Affiliation:
1. Carnegie Mellon University
2. Purdue University
3. University of Minnesota
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This paper examines banks' choice between fair-value and historical-cost accounting when reported accounting information is used in capital requirement regulation. We center our analysis on a key difference between fair-value and historical-cost accounting: the frequency with which asset value changes are reported. We show that the elasticity of banks' loan returns to aggregate lending is a critical determinant of the interaction between capital adequacy requirements and accounting choices. If lending returns are inelastic, then higher capital requirements reduce fair-value usage. By contrast, higher capital requirements encourage fair value if capital requirements are low and lending returns are sufficiently elastic. In equilibrium, banks may elect different accounting choices, and we find that mandating uniform adoption of historical cost (fair value) is desirable when capital requirements are loose (tight). Our study offers many other implications about fundamental links between accounting and prudential choices.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference34 articles.
1. Mark-to-market accounting and liquidity pricing;Allen;Journal of Accounting and Economics,2008
2. Earnings management and the revelation principle;Arya;Review of Accounting Studies,1998
3. Basel Committee. 2010. Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems. Basel, Switzerland: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
4. Asset measurement in imperfect credit markets;Bertomeu;Journal of Accounting Research,2015
5. Bertomeu, J., L.Mahieux, and H.Sapra.
2017. Accounting versus Prudential Regulation. Working paper, The University of Chicago.
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献