IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferred Stock: Liability or Equity?


  • Jaan Alver

    () (Department of Accounting at Tallinn University of Technology)


Accounting for financial instruments has been the most controversial area in the development of the IASBís standards. The FASB and the IASB are currently working together towards a comprehensive standard of accounting for financial instruments with characteristics of equity, liability, or both. The main problem is how to distinguish liabilities from equity. According to the FASB, a new standard is necessary because current accounting literature addressing this issue is inconsistent, subject to structuring and difficult to understand and apply. This paper examines the current situation in classifying preferred stocks. A detailed comparison of common and preferred stocks, and debt securities and preferred stocks is then presented. Three theories of equity (proprietary theory, entity theory and residual equity theory) are described and compared, and the legal and economics approach to determining the difference between liabilities and equity are discussed. Finally, the IASB rules set up in IAS 32 and the Estonian rules set up in Commercial Code and accounting guideline RTJ 3 are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaan Alver, 2007. "Preferred Stock: Liability or Equity?," Working Papers 165, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ttu:wpaper:165

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. John Nixon, "undated". "Convergence Analysis of Health Care Expenditure in the EU Countries Using Two Approaches," Discussion Papers 99/3, Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. repec:kap:iaecre:v:11:y:2005:i:1:p:19-27 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paul van den Noord & Chistopher Heady, 2001. "Surveillance of Tax Policies: A Synthesis of Findings in Economic Surveys," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 303, OECD Publishing.
    4. Kwiatkowski, Denis & Phillips, Peter C. B. & Schmidt, Peter & Shin, Yongcheol, 1992. "Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root : How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1-3), pages 159-178.
    5. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2005. "A Note on the Selection of Time Series Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 67(1), pages 115-134, February.
    6. Bernard, Andrew B. & Durlauf, Steven N., 1996. "Interpreting tests of the convergence hypothesis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1-2), pages 161-173.
    7. Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-1072, June.
    8. European Commission, 2013. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2013 edition," Taxation trends 2013, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    9. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    10. Bernard, Andrew B & Durlauf, Steven N, 1995. "Convergence in International Output," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 97-108, April-Jun.
    11. Robert J. Barro & Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 1991. "Convergence across States and Regions," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 22(1), pages 107-182.
    12. Robin L. Lumsdaine & David H. Papell, 1997. "Multiple Trend Breaks And The Unit-Root Hypothesis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 212-218, May.
    13. Perron, Pierre & Rodriguez, Gabriel, 2003. "GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 1-27, July.
    14. Oxley, Les & Greasley, David, 1995. "A Time-Series Perspective on Convergence: Australia, UK and USA since 1870," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 71(214), pages 259-270, September.
    15. Boyle, G E & McCarthy, T G, 1997. "A Simple Measure of Beta-Convergence," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 59(2), pages 257-264, May.
    16. Baumol, William J & Wolff, Edward N, 1988. "Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1155-1159, December.
    17. Perron, Pierre, 1997. "Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 355-385, October.
    18. Barro, Robert T. & Sala-I-Martin, Xavier, 1992. "Regional growth and migration: A Japan-United States comparison," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 312-346, December.
    19. Evans, Paul & Karras, Georgios, 1996. "Convergence revisited," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 249-265, April.
    20. European Commission, 2006. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2006 edition," Taxation trends 2006, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    21. Baumol, William J, 1986. "Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-run Data Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1072-1085, December.
    22. Jushan Bai & Pierre Perron, 2003. "Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
    23. Barro, Robert J & Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, 1992. "Convergence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(2), pages 223-251, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    IAS 32; financial instrument; equity instrument; liability; preferred stock; preference share(s);

    JEL classification:

    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting


    Access and download statistics


    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:ttu:wpaper:165. 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: (Urve Venesaar). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.