Demaria and Dufour (2007) |
Objective: investigate the use of FV and factors related to the accounting choice Standard analyzed: IFRS 1, IAS 16, IAS 38, and IAS 40 Sample: 107 companies from France, for the year 2005 |
Choices: (1) IFRS 1: 79% for HC and 21% for FV; (2) IAS 16: 96% for HC and 4% for FV; (3) IAS 38: 100% for HC; (4) IAS 40: 73% for HC and 27% for FV Logistic regression: adopting FV was not related to any of the characteristics studied: size, leverage, managers' remuneration, and structure of ordinary shares held by banks, insurance companies, or investment funds |
Muller et al. (2008) |
Objective: examining the causes and consequences of choosing between HC or FV Standard analyzed: IAS 40 Sample: 133 companies from 15 European countries, for the year 2005 |
Choices: IAS 40: 20% for HC and 80% for FV Logistic regression: managers' choices are influenced by the pre-IFRS local standard in each country, the capital dispersion level, and the entity's transparency commitment. There is evidence of opportunism and that adopting FV is related to lower information asymmetry and greater liquidity |
Tudor and Dragu (2010) |
Objective: introducing the impact of IFRS adoption on intangible assets Standard analyzed: IAS 38 Sample: 51 companies from Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain, and Italy, for 2009 |
Choices: IAS 38 (1) Goodwill: 52% for HC and 48% for FV; (2) Marks: 59% for HC and 41% for FV; (3) Patents and Licenses: 61% for HC and 39% for FV; (4) Customer List: 57% for HC and 43% for FV |
Cairns, Massoudi, Taplin and Tarca (2011) |
Objective: investigating the impact of FV on comparability Standards analyzed: IFRS 1, IFRS 2, IAS 16, IAS 38, IAS 39, IAS 40, and IAS 41 Sample: 228 companies from Australia and the UK, for 2005 |
Choices: (1) IFRS 1: 82% for HC and 18% for FV; (2) IAS 16: 77% for HC and 23% for FV; (3) IAS 38: 100% for HC; (4) IAS 40: 17% for HC and 83% for FV. The results suggest a conservative approach or lack of incentives to use FV |
Taplin, Verona and Doni (2011) |
Objective: assessing the differences between IFRS and USGAAP and assessment of accounting items Standards analyzed: IAS 1, IAS 2, IAS 16, IAS 19, IAS 36, IAS 38, IAS 39, and IAS 40 Sample: 200 companies from Germany, France, UK, and Italy, for 2009 |
Choices: (1) IAS 16: 99% for HC and 1% for FV; (2) IAS 38: 96% for HC and 4% for FV; (3) IAS 40: 93% for HC and 7% for FV. The elimination of accounting choices might be one way to increase the comparability of some items |
Christensen and Nikolaev (2013) |
Objective: investigating the use of FV and HC in nonfinancial assets Standard analyzed: IAS 16, IAS 38, and IAS 40 Sample: 1,539 companies from Germany and the UK, for 2005 or 2006 |
Choices: (1) IAS 16: 97% for HC and 3% for FV; (2) IAS 38: 100% for HC, possibly due to strict requirements set out in IFRS to revalue intangible assets; (3) IAS 40: 53% for HC and 47% for FV. In the case of IP, companies are almost equally likely to use HC or FV Logistic regression: institutional differences, FV measurement costs, investment opportunities, greater ease of performance measurement, and financial dependence are decisive in choosing |
Andrade, Silva and Malaquias (2013) |
Objective: analyzing the financial choices by Brazilian companies Standard analyzed: IAS 40 Sample: 39 companies from Brazil, for 2009 and 2010 |
Choices: IAS 40: 56% for HC and 44% for FV Logistic regression: none of the variables in the study (asset size, indebtedness, corporate governance level, and return on equity - ROE) showed a statistically significant relationship with the choice for FV |
Taplin et al. (2014) |
Objetivo: identifying the characteristics of firms that use FV instead of HC Standard analyzed: IAS 40 Sample: 96 companies from China, for 2008 |
Choices: IAS 40: 50% for HC and 50% for FV Logistic regression: companies listed on international stock exchanges and those that are volatile in terms of above-average profits are more likely to use FV |