Submitting Campus

Worldwide

Department

Business Administration

Document Type

Article

Publication/Presentation Date

11-2-2018

Abstract/Description

The goal of this research was to investigate the controversy surrounding the inability of SFAS 133 an amendment of SFAS 161 to portray the economics of hedging. This research examined whether or not BHCs’ design of hedge effectiveness tests was determined by the concern of the additional earnings volatility possibly evolved from economic hedges that do not qualify for hedge accounting. The results implicate that most BHCs after the amendment of SFAS 161 reassessed their risk management approach to one that is more accounting responsive to ensure that most hedges are highly effective to qualify for hedge accounting. The findings suggest that BHCs reciprocate between risk management and earnings volatility when face a trade-off between employ economic hedges which increase earnings volatility and discontinue economic hedges to avoid increases in earnings volatility. The results accede with the results of Park (2004), Singh (2008), Zhang (2008), Hariom (2014), Bratten (2016), Spencer (2018), and Thomas (2018) who found that derivative users had lower levels of earnings volatility after the introduction of SFAS 161.

Publication Title

Accounting and Finance Research

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v7n4p122

Publisher

Sciedu Press

Download

Included in

Accounting Commons

Share

COinS