ABSTRACT

In their current framework project, the IASB and the FASB identify decision usefulness as the objective of financial reporting. Unfortunately, accounting research has neither yet come up with an undisputed measure of decision usefulness, nor with a satisfying method to rank competing measurement concepts, such as fair value or historical cost, with regard to their relative decision usefulness. Thus, assessing the decision usefulness of different accounting measurement concepts ultimately poses an empirical question. We provide evidence to this question by surveying an important user group, namely professional investors and their advisors, about their opinions on the decision usefulness of different accounting measurement concepts. We find that our respondents clearly differentiate between mark-to-market and mark-to-model fair values. While they consistently rank mark-to-market fair values as most decision-useful, they generally rank mark-to-model fair values as least decision-useful. In addition, the ranking differs across asset classes.