The Value Relevance of Fair Value Levels: Time Trends under IFRS and U.S. GAAP
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IASB's post-implementation review of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement motivates our analysis of the evolution of the value relevance of fair value (FV) levels over time on banks that report under IFRS and U.S. GAAP. For both sets of standards, results provide evidence that is consistent with (1) an increase in value relevance across all three FV levels over time, and (2) a convergence of the value relevance of the three FV levels over time. However, FV levels exhibit systematically higher value relevance under U.S. GAAP compared to IFRS. Such gap has closed to some extent since the enactment of IFRS 13. This evolution is likely due to learning about FV accounting and changes in financial reporting regulations that increased disclosure requirements. These findings confirm the IASB's conclusions that FV levels’ disclosure is useful to users of financial statements, but also emphasizes preparers and investors’ learning over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it