Historical Cost Versus Fair Value Account -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Historical Cost Versus Fair Value Account? Answer: Introduction: The report is prepared to conduct a detailed analysis of given research topic that is Historical cost versus fair value of accounting for non-financial assets. It has been ascertained that there is an ongoing debate between these two methods of accounting by reviewing literature. Free choice between historical accounting and fair value accounting have been debated and mandating any particular method is considered from one perspective and do not considering the perspective of users of financial statements. Report has demonstrated the explanation of measurement concepts of both the accounting method for valuing non-financial assets. Challenges and benefits of using one particular accounting method have also been explained. Concerning the explanation of practical valuation practices of these two methods of accounting, three companies from three different stock exchanges have been selected. Three companies that are selected are BHP Billiton Limited from Australian stock exchange, Anglesey Mineral limited from London stock exchange and Hudbay Minerals from New York stock exchange. All these three companies operate in mineral and exploration. BHP Billiton limited is an Australian multinational, mining and petroleum based public company having headquarter in Melbourne (bhp.com 2018). Anglesey limited is a mining company that is based on United Kingdom and has direct shipping deposits of iron ore in Quebec and Labrador (angleseymining.co.uk 2018). Hudbay Mining Corporation is a mining company that is based in Canada and has been exploring and mining for over eighty years in Manitoba (Hudbayminerals.com 2018). Explanation of the measurement concepts in relation to historical cost and fair value accounting: A fair value disclosure or measurement is permitted by IFRS 13 Fair value measurement and the reporting entities are provided a single platform for making disclosure about their fair value measurement. Fair value under this standard is defined as the basis of notion of exit price and makes use of fair value hierarchy that provides a measurement that is market based rather than entity based. Estimating the price for executing an orderly transactions to transfer the liabilities or sell the assets between market participants at the under the present market conditions is the objective of fair value measurement. Reporting entities are required to determine the valuation premise for non-financial assets that is regarded as appropriate for measurement. The measurement of fair value of an item of plant, equipment and property is done at its existing or current use when the economic benefits of such assets available to market participants cannot be accessed (Allee et al. 2015). When there is availability of sufficient data for measuring the fair value so that it helps in minimization of observable inputs use and maximizes the use of relevant observable inputs, the entity should use valuation techniques. Now, historical cost accounting can be seen as a measurement basis used in accounting under which the price of assets is based on original cost or nominal price. The measurement of historical cost accounting is drawn from the initial cost that is incurred on item. Information those are prepared based on historical costing are relevant to organizations for some purpose. This method of accounting seems inferior to fair value accounting as described in the conceptual framework of financial accounting reporting standard. The interpretation of historical cost accounting is done in a way in terms of assets price should not be more than recoverable amount from its selling and usage. Recoverable amount is regarded as higher of the value in use and realizable value of assets. Recognition of gain under this method of accounting is realisable when increase in value of assets is more than the amount of historical cost. There can be reliable measurement of historical cost that can be identified f rom the transactions of actual prices. It can be explained with the help of an instance, purchase price of items of stock can be identified on clear basis and there can be objective measurement of amount owed to the business and amount received. Fair value accounting for non-financial assets provides with the benefits of increased content of information and relevance of value. On the reliability dimensions, fair value is likely to be dominated by historical cost. Opportunity cost of investment is reflected by the historical cost accounting method. Classification of organization in the application of historical cost is done if there is recognition of one asset class at historical costs. It has been ascertained from research that fair value accounting is used by 5% of companies that are operating in UK while for one asset class within the group, all companies are using historical cost basis (DeFond et al. 2014). Evaluate the benefits and challenges of using historical cost and fair value accounting for PPE and intangibles: Timeliness is one of the benefits that arise from the fair value accounting that are used for the valuation of non-financial assets. Any reporting change in plant, equipment and property fair value has the potential of providing timely to interest users of financial statements such as investors and creditors. The information relating to the valuation of such assets is considered reliable. For determining the fair value of assets, investors requires current appraisal of non-financial assets. Current changes in the plant, equipment and property under the fair value method also provided information to other users of financial statement (Chabrak 2016). On other hand, the capacity of influencing decisions is also provided by historical cost as long as the fair value is reasonably estimated by book value of assets. However, the capacity of influencing users decision influenced under this method of accounting because of existence of deviation of fair value from book value. Comparability: Comparability of information in different reporting time is enhanced using fair value method and on other hand, comparability can be hindered by the measurement of historical cost basis. This is because latter fails to make the identification similarities between similar items. One of the important implications regarding comparability is the issue of allowing versus plant, equipment and property revaluations. Under the convergence model of plant, equipment and property, revaluations concerning such non-financial assets will continue to exist (Cascino and Gassen 2015). Enhanced information disclosure: Since under the fair value accounting, valuations of assets are done at their current market value, it helps in capturing the present value of future cash flows associated with such assets. As opposed to historical cost method, fair value helps in enhancement of informative power of financial report. Organizations are required to make an extensive discourse about the assumptions that are made, risk exposure, methodology used, any issues and related sensitivities leading to thorough financial statements (Christensen et al. 2015). Challenges of fair value accounting and historical accounting: Fair value accounting does not benefits some type of business and such business are those that have their assets always fluctuating by large amount throughout the year. There can be creation of misleading gains and loss for assets due to volatility in assets that do not reflect actual value. The changes in level of pricing are not taken into consideration under historical cost accounting and hence change in money value is not reflected. Consequently, it fails to give actual picture of statement of affairs of company. Manipulation: Estimates made about non-financial assets can come with risks because of the possibility that reporting entity will make any manipulation it their assets pricing. This would influence both quoted and traded prices and hence in this regarded, historical cost is considered better. Under historical costing, the income statement does not reveal true profits and there is a probability that profits would be overstated during inflation period. Misleading information: It is certainly possible that the fundamental value of assets will not be indicative by observed value of assets that are used under fair value accounting. Not all the publicly available information might be reflected in the formation of estimates as market has the probability of being inefficient. In this regard, historical costing method would be considered suitable. Market deviation can also be caused due to other factors such as behavioural bias, irrationality and prevalence of arbitrage (Whittington 2014). Valuation policies of non-financial assets groups of three listed companies: In this particular section, there companies have been selected from the three different stock exchange that is Australian stock exchange, London stock exchange and New York stock exchange for the evaluation of valuation policies of intangibles and PPE. These companies are BHP Billiton limited, Anglesey mining and Hudbay minerals limited. BHP Billiton has not adopted the standard in relation to measurement of PPE and intangible assets that is IAS 138 Intangible assets and IAS 16 property, plant and equipment. The valuation of plant, property and equipment is done at cost by deducting impairment charges and accumulated depreciation. Cost that is considered here is the fair value in relation to asset acquisition at the time of construction and acquisition. It also incorporates the direct costs that are required for bringing the assets to location. In relation to certain items of plant, property and equipment, there are certain finance leased liabilities that are recognized initially at fair value. Therefore, it can be said that the valuation of PPE of BHP Billiton is done at historical costs (Tran and Zhu 2017). The difference between fair value of intangible assets and acquisition of contingent liabilities is the value of goodwill. There is immediate recognition of the difference between the considerations of fair value of net acquired assets. Intangible assets having finite lives such as licences and softwares are carried at fair value of consideration paid in the statement of financial position by deducting impairment charges and accumulated amortization (bhp.com 2018). It has been ascertained from the annual report of Anglesey minerals that the group has not adopted new accounting standards and implementations. However, the group have not applied the standard such as IAS 138 intangible assets and IAS 16 property, plant and equipment and they are issued and applicable for organization. However, they are not yet effective (angleseymining.co.uk 2018). From the analysis of financial report of Anglesey mining listed on LSE, it can be inferred that valuation of plant, equipment and property in the balance sheet is doe at costs. There is annual reviewing of carrying value of assets for evaluating that recoverable amount is exceeding impairment value that are charged in the income statement immediately. The measurement of intangible assets is done at historical cost by deducting impairment provision and accumulated amortisation. Recognition of development expenditure is done immediately when the organization is not recognizing any internally generated intangible assets (Picker et al. 2016). From the above table derived from annual report of Anglesey minerals, it can be seen that PPE are measured at historical costs. The standard that has been applied by organization in relation to non-financial assets are IAS 138, Intangible assets and IAS 16, plant, property and equipment. It has been ascertained from the analysis of annual report of Hudbay minerals that items of PPE is measured by group at cost by deducting any impairment losses that are accumulated over years and accumulated depreciation (Hudbayminerals.com 2018). However, the initial costs incurred on such assets does not incorporate cost of construction, price of purchasing, any direct costs, non refundable purchase taxes and import duties. Intangible asset of Hudbay involves computer software that is measured at historical costs by deducting accumulated loss related to impairment and accumulated amortization. Such costs involve all the costs that are directly attributable and are necessary of creating and producing the assets (Berker 2015). Analysis of consistency of valuation practices across three companies: From the above discussion regarding the accounting policies of valuation of non-financial assets of selected companies, it can be said that there was much consistencies between them as there existed difference between the measurements of accounting. BHP Billiton did not mention the adoption of international standard relating to plant, property and equipment and intangible assets. While, Anglesey minerals have not applied the concerned standard relating to the adoption of standard. Hudbay minerals on other hand have made the new amended standard for intangible assets and PPE applicable in the financial year 2016. Therefore, there do not exist consistencies between the adoptions of concerned standard relating to non-financial assets. Furthermore, the valuation of both non-financial assets that is PPE and intangible assets are done at historical costs by deducting accumulated impairment charges and accumulated amortization and depreciation charges. Framing an opinion on the free choice between historical cost and fair value accounting for PPE and intangibles: The opinion about historical cost and fair value accounting for intangibles assets and PPE is dependent upon the viewpoint of investors and management. If there exists free choice between the companies, then investor would have difficulties in comparing the financial position between companies as different it would provide them with different interpretations for the valuation of same non-financial assets. There is a probability that in reality, the situation might be same but it appears different for investors assessing the valuation of such assets (Ball et al. 2015). Therefore, for the benefits attributable to investors, free choice between fair value and historical costing should be abandoned. Now, when looking at framing opinion regarding free choice from the perspective of management, there should not be abandonment of the same. It can be explained by illustrating the fact that implementation of fair value for one organization is appropriate and for other organization, it might not be appropriate. Organizations make adoption of such accounting measurement depending upon their suitability and appropriateness (Bohuov 2014). Hence, there should be the existence of free choice between fair value and historical cost accounting. Therefore, it can be said that framing an opinion about free choice is ambiguous as the evaluation concerning the adoption changes with change in circumstances. Companies are encouraged to select accounting methods that are pre committing against the actions that are value destroying by management. If the company choose historical cost over fair value, then it is committing against the upward revaluation of assets that is desirable from one perspective and might not be desirable from other perspective. On other hand, companies that are highly leverage has the likelihood of choosing fair value over historical costs. Therefore, it can be seen that framing an opinion on free choice comes with ambiguity as choosing one method over other can be suitable in one circumstances and not suitable in another. Conclusion: From the analysis of above given topic, it has been ascertained that the valuation practice of PPE and intangible assets of all the selected companies have some degree of consistencies. They are consistent enough, as all of them have applied measurement of non-financial assets at cost by deducting amount of accumulated depreciation and amortization. The debate on whether there should be a free choice for the discussed valuation approaches or not and have arrived at ambiguous answer relating to it. However, for addressing some of the challenges relating to both the valuation approach in terms of not reflecting true and fair value of such assets, organization and board as a whole are required to take appropriate measures that will help in facilitating improved quality of information. Moreover, for addressing the situation such as factors influencing the observed market value of fair value accounting such as price endogeneity and market power, there should be additional requirements for disclosures. The practice of valuation of assets at large institutions should incorporate important role of prudential regulators. References list: Allee, K., Campbell, J., Curtis, A., Hales, J., Jorgensen, B., Krische, S., Rees, L., Sunder, J. and Wang, C., 2015. Response to the IASB Invitation to Comment: Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (ED/2015/3). Angleseymining.co.uk. (2018). [online] Available at: https://angleseymining.co.uk/accounts/assets/ANRP16.pdf [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. Azam, M.R., 2017. Challenges to the Users of Financial Reports Constructed Using Multiple Measurement Bases: A Review of the IASBs Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 7(2), pp.172-177. Ball, R., Li, X. and Shivakumar, L., 2015. Contractibility and transparency of financial statement information prepared under IFRS: Evidence from debt contracts around IFRS adoption. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(5), pp.915-963 Berker, R., 2015. Conservatism, prudence and the IASBconceptual framework. Accounting and Business Research, 45(4), pp.514-538. BHP Billiton. (2016).BHP Billiton | 2016 Annual Reporting suite. [online] Available at: https://www.bhp.com/media-and-insights/reports-and-presentations/2016/09/2016-annual-reporting-suite [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. Bohuov, H., 2014. General aaproach to the IFRS and US GAAP convergence. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 59(4), pp.27-36. Cascino, S. and Gassen, J., 2015. What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption?. Review of Accounting Studies, 20(1), pp.242-282. Chabrak, N., 2016. The IASB and the Market Communion. In IFRS in a Global World (pp. 115-129). Springer International Publishing. Christensen, H.B., Lee, E., Walker, M. and Zeng, C., 2015. Incentives or standards: What determines accounting quality changes around IFRS adoption?. European Accounting Review, 24(1), pp.31-61. DeFond, M.L., Hung, M., Li, S. and Li, Y., 2014. Does mandatory IFRS adoption affect crash risk?. The Accounting Review, 90(1), pp.265-299. Ellul, A., Jotikasthira, C., Lundblad, C.T. and Wang, Y., 2015. Is historical cost accounting a panacea? Market stress, incentive distortions, and gains trading.The Journal of Finance,70(6), pp.2489-2538. Gordon, E.A., Bischof, J., Daske, H., Munter, P., Saka, C., Smith, K.J. and Venter, E.R., 2015. The IASB's discussion paper on the Conceptual framework for financial reporting: a commentary and research review. Journal of International Financial Management Accounting, 26(1), pp.72-110. Hipolito Bernardes do Nascimento, J.C., Dornelles, O.M. and Szuster, N., 2016. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID?! A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE COMMENT LETTERS ON CHANGES IN SECTION 6-MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSED BY THE IASB. REVISTA AMBIENTE CONTABIL, 8(2), pp.309-334. Hudbayminerals.com. (2018).Hudbay Minerals - Investor Centre - Financial Reporting - Annual Results. [online] Available at: https://www.hudbayminerals.com/English/Investor-Centre/Financial-Reporting/Annual-Results/default.aspx [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. IASB, E., 2015. 3, 2015 IASB: Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. Comments to be received by, 26. KAAYA, I.D., 2015. The Impact of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on Earnings Management: A Review of Empirical Evidence. Journal of Finance, 3(3), pp.57-65. Li, S., Sougiannis, T. and Wang, I., 2017. Mandatory IFRS Adoption and the Usefulness of Accounting Information in Predicting Future Earnings and Cash Flows. Picker, R., Clark, K., Dunn, J., Kolitz, D., Livne, G., Loftus, J. and Van der Tas, L., 2016. Applying international financial reporting standards. John Wiley Sons. Smieliauskas, W., 2016. Auditability of Accounting Estimates and the IASB's Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015). Browser Download This Paper. Tran, A. and Zhu, Y.H., 2017. The impact of adopting IFRS on corporate ETR and book-tax income gap. In Australian Tax Forum (Vol. 32, No. 4, p. 757). Tax Institute. van Mourik, C., 2014. The equity theories and the IASB conceptual framework. Accounting in Europe, 11(2), pp.219-233. Whittington, G., 2014. Fair value and the IASB/FASB conceptual framework project: an alternative view. In Accounting and Regulation (pp. 229-268). Springer New York. Zhibin, C.H.E.N., 2014. Research on Analytic Framework of Choosing Government Accounting Elements. Journal of Beijing Technology and Business University (Social Sciences), 5, p.001.