IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v5y1996i1p57-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mark-to-market accounting, hedge accounting or historical cost accounting for derivative financial instruments? A survey of financial analysts in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Thinggaard

Abstract

This study investigates the preferences of Danish professional financial statement users' for three measurement bases for derivative financial instruments: mark-to-market accounting, hedge accounting and lower-of-cost or market accounting. The study was carried out by means of a postal questionnaire survey of members of the Danish organization of financial analysts. The findings indicate that professional users of financial statements prefer a system based on market value accounting for both speculative and non-speculative financial instruments. Such a system is considered to give a higher quality of information than either of the two alternatives and be just as reliable. These findings are inconsistent with the results of an American survey of financial statement users, however. Possible explanations for this inconsistency are briefly examined in the paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Thinggaard, 1996. "Mark-to-market accounting, hedge accounting or historical cost accounting for derivative financial instruments? A survey of financial analysts in Denmark," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 57-75.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:5:y:1996:i:1:p:57-75
    DOI: 10.1080/09638189600000003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638189600000003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638189600000003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keryn G. Chalmers & Jayne M. Godfrey, 2000. "Practice versus Prescription in the Disclosure and Recognition of Derivatives," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 10(21), pages 40-50, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:5:y:1996:i:1:p:57-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.