A (in) diferença na mensuração de ativos biológicos: um estudo cross-country
Palabras clave:
IAS 41, biological assets, relevance, financial information, capital market.Resumen
Purpose: in this paper, we investigated the value relevance of biological assets and their variation at fair value, considering the differences between countries in terms of their legal systems: common law and code law.
Methodology: we looked at 377 companies from 58 countries, collecting information from Thomson Reuters and notes to the financial statements.
Relevance: the discussion of the measurement of bearer plants revealed that analysts and investors are still looking for improvements in the financial statements. The gap arises from the lack of studies on the measurement of biological assets in different legal systems. Furthermore, some studies have disclosed the low quality of accounting information issued in accordance with IAS 41 biological assets, raising doubts about the relevance of fair value measuring.
Results: the results revealed that the variation in the biological assets and in the fair value of those assets is irrelevant to the capital market, even after restricting the analysis to common law, monitored by analysts. Our results encourage greater discussion regarding biological assets, since the IAS 41 is still open to debate by investors and regulators with a view to improvements.
Contributions: From a practical point of view, our results reveal that information on biological assets may not be as useful for information users, including market analysts. Analysts have the role of providing information on the economic and financial performance of companies, helping to reduce information asymmetry between agents. In this sense, the question arises: are investors and analysts able to use information on biological assets appropriately to assess risk and prepare their estimates? Is this information relevant? Therefore, it is possible to visualize a relationship between the usefulness of accounting information and possible decisions to buy, sell or maintain investment in shares.
Descargas
Referencias
Argilés-Bosch, J. M., Aliberch, A. S., & Garcia-Blandon, J. (2012). A comparative study of difficulties in accounting preparation and judgement in agriculture using fair value and historical cost for biological assets valuation. Revista de Contabilidad, 15(1), 109–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-4891(12)70040-7
Armstrong, C. S., Barth, M. E., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2010). Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review, 85(1), 31–61. DOI: 10.2308/accr.2010.85.1.31
Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, International Accounting Policy Forum, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730040
Ball, R., Kothari, S. P., & Robin, A. (2000). The effect of institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(00)00012-4
Ball, R., Robin, A., & Wu, J. S. (2003). Incentives versus standards: properties of accounting income in four East Asian countries. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36, 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2003.10.003
Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2008). International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467–498. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-769X.2008.00287.x
Booth, B., & Walker, R. G. (2003). Valuation of SGARAs in the wine industry: time for sober reflection. Australian Accounting Review, 13(3), 52–60. DOI:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2001.tb00171.x
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics Using Stata. Texas: Stata Press.
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(3), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.10.007
Christensen, H. B., Lee, E., Walker, M., & Zeng, C. (2015). Incentives or standards: What determines accounting quality changes around IFRS adoption? European Accounting Review, 24(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2015.1009144
Daly, A., & Skaife, H. A. (2016). Accounting for biological assets and the cost of debt. Journal of International Accounting Research, 15(2), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51335
Damian, M. I., Manoiua, S. M., Bonaci, C. G., & Strouhal, J. (2014). Bearer plants: stakeholders’ view on the appropriate measurement model. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 13(4), 719–738.
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: early evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1085–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00306.x
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2013). Adopting a label: heterogeneity in the economic consequences around IAS/IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(3), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12005
Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., & Schrand, C. (2010). Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 344–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.001
Dvorakova, D. (2006). Application of fair value measurement model in IAS 41 – relation between fair value measurement model and income statement structure. European Financial and Accounting Journal, 1(2), 49–70.
Easton, P. (1999). Security returns and the value relevance of accounting data. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.1999.13.4.399
Fisher, R., Mortensen, T., & Webber, D. (2010). Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: an analysis of financial statement preparers’ perceptions before and after the introduction of IAS 41 agriculture. In Accounting & Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand – AFAANZ. Christchurch, New Zealand. Anais. http://www.afaanz.org/openconf/2010/modules/request.php?module=oc_program&act ion=view.php&id=57.
Goh, C., Lim, C. Y., Ng, J., Pan, G., & Yong, K. O. (2021). Trust in fair value accounting: evidence from the field. Journal of International Accounting Research, 20(3), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2021-034
Gonçalves, R., Patrícia, L., & Craig, R. (2017). Value-relevance of biological assets under IFRS. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 29, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2017.10.001
He, Y. L., Wright, S., & Evans, E. (2018). Is fair value information relevant to investment decision making: Evidence from the Australian agricultural sector? Australian Journal of Management, 43(4), 1–20. DOI: 10.1177/0312896218765236
Herbohn, K. (2006). Accounting for SGARAs: a stocktake of accounting practice before compliance with AASB 141 Agriculture. Australian Accounting Review, 16(2), 62–76. DOI:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2006.tb00361.x
Herbohn, K., & Herbohn, J. (2006). International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41: What are the implications for reporting forest assets? Small-Scale Forestry, 5, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-006-0009-1. DOI:10.1007/s11842-006-0009-1
Barth, M. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Watts, R. L. (2001). The relevance of value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 3–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00019-2
Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 15, Berkeley, CA, Anais … Berkeley: University of California, 1, 221–233.
Huffman, A. (2018). Asset use and the relevance of fair value measurement: evidence from IAS 41. Review of Accounting Studies, 23(4), 1274–1314. DOI: 10.1007/s11142-018-9456-0
International Accounting Standards Board – IASB. (2022). Report of the Emerging Economies Group Meeting. London, United Kingdom, 16–17 May 2022. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/groups/eeg/eeg-report-may-2022.pdf
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). (2015). Exposure Draft ED/2013/8. Agriculture: Bearer plants proposed amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41. http://www.ifrs.org/Current-Projects/IASB-Projects/Bearer-biological-assets/Exposure-Draft-June-2013/Documents/ED-Agriculture-Bearer-Plants-June-2013.pdf.
Jana, H., & Marta, S. (2014). The fair value model for the measurement of biological assets and agricultural produce in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00338-4
Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F. & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00115
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. The Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329518
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/250042
Lewis, A. E., & Jones, W. D. (1980). Current cost accounting and farming businesses. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1980.tb02123.x
Marsh, T., & Fischer, M. (2013). Accounting for agricultural products: US Versus IFRS GAAP. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 11(2), 79–87. http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/accounting_facultypubs/4.
Martins, E., Martins, V. A., & Martins, E. A. (2007). Normatização Contábil: ensaio sobre sua evolução e o papel do CPC. Revista de Informação Contábil, 1(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.34629/ufpe-iscal/1982-3967.2007.v1.7-30
Ohlson, J. (1995). Earnings, book values and dividends in security valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 661–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1995.tb00461.x
Rech, I. J., & Pereira, I. V. (2012). Valor justo: análise dos métodos de mensuração aplicáveis aos ativos biológicos de natureza fixa. Custos e @gronegócio Online, 8(2). http://www.custoseagronegocioonline.com.br/numero2v8/valor.pdf
Scott, W. R. (2012). Financial Accounting Theory (5th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada.
Silva, R. L. M., Figueira, L. M., Pereira, L. T. O. A. & Ribeiro, M. S. (2013). CPC 29: Uma análise dos requisitos de divulgação entre empresa de capital aberto e fechado do setor de agronegócios. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.21446/scg_ufrj.v8i1.13281
Silva, R. L. M., Nardi, P. C. C. & Ribeiro, M. S. (2015). Gerenciamento de resultados e valorização dos ativos biológicos. Brazilian Business Review, 12(4), 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2015.12.4.1
Soderstrom, N. S. & Sun, K. J. (2007). IFRS adoption and accounting quality: a review. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 675–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701706732
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice-Hall.
White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
Williams, B. R., & Wilmshurst, T. (2009). The achievability of sustainable reporting practices in agriculture. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.190
Zeghal, D., Chtourou, S. M., & Fourati, Y. M. (2012). The effect of mandatory adoption of IFRS on earnings quality: evidence from the European Union. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-10221
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
DECLARAÇÃO DE ORIGINALIDADE E DIREITOS AUTORAIS
Declaro que o presente artigo é original, não tendo sido submetido à publicação em qualquer outro periódico nacional ou internacional, quer seja em parte ou em sua totalidade.
Os direitos autorais pertencem exclusivamente aos autores. Os direitos de licenciamento utilizados pelo periódico é a licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0): são permitidos o acompartilhamento (cópia e distribuição do material em qualqer meio ou formato) e adaptação (remix, transformação e criação de material a partir do conteúdo assim licenciado para quaisquer fins, inclusive comerciais.
Recomenda-se a leitura desse link para maiores informações sobre o tema: fornecimento de créditos e referências de forma correta, entre outros detalhes cruciais para uso adequado do material licenciado.
