Fair Value Accounting for Property-Liability Insurers and Classification Decisions under FAS 115
- 1 July 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance
- Vol. 13 (3) , 207-239
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558x9801300303
Abstract
The first objective of this study is to describe the substantial differences across property-liability insurers in accounting classification decisions for fixed maturity securities during 1991–1995. This period includes the years before adoption, upon initial adoption, and after adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115 (FAS 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities”). The second and more important objective of this study is to test two risk-based explanations for differences in investment classification decisions under FAS 115. Under this new standard, firms are required to classify fixed maturity investment securities into trading portfolios, available-for-sale portfolios, or held-to-maturity portfolios. These classification decisions determine whether these securities are recognized at fair value or historical cost. On one hand, the decision to classify securities as available-for-sale rather than held-to-maturity (and thus apply fair value accounting) increases the time-series volatility of key accounting numbers such as owners' equity and total assets, which may be costly for insurers with low tolerance for accounting volatility. On the other hand, the choice to classify securities as available-for-sale (and thus apply fair value accounting) reduces liquidity risk because the accounting standards (and SEC enforcement practices) limit management's ability to sell securities that are not recognized at fair value. The empirical analyses examine whether the security classification decisions of the sample property-liability insurers are associated with firm specific characteristics that reflect liquidity risk and the tolerance for accounting volatility. The findings show that managers of property-liability insurers make tradeoffs between liquidity risk and concerns about accounting volatility when making investment classification decisions under FAS 115.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Economic Consequences of Alternative Adoption Rules for New Accounting Standards*Contemporary Accounting Research, 1997
- Accounting Estimation Disclosures and Firm Valuation in the Property-Casualty Insurance IndustryJournal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 1997
- Recognition, Disclosure, or Delay: Timing the Adoption of SFAS No. 106Journal of Accounting Research, 1997
- Fair value disclosures by bank holding companiesJournal of Accounting and Economics, 1996
- An empirical analysis of the economic implications of fair value accounting for investment securitiesJournal of Accounting and Economics, 1996
- Stock market valuation of gains and losses on commercial banks' investment securities An empirical analysisJournal of Accounting and Economics, 1995
- Fair value accounting: Effects on banks' earnings volatility, regulatory capital, and value of contractual cash flowsJournal of Banking & Finance, 1995
- Optimistic reporting in the property- casualty insurance industryJournal of Accounting and Economics, 1992
- A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for HeteroskedasticityEconometrica, 1980
- VALUATION PARAMETERS OF PROPERTY‐LIABILITY COMPANIESThe Journal of Finance, 1977