IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v36y2006i2p121-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deprival value and fair value: a reinterpretation and a reconciliation

Author

Listed:
  • Tony Zijl
  • Geoffrey Whittington

Abstract

Measurement is an important current issue for financial accounting standard-setters. Current values are increasingly replacing historical cost measures, but an important unresolved issue is the precise form that current value should take. In this paper two alternative measurement bases that have appeared in accounting standards. Deprivai Value (sometimes called Value to the Business) and Fair Value, are explained and compared. They are then reconciled by making the following three adjustments to their conventional definitions. (1) In the case of Deprival Value, situations in which net realisable value exceeds replacement cost imply that there is a profitable redevelopment or redeployment opportunity, so that net realisable value is regarded as the appropriate measure of Deprivai Value. (2) In the case of Fair Value, transactions costs (including installation and removal costs) are added to acquisition values and deducted from disposal values. (3) In the case of Fair Value, it is assumed that net realisable value represents the ‘highest and best use’, except when it is exceeded by both replacement cost and value in use. In the latter case, ‘highest and best use’ (and therefore Fair Value) is inferred by assuming profit-maximising behaviour by the owner. It is suggested that the resulting synthesis represents a method of current valuation which is consistent with the objective of measuring the asset in terms of the economic opportunities that are available to its current owner in the condition and location in which it is currently to be found.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony Zijl & Geoffrey Whittington, 2006. "Deprival value and fair value: a reinterpretation and a reconciliation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 121-130.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:36:y:2006:i:2:p:121-130
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2006.9730014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730014?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. Ionica Oncioiu & Florin Razvan Oncioiu & Daniela Simona Nenciu, 2012. "Convergences And Divergences Related To Fair Value," Review of Business and Finance Studies, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 3(2), pages 81-88.
    2. Gwilliam, David & Jackson, Richard H.G., 2008. "Fair value in financial reporting: Problems and pitfalls in practice," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 240-259.
    3. Hayoun, Shaul, 2019. "How fair value is both market-based and entity-specific: The irreducibility of value constellations to market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-82.
    4. Pier Luigi Marchini & Carlotta D'Este, 2015. "Comprehensive Income: which potential effects on firms? performance evaluation and users? decision process?," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 55-94.
    5. Carien van Mourik & Yuko Katsuo Asami, 2018. "Articulation, Profit or Loss and OCI in the IASB Conceptual Framework: Different Shades of Clean (or Dirty) Surplus," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 167-192, May.
    6. Richard D. Morris, 2024. "Commentary on ‘Accounting for Inflation: The Dog That Didn't Bark’," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 60(1), pages 13-20, March.

    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:acctbr:v:36:y:2006:i:2:p:121-130. 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/RABR20 .

    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.