Assets and Liabilities

When Do They Exist?

Nicole L. Cade, Lisa L. Koonce, Kim I. Mendoza

Research output: Working paper

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate whether the current references to probability in standard setters’ conceptual definitions of assets and liabilities cause individuals to believe that the probability of a future transfer of economic benefits must be above some meaningful threshold for an asset or a liability to exist — a belief that is contrary to standard setters’ intent. Results of multiple experi-ments indicate that the majority of individuals do use a high probability threshold to determine asset existence whereas, for liabilities, the majority use a very low threshold. Thus, even under ceteris paribus conditions, liabilities are more frequently judged to exist than assets — a phenomenon analogous to accounting conservatism as has been discussed in terms of the performance statement. These findings are robust to variation in formal training and in type of liability, and cannot be explained by alternative approaches to judging existence. Our study provides important insights for standard setters as they continue work on their missions to update their Conceptual Frameworks and for researchers regarding the role of conservatism on the balance sheet.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages48
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 8 2016

Fingerprint

Assets
Liability
Conceptual framework
Balance sheet
Conservatism
Economic benefits
Ceteris paribus
Accounting conservatism

Keywords

  • conceptual framework
  • assets
  • liabilities
  • definitions
  • probability

Cite this

Assets and Liabilities : When Do They Exist? / Cade, Nicole L.; Koonce, Lisa L.; Mendoza, Kim I.

2016.

Research output: Working paper

Cade, Nicole L. ; Koonce, Lisa L. ; Mendoza, Kim I. / Assets and Liabilities : When Do They Exist?. 2016.
@techreport{c367e45556954cdf86caf3ad966a80f7,
title = "Assets and Liabilities: When Do They Exist?",
abstract = "In this paper, we investigate whether the current references to probability in standard setters’ conceptual definitions of assets and liabilities cause individuals to believe that the probability of a future transfer of economic benefits must be above some meaningful threshold for an asset or a liability to exist — a belief that is contrary to standard setters’ intent. Results of multiple experi-ments indicate that the majority of individuals do use a high probability threshold to determine asset existence whereas, for liabilities, the majority use a very low threshold. Thus, even under ceteris paribus conditions, liabilities are more frequently judged to exist than assets — a phenomenon analogous to accounting conservatism as has been discussed in terms of the performance statement. These findings are robust to variation in formal training and in type of liability, and cannot be explained by alternative approaches to judging existence. Our study provides important insights for standard setters as they continue work on their missions to update their Conceptual Frameworks and for researchers regarding the role of conservatism on the balance sheet.",
keywords = "conceptual framework, assets, liabilities, definitions, probability",
author = "Cade, {Nicole L.} and Koonce, {Lisa L.} and Mendoza, {Kim I.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "8",
doi = "10.2139/ssrn.2742336",
language = "English (US)",
type = "WorkingPaper",

}

TY - UNPB

T1 - Assets and Liabilities

T2 - When Do They Exist?

AU - Cade, Nicole L.

AU - Koonce, Lisa L.

AU - Mendoza, Kim I.

PY - 2016/3/8

Y1 - 2016/3/8

N2 - In this paper, we investigate whether the current references to probability in standard setters’ conceptual definitions of assets and liabilities cause individuals to believe that the probability of a future transfer of economic benefits must be above some meaningful threshold for an asset or a liability to exist — a belief that is contrary to standard setters’ intent. Results of multiple experi-ments indicate that the majority of individuals do use a high probability threshold to determine asset existence whereas, for liabilities, the majority use a very low threshold. Thus, even under ceteris paribus conditions, liabilities are more frequently judged to exist than assets — a phenomenon analogous to accounting conservatism as has been discussed in terms of the performance statement. These findings are robust to variation in formal training and in type of liability, and cannot be explained by alternative approaches to judging existence. Our study provides important insights for standard setters as they continue work on their missions to update their Conceptual Frameworks and for researchers regarding the role of conservatism on the balance sheet.

AB - In this paper, we investigate whether the current references to probability in standard setters’ conceptual definitions of assets and liabilities cause individuals to believe that the probability of a future transfer of economic benefits must be above some meaningful threshold for an asset or a liability to exist — a belief that is contrary to standard setters’ intent. Results of multiple experi-ments indicate that the majority of individuals do use a high probability threshold to determine asset existence whereas, for liabilities, the majority use a very low threshold. Thus, even under ceteris paribus conditions, liabilities are more frequently judged to exist than assets — a phenomenon analogous to accounting conservatism as has been discussed in terms of the performance statement. These findings are robust to variation in formal training and in type of liability, and cannot be explained by alternative approaches to judging existence. Our study provides important insights for standard setters as they continue work on their missions to update their Conceptual Frameworks and for researchers regarding the role of conservatism on the balance sheet.

KW - conceptual framework

KW - assets

KW - liabilities

KW - definitions

KW - probability

U2 - 10.2139/ssrn.2742336

DO - 10.2139/ssrn.2742336

M3 - Working paper

BT - Assets and Liabilities

ER -