This study examines the effects of the discretion allowed in fair value accounting on manager selling decisions of Level 3 fair value assets and liabilities. Grounded in motivated reasoning and prospect theory, the discretion permitted for Level 3 fair value assets and liabilities is predicted to have behavioral consequences. The study employs a 2 X 2 between- participant design, manipulating a conservative level of the discretion used to ascertain the fair value (more or less conservative) and the volatility of the historically recognized fair value (low or high). Both graduate students and accounting professionals were asked to read a case scenario and make selling decisions regarding a pool of Level 3 fair value assets purchased six quarters ago. The results indicate that the discretion of the conservative level affects the asking price although the volatility of historically recognized fair values does not significantly influence accounting professionals’ selling choices. In a comparative analysis, as volatility increases, the difference in the asking price increases between the graduate student sample and the professional sample. Additionally, this study provides support that discretion of the conservative level does not affect the likelihood to sell the security, but rather affects the asking price and the lowest price willing to accept if participants were to sell the Level 3 fair value security. These findings contribute to the fair value accounting literature by providing new insights on the effects fair value discretion has on manager decision-making as well as contributing evidence to the fair value accounting relevance debate.

Introduction and background: The 1990s crisis and the global financial crisis year 2008 shows the same indications that the property market was affected negative. The Swedish Property companies had a difficult time on the market when the crisis led to decreased property trade and financing problems for the Property companies. The Swedish property companies became less attractive on the market and contributed to a drop in prices on investment property. Purpose: The purpose of this essay is to examine if there is any relation between the Swedish Property companies impairments on their investment property and the global financial crisis year 2008. Method: The essay is based on a quantitative study where we examined Swedish Property companies’ annual reports. We answered our questions and our purpose from the empirical data that we collected from the annual reports. Conclusions: The study resulted in that we found a correlation between the Swedish Property companies’ impairments on their investment properties and the global financial crisis year 2008. However, we found that the Swedish Property companies’ impairments were lower than market indications prove.

<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>

<p>Canadas regulatory system is science-based and relies on risk assessment to inform decisions about which products of biotechnology (and other technologies) are safe enough for commercial application. Since regulation involves the loss of certain liberties, it is imperative that any regulatory regime be as objective as possible. Scientific risk assessment seems to be a good way to produce the information, which guides policy makers since it involves quantitative analysis and the production of seemingly objective data.</p><p>The view adopted by regulators and in current risk assessment practices is that objective means value-free. Therefore, because risk assessment data is scientific it is thought to be value-free but this is not the case. Risk assessment necessarily involves value assumptions. Assumptions must be made at all stages of the production of risk data. This does not mean, however, that risk assessment is hopelessly subjective. The notion of value-free objectivity can be replaced with the view that genuine objectivity arises through peer review and social discourse. Regulators can adopt this understanding of objectivity to acknowledge the value-ladenness of risk assessment data.</p><p>At present, the value assumptions made by industry, government and private scientists during risk assessment go largely unnoticed yet have an effect on the outcome of regulatory decisions. Such assumptions must be recognized in order to ensure that the decisions made about the risks society face are not biased. This is particularly true in the case of biotechnology regulation. The development of the science of biotechnology has occurred concurrently with the development of the biotech industry creating the opportunity for industry-biased risk assessments.</p><p>It is possible to make changes to the existing regulatory regime in Canada in order to avoid some of the major problems associated with unrecognized value assumptions in risk assessment. A complete restructuring of the regime is unnecessary, however. Maintaining the current regulatory structure with some minor changes could address these problems. These changes include: creating an independent review board, making explicit that value assumptions are part of risk assessment in government advisory reports, and enhancing the role of regulators. Canadas regulatory system can better address the risks associated with biotechnology if it acknowledges that risk assessment is value-laden.</p>