IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/14-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Accounting Standards and Financial Market Stability: An Experimental Examination

Author

Listed:
  • Shengle Lin

    (Wenzhou University and San Francisco State University)

  • Glenn Pfeiffer

    (Chapman University)

  • David Porter

    (Chapman University)

Abstract

We examine the effect on asset mispricing of different accounting methods in an experimental asset market characterized by bubbles and crashes. In particular, we study three alternative asset value reporting treatments: (1) Fair Value (also known as Mark-to-Market – M2M), (2) Historical Cost (HC) and (3) Marked to Fundamental Value (M2F). In addition, each of these treatments is replicated in two different financial leverage conditions. In the first condition (No Loan) traders must purchase assets from their available cash balances without the option of borrowing. In the second condition, (Loan), traders are given the option of taking out loans based on their balance sheet to finance asset purchases. In the No Loan condition, we find that reporting accounting values alone to subjects in a balance sheet format does not have a significant effect on mispricing for any of our alternative accounting method treatments. In the Loan conditions, however, the M2F and M2M accounting methods exacerbate asset mispricing, yet the two differ in leverage dynamics. M2F markets are completely immune to defaults, while M2M markets experience the most frequent as well as most severe defaults.

Suggested Citation

  • Shengle Lin & Glenn Pfeiffer & David Porter, 2014. "Accounting Standards and Financial Market Stability: An Experimental Examination," Working Papers 14-03, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:14-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/research-and-institutions/economic-science-institute/_files/WorkingPapers/lin-pfeiffer-porter-accounting.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carey, Mark, 1995. "Partial market value accounting, bank capital volatility, and bank risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 607-622, June.
    2. Eccher, Elizabeth A. & Ramesh, K. & Thiagarajan, S. Ramu, 1996. "Fair value disclosures by bank holding companies," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 79-117, October.
    3. Lei, Vivian & Noussair, Charles N & Plott, Charles R, 2001. "Nonspeculative Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets: Lack of Common Knowledge of Rationality vs. Actual Irrationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 831-859, July.
    4. Martin Dufwenberg & Tobias Lindqvist & Evan Moore, 2005. "Bubbles and Experience: An Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1731-1737, December.
    5. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2010. "Bubble measures in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 284-298, September.
    6. Charles S. Morris & Gordon H. Sellon, 1991. "Market value accounting for banks: pros and cons," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Mar, pages 5-19.
    7. Fama, Eugene F & MacBeth, James D, 1973. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 607-636, May-June.
    8. Michael Kirchler & Jurgen Huber & Thomas Stockl, 2012. "Thar She Bursts: Reducing Confusion Reduces Bubbles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 865-883, April.
    9. Reshmaan N. Hussam & David Porter & Vernon L. Smith, 2008. "Thar She Blows: Can Bubbles Be Rekindled with Experienced Subjects?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 924-937, June.
    10. Stefan Palan, 2013. "A Review Of Bubbles And Crashes In Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 570-588, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chu:wpaper:14-03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Megan Luetje). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.