A Survey of Research on Fair Value Accounting for Financial Institutions<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Even though fair value accounting (FVA) enjoys widespread support from standard setters around the world, the practice of marking assets and liabilities to market remains controversial. While FVA affects all firms to a certain extent, financial institutions are most affected due to the nature of the assets that they hold. In this paper, we first discuss fair value measurement and its application before exploring the consequences of FVA, including its impact on regulatory capital. We then discuss key benefits and challenges of FVA. Standard setters believe that FVA provides the most relevant information to financial statement users; however, the increased relevance comes with a cost of reduced reliability due to the estimation involved. More recently, concerns have been raised about FVA leading to procyclicality and contagion that can cause or exacerbate boom and bust cycles. After summarizing the literature, we identify opportunities for additional research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".