaction.

In addition to Louis (2003), Pinto (2005) concludes that OCICFTA is a significant source of value relevant information to investors. Similarly, Bernstein (1993) suggests that increasing OCICFTA over the years may be indicative of poorly managed foreign exchange exposure and thus has information value to investors. Radhahrishnan and Tsang (2006) report that OCICFTA is positively associated with abnormal returns for R&D leaders and asset intensive R&D followers.

As introduced in Sect. 1, both the OCICF and the OCIFCTA variables provide information on currency risk information reported in the other comprehensive income component of equity. However, unlike the SFAS 133 OCICF variable, the OCIFCTA variable pertains to the conversion of foreign currency denominated financial statements that have no direct cash flow implications (e.g., Hagelin and Pramborg 2004). Accordingly, OCIFCTA will not give rise to the derivatives use described by the Gigler et al. (2007) MAP mispricing theory, in an optimal hedge framework (e.g., Stulz 1984; Froot et al. 1993).

Four of the 144 firms in our final sample do not report notional values of FXDs. Our primary results are robust to the exclusion of these firms.

Self-selection bias may not affect our results if firms’ derivatives use is by chance, rather than by design. See Bradshaw and Miller (2008) for a discussion of cases where self selection may not result in sample bias.

This two-stage procedure has been used frequently in accounting research to control for self-selection bias (e.g., Harris and Muller 1999; Leuz and Verrecchia 2000; Alam and Loh 2004; Cheney et al. 2004; Bartov et al. 2005).

In an unrelated paper, Campbell (2010) takes a similar approach but uses raw returns and OCICF deciles in place of our size-adjusted abnormal returns and OCICF quintiles. We also examine the sensitivity of our hedge portfolio tests to abnormal returns obtained from the Fama and French (1996) three factor model and use firm and year clustered standard errors to mitigate concerns of time-series and cross-sectional correlations.

For example, Kraft et al. (2007) include 111,838 firm-year observations in their full sample and 65,411 firm-year observations in their restricted sample.

The control variables that we use in our OLS regression of future abnormal returns are similar to other studies that examine market mispricing issues (e.g., Rajgopal et al. 2003).

As discussed in Sect. 3, not all firms in our initial sample use cash flow hedges. Thus we employ a two-stage procedure to control for self-selection bias (Heckman 1979).

The OCICF mispricing result is robust to excluding the InverseMills variable (which controls for self-selection bias) from the Mishkin tests.

Prior research identifies various sources of mispricing that the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) does not capture. Ball and Brown (1968) identify the phenomena of post-earnings announcement drift, which indicates that the stock price of firms experiencing positive (negative) earnings surprises tends to drift upward (downward). Banz (1981) identifies that small firms earn abnormally high average returns, and Rosenberg et al. (1985) find similar returns for firms with high book-to-market ratios. DeBondt and Thaler (1985) report that firms with low (high) prior long-term returns tend to experience higher (lower) future returns. Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) add the momentum factor to the three-factor Fama and French model (1993), indicating that firms with high (low) prior returns earn high (low) future returns. Lakonishok et al. (1994) demonstrate that investors consistently over-estimate the growth rates of glamour stocks relative to value stocks. Our research method is designed to mitigate concerns about the validity of the CAPM.

Sloan (1996) and various other studies in the accounting literature report that investors earn higher average returns by investing in firms with relatively lower total accruals. Fairfield et al. (2003) demonstrate that firms reporting high investments experience lower stock returns. Basu (1977) provides evidence showing that firms with high earnings-to-price ratios earn positive abnormal returns. Overall, these studies demonstrate that there are various opportunities to earn abnormal returns in the short run. Our study illustrates that abnormal returns also exist in OCICF pricing.

When firms hedge less than 100 % of their underlying exposure, this is referred to as a partial hedge (e.g., Bodnar et al. 1998, p. 77). Partial hedges give rise to underhedging.

Gigler et al. (2007) illustrate their model using a commodity sale as the hedged item, but note that “the real transaction (the hedged item) can also be interpreted as the future purchase of inputs needed for production, or as a foreign currency transaction” (p. 262). Although we use FX transactions in our hypothesis development, the same logic can be applied to other derivatives used as cash flow hedges (e.g., commodity prices, interest rates).

Alam, P., & Loh, E. (2004). Inventory valuation and self-selection bias. Advances in Management Accounting, 12, 237–264.CrossRef

Allayannis, G., & Ofek, E. (2001). Exchange rate exposure, hedging, and the use of foreign currency derivatives. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 273–296.CrossRef

Ball, R., & Brown, P. (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, 6, 159–178.CrossRef

Banz, R. (1981). The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. Journal of Financial Economics, 9, 3–18.CrossRef

Barton, J. (2001). Does the use of financial derivatives affect earnings management decisions? Accounting Review, 76, 1–26.CrossRef

Bartov, E., Goldberg, S., & Kim, M. (2005). Comparative value relevance among German, U.S., and international accounting standards: A German stock market perspective. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 20, 95–119.

Basu, S. (1977). Investment performance of common stocks in relation to price-earnings ratios: A test of the efficient market hypothesis. Journal of Finance, 32, 663–682.CrossRef

Belzile, R., Fortin, A., & Viger, C. (2006). Recognition versus disclosure of stock option compensation: An analysis of judgments and decisions of nonprofessional investors. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 5, 147–179.CrossRef

Bernstein, L. (1993). Financial statement analysis: Theory, application, and interpretation (Boston. Irwin): MA.

Bhamornsiri, S., & Schroeder, R. (2004). The disclosure of information on derivatives under SFAS No. 133. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19, 669–680.CrossRef

Bodnar, G., Hayt, G., & Marston, R. (1998). 1998 Wharton survey of financial risk management by U.S. non-financial firms. Financial Management, 27, 70–91.CrossRef

Borsum, O., & Odegaard, B. (2005). Currency hedging in Norwegian non-financial firms. Economic Bulletin, 76, 133–145.

Bradshaw, M., & Miller, G. (2008). Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-U.S. firms adopting U.S. GAAP. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 23, 233–263.

Brav, A., & Heaton, J. (2002). Competing theories of financial anomalies. Review of Financial Studies, 15, 575–606.CrossRef

Campbell, J. (2010). The fair value of cash flow hedges, future profitability and stock returns. Working paper. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1441684).

Chambers, D., Linsmeier, T., Shakespeare, C., & Sougiannis, T. (2007). Evaluating SFAS 130 comprehensive income disclosures. Review of Accounting Studies, 12, 557–593.CrossRef

Cheney, P., Jeter, D., & Shivakumar, L. (2004). Self-selection of auditors and audit pricing in private firms. The Accounting Review, 79, 51–72.CrossRef

Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting. (2008). Final report of the advisory committee on improvements to financial reporting to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SEC Release 2008-166. Washington, DC: SEC.

DeBondt, W., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact? Journal of Finance, 40, 793–805.CrossRef

Eccher, A., Ramesh, K., & Thiagarajan, S. (1996). Fair value disclosures of bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, 79–117.CrossRef

Fairfield, P., Whisenant, S., & Yohn, T. (2003). Accrued earnings and growth: Implications for future profitability and market mispricing. The Accounting Review, 78, 353–371.CrossRef

Fama, E., & French, K. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47, 427–465.CrossRef

Fama, E., & French, K. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3–56.CrossRef

Fama, E., & French, K. (1996). Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. Journal of Finance, 51, 55–84.CrossRef

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1997a). Disclosures about segments of an enterprise and related information. Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 131. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1997b). Reporting comprehensive income. SFAS No. 130. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1998). Accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS No. 133. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2008). Disclosures about derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS No. 161. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2009). Determining the fair value of a financial asset when the market for that asset is not active. FASB staff position. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2010). Accounting for financial instruments and revisions to the accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Exposure Draft. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2011). Selected issues about hedge accounting. Discussion paper. Norwalk, CT: FASB.

Froot, K., Scharfstein, D., & Stein, J. (1993). Risk management: Coordinating investment and financing policies. Journal of Finance, 48, 1629–1658.

Gastineau, G., Smith, D., & Todd, R. (2001). Risk management, derivatives and financial analysis under SFAS No. 133. Monograph. Charlottesville, VA: Association for Investment Management and Research.

Geczy, C., Minton, B., & Schrand, C. (1997). Why firms use derivatives. Journal of Finance, 52, 1323–1354.

Gigler, F., Kanodia, C., & Venugopalan, R. (2007). Assessing the information content of mark-to-market accounting with mixed attributes: The case of cash flow hedges. Journal of Accounting Research, 45, 257–287.CrossRef

Hagelin, N., & Pramborg, B. (2004). Hedging foreign exchange exposure: Risk reduction from transaction and translation hedging. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 15, 1–20.CrossRef

Harris, M., & Muller, K., I. I. I. (1999). The market valuation of IAS versus U.S. GAAP accounting measures using form 20-F reconciliations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26, 285–312.CrossRef

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRef

Hope, O., Kang, T., Thomas, W. B., & Vasvari, F. (2008). Pricing and mispricing effects of SFAS 131. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 35, 281–306.CrossRef

Hughes, J., Kao, J., & Williams, M. (2002). Public disclosure of forward contracts and revelation of proprietary information. Review of Accounting Studies, 7, 459–478.CrossRef

International Accounting Standards Board. (2004). Financial instruments: Recognition and measurement. International Accounting Standard 39. London, UK: IASB.

International Accounting Standards Board. (2010). Hedge accounting. Exposure Draft. London, UK: IASB.

Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance, 48, 65–91.CrossRef

Jorion, P. (1990). The exchange-rate exposure of U.S. multinationals. Journal of Business, 63, 331–345.CrossRef

Kraft, A., Leone, A., & Wasley, C. (2007). Regression-based tests of the market pricing of accounting numbers: The Mishkin test and ordinary least squares. Journal of Accounting Research, 45, 1081–1114.CrossRef

Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. Journal of Finance, 49, 1541–1578.CrossRef

Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 91–124.CrossRef

Li, E., Saudagaran, S., & Yoon, S. (2009). A note on the value relevance of mark-to-market values of energy contracts under EITF issue No. 98-10. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28, 251–261.CrossRef

Louis, H. (2003). The value relevance of the foreign translation adjustment. Accounting Review, 78, 1027–1047.CrossRef

Marshall, A., & Weetman, P. (2007). Modeling transparency in disclosures: The case of foreign exchange risk management. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 34, 705–739.CrossRef

Melumad, N., Weyns, G., & Ziv, A. (1999). Comparing alternative hedge accounting standards: Shareholders’ perspective. Review of Accounting Studies, 4, 265–292.CrossRef

Merton, R. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance, 42, 483–570.CrossRef

Mishkin, F. (1983). A rational expectations approach to macroeconometrics: Testing policy effectiveness and efficient-markets models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Nance, D., Smith, C., & Smithson, C. (1993). On the determinants of corporate hedging. Journal of Finance, 48, 267–284.CrossRef

Naylor, M., & Greenwood, R. (2008). The characteristics of foreign exchange hedging: A comparative analysis. Journal of Asia-Pacific Finance, 9, 124–142.

Nelson, K. (1996). Fair value accounting for commercial banks: An empirical analysis of SFAS 107. Accounting Review, 71, 161–182.

Ohlson, J. (1999). On transitory earnings. Review of Accounting Studies, 4, 145–162.CrossRef

Pinto, J. (2005). How comprehensive is comprehensive income? The value relevance of foreign currency translation adjustments. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 16, 98–122.CrossRef

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008). 10 minutes on fair value in financial reporting. http://www.pwc.com/us/en/10minutes/fair-value-financial-reporting.jhtml.

Radhahrishnan, S., & Tsang, A. (2006). The valuation-relevance of the foreign translation adjustment: The impact of barriers to entry and rigidity of wages. Working paper. Dallas, TX: University of Texas at Dallas.

Rajgopal, S., Shevlin, T., & Venkatachalam, M. (2003). Does the stock market fully appreciate the implications of leading indicators for future earnings? Evidence from order backlog. Review of Accounting Studies, 8(4), 461–492.CrossRef

Riffe, S. (1997). The valuation of off-balance sheet financial instruments in the banking industry. In B. Schacier (Ed.), Derivatives, regulation, and banking: Advances in finance, investment and banking services (pp. 93–121). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Rosenberg, B., Reid, K., & Lanstein, R. (1985). Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. Journal of Portfolio Management, 11, 9–17.CrossRef

Sloan, R. (1996). Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 71, 289–315.

Smith, C., & Stulz, R. (1985). The determinants of firms’ hedging policies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20, 391–405.CrossRef

Stulz, R. (1984). Optimal hedging policies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 19, 127–139.CrossRef

Venkatachalam, M. (1996). Value-relevance of banks’ derivative disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, 327–355.CrossRef

Wang, L., Alam, P., & Makar, S. (2005). The value-relevance of derivative disclosures by commercial banks: A comprehensive study of information content under SFAS Nos. 119 and 133. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 25, 413–427.CrossRef

Titel: The mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting: implications for market pricing
verfasst von: Stephen Makar
Li Wang
Pervaiz Alam
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Review of Accounting Studies / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1380-6653
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7136
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-012-9201-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Analysts’ earnings forecast errors and cost of equity capital estimates

Non-audit services and financial reporting quality: evidence from 1978 to 1980

Relative performance evaluation and peer-performance summarization errors

Do investor expectations affect sell-side analysts’ forecast bias and forecast accuracy?

Do defaulting CEOs and directors increase the likelihood of financial distress of the firm?

Terminal valuations, growth rates and the implied cost of capital