Abstract
ABSTRACT: We provide evidence on the effects of SFAS 133 on the risk relevance of accounting measures of bank derivative exposures to bond markets. First, we find that interest rate derivatives classified as hedging are more negatively associated with fixed-rate bond spreads after SFAS 133. We also find that hedging derivatives offset non-trading positions to a greater extent after SFAS 133. Second, for the largest 25 banks, we find that interest and foreign exchange rate trading derivatives are more negatively associated with fixed-rate bond spreads after SFAS 133, consistent with more economic hedges being classified as trading after SFAS 133. For these banks, trading derivative exposures offset non-derivative trading exposures to a greater extent after SFAS 133. Our results suggest that, contrary to critics’ claims, SFAS 133 has increased the risk relevance of accounting measures of derivative exposures to bond investors and benefited banks in terms of reducing their cost of capital.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference78 articles.
1. Does recognition versus disclosure matter? Evidence from value-relevance of banks’ recognized and disclosed derivative financial instruments;Ahmed;The Accounting Review,2006
2. America's Community Bankers.
1997. Comment Letter to FASB Regarding SFAS 133. Letter No. 132. Norwalk, CT:FASB.
3. Anson
M. J. P.
1999. Accounting and Tax Rules for Derivatives. New Hope, PA:Frank J. Fabozzi Associates.
4. Bank of America.
2006. A Survey of the Effects of SFAS 133 on Corporate Hedging Practice. Charlotte, NC:Bank of America.
5. Value-relevance of banks’ fair value disclosures under SFAS No. 107;Barth;The Accounting Review,1996
Cited by
67 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