Fair value versus Historical Cost Valuation for Biological assets:

Implications for the quality of financial information

1. Latar Belakang

Transisi standar akuntansi menuju pendekatan nilai wajar telah menimbulkan perdebatan
yang sengit akhir-akhir ini. Institusi dan kelompok akuntansi seperti The International
Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the U.S.A. Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB), and the Accounting Regulatory Committee and the European Financial Reporting
Advisory Group in the European Union (EU) mendukung konvergensi akuntansi menuju
standar yang didasarkan pada nilai pasar, kebalikan dari pengukuran akuntansi tradisional
yang didasarkan pada biaya historis.

Nilai wajar didefinisikan sebagai nilai di mana suatu aset dapat dipertukarkan atau suatu
kewajiban diselesaikan antara pihak yang memahami dan berkeinginan untuk melakukan
transaksi wajar (arm's length transaction). Pada tahun 2006, SFAS mendefinisikan ulang
nilai wajar sebagai harga yang akan diterima untuk menjual suatu aset atay harga yang akan
dibayar untuk mengalihkan liabilitas dalam transaksi teratur antara pelaku pasar pada
tanggal pengukuran.

Terlepas dari banyaknya dukungan menuju nilai wajar, reformasi ini menimbulkan
kontroversi karena adanya debat yang tidak terpecahkan dalam bidang akademik. Penilaian
wajar dinilai lebih rentan terhadap manipulasi dan kurang akurat dalam mengukur nilai dan
kinerja dibandingkan dengan biaya historis. Nilai wajar juga dikatakan kurang andal dan
kurang efisien dalam pengambilan keputusan investasi karena adanya kemungkinan
manipulasi manajerial. Plantin dan Sapra (2008) menyimpulkan bahwa, ketika ada pasar
yang tidak sempurna, akan ada bahaya timbulnya peningkatan volatilitas sebagai
konsekuensi dari penerapan nilai wajar, dan oleh karena itu perubahan drastis ke penilaian
berdasarkan harga pasar akan merugikan pasar modal dan pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Sebaliknya, Bleck dan Liu (2007) mengatakan bahwa akuntansi berdasarkan biaya historis
mempermudah menghindari investasi yang buruk, mencegah likuidasi investasi tersebut. Hal
ini mengakibatkan pengakumulasian volatilitas di pasar karena harga investasi turun , secara
keseluruhan volatitilas akan meningkat dan mengurangi profitabilitas. Ginger et al. (2006)
menyimpulkan kasus dimana beberapa item dinilai menggunakan nilai wajar dan item
lainnya dinilai menggunakan biaya historis, nilai wajar menghasilkan signal yang lebih
kuat dalam mengindikasikan adanya kesulitan finansial. Akhirnya, Choy (2006)
memperlihatkan bahwa agar nilai wajar relevan, ada kondisi yang harus terpenuhi.

Hampir semua penelitian empiris atas nilai wajar menguji relevansinya ketika diaplikasikan
dalam instrumen keuangan, menganalisa keterkaitan antara angka-angka akuntansi dan
harga saham. Danbolt dan Rees (2008) menemukan bahwa nilai wajar secara konsisten lebih
value-relevant dibandingkan biaya historis, meskipun value relevance bisa terlihat dari nilai
aset dan tidak perlu dimasukkan dalam perhitungan income. Mereka juga menemukan bukti
yang konsisten antara nilai wajar dengan manipulasi laba. Laba dan arus kas yang bisa
diprediksi membantu manajer mengantisipasi masalah keuangan , menyesuaikan persediaan,
negosiasi modal, menyesuaikan sumber daya, dan lain-lain. Chen et al. (2006) meneliti
kemampuan prediksi dari nilai wajar dan mendapati penurunan kemampuan prediksi arus
kas.

IAS 41 menyebabkan perdebatan karena kebanyakan akuntan bersifat kritis dengan

keharusan penilaian yang wajar untuk aset biologis dan perubahan nilai yang wajib diakui
dalam laporan laba rugi. Penttinent et al. (2004) mengklaim bahwa penilaian wajar akan
menyebabkan fluktuasi yang tidak realistis pada laba bersih perusahaan
kehutanan.Perhitungan menggunakan koefisien variasi laba menunjukkan volatilitas yang
disebabkan pengukuran nilai wajar. Meskipun demikian, Argiles dan Slof (2001) menerima
pengukuran nilai wajar untuk aset biologis karena hal tersebut mengatasi kompleksitas dari
perhitungan biaya, sebagai contoh perkebunan kecil di negara Barat dan secara spesifik di
European Union, dengan tidak adanya sumber daya dan keahlian untuk mengaplikasikan
prosedur dan penilaian akuntansi. Sifat dari perkebunan membuat penilaian aset biologis
menggunakan biaya historis susah karena aset tersebut dipengaruhi prokreasi, pertumbuhan,
kematian, dan situasi joint-cost. Alokasi biaya tidak langsung juga termasuk sumber
kompleksitas dalam perhitungan biaya di perkebunan. Namun Elad (2004) menekankan
bahwa ketika tidak ada pasar aktif untuk aset biologis, nilai wajar menjadi hal yang rumit.
Kemudahan pengukuran nilai wajar harus memperhatikan unsur cost-benefit. Keuntungan
utamanya adalah kesederhanaan. Akan tetapi, tidak ada pernyataan yang pasti dari literatur
sebelumnya perihal apakah volatilitas laba, relevansi, income smoothing, dan profitabilitas
memburuk atau membaik dengan nilai wajar. Perbandingan data dari dua sampel
perkebunan, masing-masing menggunakan biaya historis dan nilai wajar, ditemukan bahwa
tidak ada perbedaan signifikan diantara variabel-variabel tersebut.

2. Metode Penelitian

Penelitian Empiris

Penelitian pada pengaruh metode penilaian terhadap volatilitas laba diperkuat dengan model
regresi. Volatilitas laba dianggap sebagai variabel dependen dari metode penilaian yang
digunakan dan mengontrol volatilitas arus kas operasi (CFO) dimana informasi CFO
merupakan data yang bisa diandalkan dan independen terhadap akrual dan manipulasi
akuntansi. Di sisi lain, volatilitas laba bergantung pada metode penilaian, tapi memiliki
kontrol atas pendapatan kebun.

Berikut adalah model regresinya :

Tujuan kedua dari penelitian ini adalah untuk membandingkan kemampuan prediksi laba
antara biaya historis dan nilai wajar untuk aset biologis. Berikut adalah model prediksinya :
Carnes et al (2003) menggunakan model yang sama dalam persamaan (6) untuk
mengestimasi prediksi laba. Kim dan Kross (2005) menggunakan variabel dan model
persamaan (7) dan (8) untuk menginvestigasi prediksi laba dan arus kas.

Metode estimasi yang berbeda juga dilakukan terhadap ketiga persamaan diatas : OLS dan
model regresi. Dari ketiga persamaan diatas dilakukan estimasi dan perhitungan kesalahan
menggunakan Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) :

N : Jumlah kebun per tahun dalam sampel

Eij : Nilai laba aktual untuk kebun i di tahun j

F(Eij) : Prediksi laba untuk kebun i di tahun j

3. Hasil

Tabel 1 memperlihatkan hasil dari pengaruh metode penilaian yang diterapkan pada aset
biologis dalam laba, aset, pendapatan, volatilitas, dan profitabilitas. Karena sampel dari tabel
1 sesuai dengan normalitas (skewness-kurtosis tests) dan atau varians tidak seimbang , maka
dilakukan Mann-Whitney tests.
Hasilnya tidak mendukung hipotesis Plantin and Sapra, 2008; Dowling, 2001; Pentinen et
al., 2004 yang menyatakan bahwa tingkat volatilitas tinggi menggunakan nilai wajar.
Menurut sampel yang diteliti, penggunaan nilai wajar menghasilkan penilaian yang lebih
tinggi untuk aset biologis dibandingkan dengan biaya historis , dimana nilai wajar
menghasilkan volatilitas yang lebih rendah untuk nilai aset sepanjang periode dan tidak
mempengaruhi volatilitas laba dan penghasilan secara signifikan

Fakta bahwa return on asset tidak berbeda secara signifikan antara kelompok perkebunan
tidak membenarkan hipotesis Liang and Wens (2007) bahwa keputusan kurang efektif
dengan nilai wajar, atau argumen Bleck and Lius (2007) bahwa penggunaan biaya historis
mencegah investasi buruk dan menghindari likuidasi.

Tabel 1 menunjukkan ISI nilai mean dan median yang lebih tinggi untuk kebun yang
mengaplikasikan nilai wajar, tetapi perbedaan tersebut tidak signifikan dibandingkan dengan
kebun yang menggunakan biaya historis, hal ini mengindikasikan bahwa tidak ada
perbedaan dalam transfer gain dan loss sepanjang periode dengan penggunaan kedua metode
penilaian.

4. Kesimpulan

Pertanyaan yang muncul saat menginterpretasikan hasil ini adalah, mengapa dengan
pentingnya faktor random yang berasal dari kondisi pasar agrikultur, kebun yang
menerapkan nilai wajar tidak menunjukkan peningkatan volatilitas, manipulasi akuntansi,
atau ketidakmampuan prediksi laba dan arus kas. Dengan harga pasar yang mengandung
fluktuasi khususnya di sektor agrikultur, penggunaan nilai wajar dianggap kurang andal.
Bleck and Liu (2007) berargumen bahwa nilai wajar tidak meningkatkan volatilitas, tetapi
sebaliknya, biaya historis mentransfer volatilitas dari waktu ke waktu dan bahkan
meningkatkannya secara keseluruhan. Jadi, meskipun harga pasar berfluktuasi, volatilitas
akan hilang disaat penjualan terjadi.
Banyak peneliti yang mengkritik nilai wajar karena keuntungan dalam relevansi dan
ketepatan informasinya didasarkan pada asumsi yang tidak realistis mengenai adanya pasar
yang sempurna , investor yang rasional, tidak adanya informasi asimetris, dan lain-lain. Nilai
wajar untuk beberapa aset tidak bisa ditentukan dengan jelas dalam prakteknya, khususnya
aset agrikultur (Elad, 2007).

Berdasarkan diskusi teoretis tentang ketidakrealistisan biaya historis dan nilai wajar, dengan
memperhitungkan karakteristik praktek akuntansi di sektor agrikultur, tidak bisa dipastikan
bahwa biaya historis bebas dari masalah volatilitas, income smoothing, dan kemampuan
prediksi. Biaya historis tidak lebih andal dan relevan daripada nilai wajar. Penelitian juga
menunjukkan biaya historis tidak terlalu informatif untuk pengguna di bidang agrikultur dan
alokasinya terhadap aset individual beragam di beberapa kasus.

Kesimpulan penelitian :
Penggunaan nilai wajar menunjukkan tingkat volatilitas yang rendah untuk aset. Di sisi lain,
nilai wajar mencegah kompleksitas dalam kalkulasi biaya di sektor agrikultur. Oleh karena
itu ketika ada harga pasar yang andal, penilaian menggunakan nilai wajar merupakan
metode penilaian yang sederhana untuk diaplikasikan di sektor agrikultur. Dalam praktek
seperti itum biaya historis tidak bisa lebih andal dan relevan daripada nilai wjar

Jika dilihat dari sisi keahlian akuntansi, biaya historis lebih menarik dibandingkan dengan
nilai wajar ketika skill dan sumber daya tersedia. Untuk tujuan manajemen, informasi
tentang biaya historis penting namun tidak bisa mengatasi permasalahan dalam relasi sosial
dan lingkungan yang mempengaruhi transaksi pasar padahal transaksi yang terjadi di pasar
dipengaruhi oleh faktor lingkungan,

Penelitian dalam jurnal ini tidak mendukung kerugian yang disebabkan nilai wajar yang
dibandingkan dengan biaya historis. Sebaliknya, dengan latar belakang akuntansi
agrikulturm nilai wajar memberikan metode penilaian yang lebih konsisten, serta lebih andal
dan informasi yang bisa dibandingkan. Oleh karena itu, kesederhanaan pengaplikasiannya
berguna bagi akuntansi khususnya dalam sektor agrikultur,
5. Rekomendasi

Penelitian ini dilakukan pada sampel yang kecil, khususnya sub-sampel dari perkebunan
yang menggunakan nilai wajar. Diharapkan penelitian selanjutnya dilakukan pada sampel
yang lebih luas dan penelitian yang berfokus pada bisnis agrikultur besar maupun kecil pada
negara yang berbeda

Herbohn- What are implications of

reporting forest asset
This focus reflects the economic importance of forestry activities within the EU.
Forestry is a major contributor to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in some European
countries
The high value of the forest sector within many EU-25 countries means that IAS 41
is a potentially important development for European reporting entities with material
forestry assets
In many countries, accounting for agricultural activities has traditionally received
little attention from accounting researchers, practitioners and regulators
Recently, the release of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 41 Agriculture by
the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) changed agricultural
accounting from a domestic issue dealt with by individual countries to a global issue.
A survey by Deloitte and Touche (2003) predicted that more than 90 countries would
require or permit IFRS for listed companied by 2005
Advocates of fair value argue that it is easy for financial report users to understand,
particularly when there are active and liquid markets for the biological assets in
question. Further, fair value is considered to be more relevant, and to more faithfully
represent the reality of biological transformation. In contrast, opponents have
focused on the practical difficulties with valuing biological assets for which there are
no active and liquid market
approach of IAS 41 is too academic and not focused on the practicalities of reporting
on biological assets. This leads to the production of potentially misleading
information. Also, little attention has been paid to the problems of accounting for
biological assets at fair value in developing countries.
This is particularly the case for biological assets with long production cycles such as
forests and grape vines used to produce fortified wines. The recognition of profits
that are not realized for several years may also lead to unrealistic expectations of
distributable profits amongst shareholders, in turn creating pressure for entities to
declare and pay dividends for which no funds are available. Additionally, recognition
of unrealized gains or losses increases the volatility of reported income
The scope of IAS 41 is broad, covering biological assets including forests, as well as
livestock and horticultural assets
 The fair values of the biological assets tend to be volatile because they can be
affected by volatility in world commodity prices, changes in government policy, and
natural events such as rain, hail, drought, flooding, wildfire, and pests and diseases.
It follows that unrealized gains or losses from changes in fair value of biological
assets at each reporting date are also volatile.

Goncalves and lopes acc in agriculture

Further, the standardization of agricultural reporting practices both within and between
countries has the potential to facilitate comparisons between agricultural enterprises
corresponding fair value is very difficult to achieve due to various factors: the absence of
an active market; the difficulty in detecting the attributes of bearer plants; the incurred
cost related to the fair value estimate that outweighs the benefit; the earning volatility and
misleading; and the lack of relevant information and knowledge (Muhammad, 2014;
Aryanto, 2011)
if there are firms that use the unreliability clause of fair value, ideally this should mean
that firms are unable to report biological assets at fair value. However, and according to
some literature, it seems that there are other reasons related to country and firm
environment that could explain the adoption of historical cost, even when the clause does
not apply (Elad and Herbohn, 2011; Fisher, Mortensen, and Webber, 2010; Elad, 2004;
Christensen and Nikolaev, 2013; Quagli and Avalone, 2010; Daniel, Jung, Pourjalali, and
Wen, 2010; Muller, Riedl, and Sellhorn, 2008; Taplin, Yuan and Brown, 2014; Hlaing
and Pourjalali, 2012; Guo and Yang, 2013). Therefore, to this extent, this research is
developed under the accounting choice theory
Fisher, Mortensen, and Webber (2010) have analyzed the adoption of the IAS 41 in New
Zealand (classified as a common law country) and have concluded that listed firms
operating in the agricultural sector follow fair value, even when there is no active market
In Continental Europe, historical cost is the mainstream method (Elad, 2004).
As far as non-financial assets are concerned, in general larger firms, which are more
leveraged, and have more non-financial assets and higher expertise in fair value
measurements, tend to choose the option of fair value accounting
Firstly, this standard is not considered appropriate for mature bearer biological assets
because they are no longer undergoing biological transformation. Secondly, these assets
are seen as similar to manufacturing and, therefore, should be accounted for in
accordance with the IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment. Thirdly, the IASB is also
concerned about the cost, complexity and reliability of fair value measurement of these
assets in the absence of markets, as well as with the volatility changes in the fair value
less costs to sell in profit or loss
, Muhammad (2014) has proposed to develop a study in Malaysia in order to identify the
factors that influence bearer biological assets, and consequently establish a fair value
model. Chief executive officers, accountants and managers linked to firms that have
bearer biological assets will be the respondents of this study, due to their expertise and
knowledge on this subject
ELAD Implementing FV acc in agricultural
sector
observation that most French companies value their biological assets conservatively at
historical cost, whereas the fair value method is more commonly used in Australia and
the UK, is consistent with Grays (1988) classification of the three countries based on the
concept of conservatism as a construct of culture
Nobes (2006, 2008a, 2008b) that international differences in financial reporting persist
despite the growing adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as a
global set of accounting standards and that there are systematic differences in the way in
which countries have responded to IFRS
This can be explained by the fact that Australian agricultural entities were required to use
AASB 1037, a national accounting standard which contains broadly similar requirements
to those of IAS 41, for several years prior to the publication of IAS 41 in 2001
The continued use of historical cost under IAS 41 by nine out of the 17 French companies
in this study indicates that the standard has not had a major impact and that the Plan
Comptable Gnral Agricole remains the authoritative accounting guide for all
agricultural entities in France. There is a need for the IASB to revisit IAS 41, not only
because it has failed to change farm accounting practice, but also because it creates an
illusion of comparability, at least in view of the range of options allowed under the
standard.
the fair value model in IAS 41 has some ideological overtones in that its successful
implementation may promote social conflict in tropical countries where stakeholder
advocacy organisations have argued that fair values established by market forces do not
reflect the real value of agricultural commodities such as coffee, tea, banana, or cocoa.
Not all stakeholders accept that the fair value (or world market price) of these plantation
crops is a fair price that fully reflects their value
 IAS 41 is highly controversial, not only because it prescribes a full-fledged fair value
accounting model for agricultural entities, but also because it heralds the most
comprehensive and radical departure from historical cost accounting to date, thus
provoking a broad range of theoretical and practical problems that might affect its
widespread adoption
IAS 41 defines agricultural activity as the management by an enterprise of the biological
transformation of biological assets for sale, into agricultural produce, or into additional
biological assets (IASC, 2001, p.11
The most contentious aspect of IAS 41 is the requirement that increments or decrements
in the fair value of biological assets, less estimated point-of-sale costs, be recognised as
revenues or expenses in the income statement for the financial year in which the
increments or decrements occur
Agriculture is not an appropriate type of business for introducing earlier recognition of
profit, before it is recognised through sale of the product, in place of the present, more
prudent, historical cost approach. (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and
Wales in IASC, 1998)
Ipractice, fair value accounting in the agricultural sector is likely to involve considerable
subjective judgement, and may be more subject to bias and manipulation than historic
costbased information
unlike the recent European legislation which requires listed companies to adopt IFRS in
their consolidated accounts, the Australian convergence project has a far wider scope in
that it covers all reporting entities and IFRS have now replaced all the previous domestic
standards (AASB, 2004). This means that Australia not only offers a unique setting for
studying the experiences of a broad range of agricultural businesses that have actually
adopted mark-to-market accounting for over four years, but also a sound basis for
evaluating the prospects for successful application in other countries
Christensen , Nikolaev Does FV acc for non financial asset pass the
Commented [A1]: Cek table 9. LOGIT
market test

Market forces rather than regulators determine the outcome. Fair value accounting is used
when reliable fair value estimates are available at a low cost and when they convey
information about operating performance
IFRS provides a free choice between fair value and historical cost accounting for non-
financial assets, ex ante commitment to one of the two accounting policies. It is, ex ante, Commented [A2]: pre-commitment to contracting
(accounting) practices that minimize agency costs is optimal from
in managements interest to limit the scope for future opportunistic actions, e.g., earnings the standpoint of managers

management. the choice between fair value and historical cost in our setting effectively
represents an ex ante commitment and as such is unlikely to be driven by earnings
management considerations.(jadi bebas dari earnings management krn komitmen ex ante,
perusahaan yg uda apply, ga ganti2 metode lg)
United Kingdom (UK) and Germany because they have the largest financial markets in
Europe and are historically at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of using fair value
accounting under the local GAAP
predictions focusing on the cost-benefit tradeoffs between the two valuation practices.
First, we expect that local economic, governance, and legal institutions influence the
market solution in a predictable manner. Second, as reliability is the principal dimension
on which historical cost arguably dominates fair value, the costs of constructing reliable
fair value estimates are expected to be a key cross-sectional determinant of the choice
between the two accounting practices
fair value adversely affects key performance measures (e.g., ROA) if the management
chooses to hold unproductive assets (assets with high value in alternative use) and thus
can benefit in governing firms lacking investment opportunities.
Overall, our results do not support the prediction that firms managers find the shift
towards fair value accounting to be a beneficial commitment
the choice to use fair value is not random and occurs when benefits outweigh the costs.
Yet our evidence suggests that the vast majority of managers find the net benefits from
fair value accounting to be rather limited
 German (HC) - The differences in their accounting traditions are due to institutional
differences in economic, governance, and legal systems. . Accounting was mainly used
for profit distribution and tax purposes; hence accounting regulation was codified and
focused mainly on legal entity statements
UK (FV/HC) UK ownership is dispersed, and even middle-sized companies are
commonly listed on the London Stock Exchange. Such an ownership structure requires
that financial reporting reduces information asymmetry, and in this context revaluations
can serve the purpose of conveying information about the assets current values.
Fair value measurement is justified on the grounds of being more relevant for the
decisions by users of financial statements. For example, revaluations to fair value allow
managers to convey their private information on asset values (Aboody et al. 1999). Fair
value is also argued to improve transparency, comparability, and the timeliness of
accounting information (Schipper 2005). In line with the benefits of fair value
accounting, many studies on asset revaluations find that fair value possesses superior
relevance. These studies find that upward revaluations have a positive association with
equity returns in the month of the revaluation (Sharpe and Walker 1975; Standish and
Ung 1982) and that they have association with long-window stock returns, future cash
flows, and the market value of equity
the effort and resources a company needs to expend to obtain reliable fair value estimates
are likely to play an important role in determining a managers choice of valuation
practice
debt-financing influences the choice of fair value: on the one hand debtholders can
demand a greater degree of verifiability, but, on the other hand, they also require
estimates of the value of the collateral
debtholders have a demand for reliable information as it limits the extent of managerial
discretion in accounting measurement (e.g., Watts 2003). To this end, they are likely to
favor contracts written in terms of historical-cost-based measures. On the other hand,
companies that access debt markets are commonly required, under their credit
arrangements, to provide valuations of collateral and thus are likely to face a demand for
fair value accounting
 companies relying on debt financing more heavily are more likely to commit to fair value
accounting for investment property
other leverage proxies potentially used in debt contracts.We find that the ratio of total
debt to operating income has a positive relation to the use of fair value, while the
coverage of interest and the current ratios are negatively related to the use of fair value.
The results are consistent across different proxies for leverage and further support H4

Hlaing , Pourjalali Economic reasons for reporting PPE at FV

(Penelitian terdahulu)

We test for differences between adopters and non-adopters using leverage ratios, the
intensity of PPE, firm size in terms of sales, market value, and total assets and
profitability ratios.
As global capital markets develop, more companies choose to be cross-listed in multiple
stock exchanges. Many of the firms that are cross-listed in U.S. stock markets use either
their national Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for measurement and reporting purposes. One of
the main differences between U.S. GAAP and many other national GAAPs (including
IFRS) is the availability of alternative measurement choices for nonfinancial assets and
liabilities (Daniel, Jung, Pourjalali, & Wen, 2010).
Daniel et al. (2010) report that although a significant majority of CFOs would not select
the fair value option, some would do so if they knew that their competitor was doing it
and that not doing it would put them at a disadvantage
why some foreign firms listed in the United States use fair market valuation for these
assets,4 whereas others do not. We do this by comparing the fundamental economic
characteristics of these two groups of firms (adopters/revaluers5 vs. nonadopters/non-
reva luers)
firms decisions to adopt the fair value measurement can be closely related to the benefits
and costs of adoption.
Daniel et al. show that if given the option, U.S. firms that are larger, more profitable, and
more reliant on debt financing are more likely to choose the fair value option
 we find that revaluers have larger debt-to-equity ratio (DTE) as well as leverage (long-
term debt to total assets) ratios, indicating that the choice of fair value for PPE may have
resulted from closeness to debt covenants. We also find that firm size as well as the
intensity of fixed assets affects the decision to revalue a firms long-term assets
Revaluation of nonfinancial assets is considerably more controversial than that of
financial assets for which, in a majority of cases, quoted prices are either available in the
active market or observable from the price of comparable assets. In most cases, an active
market does not exist to observe the fair value of nonfinancial assets, and the fair value of
the assets in use must be determined based on the present value of probable future cash
flows or by qualified appraisals.7 Estimation of the net present value of an asset requires
projection of earnings, the cash flows they produce, and a reasonable and justifiable
discount rate. This process calls for managements judgment and inside informatio
the reliability of the revaluation amount is highly controversial and subject to ongoing
intense debate (e.g., Aboody, Barth, & Kasznik, 1999; Lin & Peasnell, 2000). Upward
revaluation of nonfinancial assets also violates the principle of conservatism, which
dictates that firms should consider only asset impairment with absolutely no upward
valuation (Missonier-Piera, 2007). In addition, assets revaluation includes some large
costs such as fees associated with appraising fixed assets, higher audit fees when auditors
have to make an additional review of the assumptions the company makes when
estimating the fair value of assets internally, the additional expenses for time spent in
discussions and negotiations between auditors and management on the new asset value,
and recordkeeping costs for less conventional transactions
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
(H1): Revaluers have higher leverage and DTEs than non-revaluers
To reassure creditors, managers may opt to revalue fixed assets upward. In addition to
removing the uncertainty related to accuracy in reporting PPE at cost, upward revaluation
reduces debt-to-assets ratios (leverage) and may improve a firms ability to raise new
loans (e.g., Brown et al., 1992; Jaggi & Tsui, 2001; Lin & Peasnell, 2000). highly
leveraged firms, which are close to and want to avoid default on their debt covenants, are
more likely to revalue assets
 (H2): Revaluers are larger and have a higher intensity of fixed-to-total assets than
non-revaluers
firm size influences the decision to revalue fixed assets. Some argue that bigger firms
with a higher number of analysts followings may have other channels to provide
information to the capital market, but smaller firms may have to rely only on audited
financial reports and hence are more inclined to revalue PPE to lower the information
asymmetry (e.g., Barth & Clinch, 1998)
the larger the PPE amount in proportion to total assets (intensity of fixed assets), the
greater the influence of fair value in informing investors of the future performance of the
firm and its operating assets

(H3): Revaluers have higher growth margin, ROE, and ROA ratios than non-
revaluers
revaluation of fixed assets is often a primary tool for lowering debt and political costs
(e.g., Brown et al., 1993; MissonierPiera, 2007). To reduce political costs, firms tend to
reduce their profitability ratios (e.g., ROE and return-on-assets [ROA]). As revaluation
increases depreciation and decreases the reported earnings, it reduces profitability ratios
and may reduce political exposure. Consequently, we argue that firms may choose to
revalue assets to reduce political costs, and we propose that ROE and ROA ratios will be
higher for revaluers

Daniel, Jung - Firm Characteristics Influencing Responses towards

the Adoption of Fair Value Accounting for Non-financial Assets: A
Survey of Chief Financial Officers of U.S. Firms (Penelitian
Terdahulu)

five testable hypotheses regarding the following firm characteristics: firm size, leverage,
profitability, the ratio of non-financial assets to total assets, and the extent of expertise in
fair value measurement
 FIRM SIZE (-)
a. Since the cost of adopting fair value accounting is greater for smaller firms, we
expect that smaller firms will be less willing to adopt the fair value option.
However, it is also possible that managers of smaller firms have a greater
incentive to choose the FVONFA in order to provide more value-relevant
information to the market
b. Since information environment is much richer (e.g., higher stock analyst
coverage; more media attention) for larger firms than for smaller firms, the
investors of larger firms can have access to many different information sources. In
contrast, investors of smaller firms are more likely to rely on financial reports to
obtain financial information
c. Information on fair value is more value-relevant (Barth et al. 2001) and thus
reduces information asymmetry (Frankel and Li 2004) and that the information
content of accounting information is negatively related to firm size (e.g., Zeghal
1984)
d. Using fair value measurement and reporting for non-financial assets on financial
statements will lower the information asymmetry between investors and managers
to a larger extent for smaller firms (Barth and Clinch 1998), and thus the benefit
from using fair value accounting would be lower for larger firms. Based on this
view, one can predict that managers of smaller firms are more likely to choose the
FVONFA to provide more value-relevant information to the market, which is a
negative relationship between firm size and the choice of FVONFA
e. cost of adopting the fair value accounting for non-financial assets. Since
significant costs are associated with adopting the FVONFA, managers who
consider the option will compare the costs with the economic benefits (e.g., Cotter
and Zimmer 1995). A significant portion of the cost of adopting the fair value
measurement comes from a substantial fixed cost and is relatively higher for
smaller firms, suggesting economies of scale for larger firms
f. Therefore, the cost of fair valuation may not be as significant for larger firms as
for smaller firms, and larger firms may consider the cost lower than do smaller
firms when viewed as a proportion of their total assets
 LEVERAGE (+)
a. application of fair value accounting for non-financial assets usually increases the
likelihood of overstating the book value of assets, resulting in a decrease in leverage
ratio and thus enhanced borrowing capacity (Cotter and Zimmer 1995)
b. Firms that rely heavily on the debt market for financing, i.e., highly leveraged firms,
are commonly required by independent appraisers to provide valuations of collateral
under their credit arrangements (Lemmon et al. 2008
c. Christensen and Nikolaev (2009) document a positive association between the
adoption of fair value for non-financial assets and reliance on debt financing for U.K.
and German firms
d. (Cotter )firms with higher leverage, and thus higher likelihood of violating covenants,
tend to revalue assets. Brown et al. (1992) and Easton et al. (1993) also claim that the
primary motivation for asset revaluation of Australian firms is the need of firms to
reduce debt-to-equity ratio
e. Thus, firms choosing the fair value option to revaluate their non financial assets
upward may improve their ability to raise new loans by reducing the risk of violating
accounting-based covenants as a result of a strengthened balance sheet
PROFITABILITY (+)
a. based on the proposition that upward revaluation for non-financial assets usually
increases the book value of assets and thus decreases profitability (e.g., ROA).
Therefore, we hypothesize that managers of less profitable firms are more reluctant to
adopt the FVONFA.
b. an increase in the book value of assets reduces operation performance measures such
as return on assets (ROA). (karena gaji didasarkan pada bonus, pake depresiasi
meningkatkan BV trus nurunin kinerja. Manajer gamau pake FV)
ASSET INTENSITY (+)
a. cost of using fair value for non-financial assets increases with the amount of such
assets, managers of firms with higher amounts of may be more reluctant to adopt the
FVONFA. (aset makin banyak, cost makin gede)
b. On the other hand, from the perspective of value-relevance of accounting
information, firms with higher amounts of non-financial assets have greater
 incentives to adopt the FVONFA to provide more value-relevant information to
investors. Thus, the relation between the amount of non-financial assets and a firms
adoption of the FVONFA depends on opposing views
c. . Barth and Clinch (1996) document that the revaluation of fixed assets for mining
firms, where the ratio of fixed assets to total assets is higher, has a significant
relationship with share prices in Australia
EXPERTISE (+)
a. fair value measurement for Level II and Level III items under SFAS 157 as a proxy
for expertise in fair valuation since these items are complex and thus difficult to
estimate for fair value, we investigate how fair valuation expertise affects firms
attitude toward the adoption of the FVONFA. We hypothesize that expertise in fair
value measurement for complex financial assets and liabilities will positively
influence CFOs response to the FVONFA
Results : We find a higher likelihood to adopt the FVONFA among larger, more
leveraged firms, firms with more non financial assets and firms with expertise in fair
value measurement. Except for profitability
First, our results show that CFOs in the U.S. are resistant to the FVONFA, consistent
with prior studies based on firms in Europe and Australia. Second, we consider five firm
characteristics firm size, leverage, profitability, the amount of non-financial assets,
and expertise in fair value measurements for complex items and examine how those
characteristics affect the CFOs responses to the FVONFA. The results show that firm
size, leverage, the amount of non-financial assets, and expertise in fair value
measurements all positively affect the CFOs responses to the FVONFA. A summary of
the responses from the CFOs to a direct question about their reasons for choosing or
rejecting the FVONFA reveals that the main reason for their resistance is that
determining the fair value is too costly, which corresponds to our results on firm size.
The most dominating reason for CFOs selecting the FVONFA is that it provides a better
picture of the firms position, which is also consistent with our results on leverage
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2008) reflects on this debate(fv vs hc) from three
aspects: the relevance of information to investors, the reliability of that information, and
companies ability to implement fair value cost-effectively
 However, given that liquid and primary markets can be limited or may not exist for many
assets and liabilities (particularly non financial assets, such as manufacturing facilities,
distribution networks, and customer lists), it will be challenging to determine fair values.
As such, PwC questions the extension of fair value accounting to many assets and
liabilities
Veron (2008) summarizes the criticisms of fair value accounting as illiquidity and
procyclicality. The illiquidity criticism stems from an imbalance between supply and
demand. That is, the prices may not reflect the true value of the items measured. This is
true when, as a result of severe economic recessions, market participants do not act
rationally. Procyclicality occurs when the observable prices are flawed because the
market is imperfect. In general, fair market accounting is expected to provide more value-
relevant information (Hitz 2007). But when the economy suffers from a significant
recession or experiences a bubble, information based on fair market accounting may
result in misleading numbers (Leonard 2008)
Cairns et al. (2008) also document the lack of interest in fair value accounting in their
investigation of the use of fair value measurement by 195 firms listed in the U.K. and
Australia following the adoption of IFRS in January 2005
investors may find information based on fair value more useful than information based on
historical cost and in response, when given the choice, managers of U.S. firms may adopt
fair value measurement and reporting if their foreign competitors choose to do so
FVONFA is more controversial as the estimations by managers that it requires are more
subjective than are those for financial assets whose quoted prices are usually either
available in the active market or observable from the price of comparable assets. In many
occasions, active markets for non-financial assets do not exist, particularly for operating
assets, such as PPE. When active markets are not available, the fair value of non-financial
assets should be determined based on the present value of estimated future cash flows or
by qualified appraisals
Easton et al. (1993) also find that, based on Australian firms, asset revaluations loosen
debt constraints and enhance financial flexibility
Bonaci - Bearer plants: Stakeholders view on the appropriate
measurement model

While the importance of agriculture to the global economy seems to be generally

acknowledged, financial reporting in the agricultural sector still generates intense debates
Among the most controversial aspects in IAS 41, we find its requirement for biological
assets to be measured at fair value. This is in line with accounting standard setters current
shift from the traditional historical cost model towards the fair value approach
As IAS 41 has a single accounting treatment for both bearer and consumable biological
assets (separation only being made for disclosure purposes - paragraph 44), stakeholders
pointed out that fair value measurement is not appropriate for mature bearer biological
assets as they are no longer undergoing biological transformation. This triggered the view
that their operation is rather similar to that of manufacturing and should therefore be
accounted for like property, plant and equipment, under IAS 16, thereby permitting use of
a cost model
most of the IAS 41 debates relate to the fair value measurement of biological assets.
Increases or decreases in the fair value of biological assets, less estimated point-of-sale
costs, are therefore to be recognized as revenues or expenses in the income statement for
the financial year in which they occur (Elad, 2004
Elad and Herbohn (2011) conclude upon a potential impact on the harmonization of
corporate farm accounting practices, supporting the idea that differences in accounting
practices might still exist despite IFRS adoption. Their findings document historical cost
as the most common valuation basis for
Bearer plants: stakeholders view on the appropriate measurement model for biological
assets (in cases where it is argued that fair values cannot be determined with reliability),
while, where being used, fair value measurement employing a variety of proxies
Listed companies resorted to publishing figures before the effects of IAS 41 just to
introduce some sort of sanity into the accounts for their readers. Management, and I was
one of them, found it an expensive distraction and useless as a tool for anything
Another respondent which disagrees with IASBs proposal that produce growing on
bearer biological assets should be measured at fair value argue that IAS 41 establish a
 threshold too higher and should be amended so that fair value measurement is only
required when the produce is sold in an active market (level 1) in the produces current
condition at the reporting date (BDO, 2013).The Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India (ICAI) highlights the issue of measuring separately the produce of bearer biological
assets from a practical perspective. ICAI presented the case of the crops that produce
continuously for harvest throughout the year. There are bearer plants (e.g. coffee beans)
that have a long ripening period (i.e. approximately 8-9 months) and if level 1 fair value
arent available during this time the use of some other methodology might lead to a high
volatility in the fair values
PricewaterhouseCoopers is one the opponents of IASBs proposal and argue there is no
conceptual basis for treating bearer plants differently from other biological assets. Also,
they consider that IASB may want to reconsider IAS 41 in its entirety.

Penelitian terdahulu

1. Accounting in Agriculture : Measurement Practices of Listed Firms

Country level - legal status dan firm level - biological assets intensity, firm size, listing
status, regulation expertise, dan sector berpengaruh positif terhadap adopsi pengukuran
nilai wajar sedangkan potential growth memiliki pengaruh negatif dan tidak adanya
hubungan dengan leverage
2. Firm-Specific Factors Influencing the Selection of Accounting Options Provided by the
IFRS Empirical Evidence from Spanish Market
Firm-specific factors seperti industri, ukuran perusahaan (diukur dengan nilai penjualan
dan operating income), opini audit dan struktur modal mempengaruhi pemilihan
kebijakan akuntansi untuk menyusun laporan keuangan
3. Country Effects and Sector Effects on the Harmonization of Accounting Policy Choice
Penelitian yang menganalisis harmonisasi akuntansi di Eropa untuk memprediksi
pemilihan metode akuntansi menggunakan 3 variabel yaitu persediaan, depresiasi, dan
goodwill. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan setelah adanya international exposure dan
ukuran perusahaan, country effect lebih berpengaruh signifikan daripada sector effects
 4. Firm Characteristics Influencing Responses towards the Adoption of Fair Value
Accounting for Non-financial Assets: A Survey of Chief Financial Officers of U.S.
Firms
Perusahaan besar, tingkat leverage yang tinggi, proporsi aset non keuangan yang besar,
dan keahlian dalam pengukuran nilai wajar cenderung memilih akuntansi nilai wajar
dalam mengukur aset non keuangannya.
5. Economic Reasons for Reporting Property, Plant, and Equipment at Fair Market Value by
Foreign Cross-Listed Firms in the United States
Penelitian dilakukan untuk mengetahui perbedaan adopters dan non-adopters
menggunakan leverage ratio intensitas PPE, ukuran perusahaan berdasarkan nilai
penjualan, market value, total aset, dan rasio profitabilitas. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan
perusahaan dengan nilai PPE yang lebih tinggi dan nilai rasio yang tinggi antara PPE
dibandingkan dengan total aset cenderung menggunakan revaluation model.

Langkah-langkah dalam pengolahan logit adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Menguji signifikansi koefisien secara statistik menggunakan Z statistik (distribusi normal)

2. Dalam binary regressand model, kita menggunakan pseudo 2, yang mirip dengan 2 untuk
mengukur goodness of fit
3. Mirip dengan F test pada model regresi linear adalah likelihood ratio (LR) statistik. LR
statistik mengikuti ditribusi 2 dengan derajat kebebasan (degree of freedom) sama dengan
jumlah variabel bebas
4. Mencari Odds Ratio dari setiap variabel independen.
5. Margin Efek dari setiap variabel independen.
6. Mencari probabilitas setiap variabel independen terhadap variabel dependentnya.

Hipotesis statistik

Ha akan diterima kalo beta lebih besar dari 0 kalo positig

Ho = diterima kalo lebih kecil 0

1= FV , beta lbh bsr 0

Pengujian Hipotesis Penelitian

Penelitian ini menggunakan nilai signifikansi level sebesar 5% untuk

mengetahui apakah ada pengaruh nyata dari variabel independen terhadap variabel

dependen. Kriteria dari pengujian ini adalah :

a. Signifikansi level (sig.) > 0,05 dan > 0,10 maka hipotesis ditolak

b. Signifikansi level (Sig.) < 0,05 dan < 0,05 maka hipotesis diterima

Menilai model fit

Langkah pertama adalah menilai overall fit model terhadap data. Beberapa
tes statistic diberikan untuk menilai hal ini. Hipotesis untuk menilai model fit
adalah :
Ho : Model yang dihipotesiskan fit dengan data
Ha : Model yang dihipotesiskan tidak fit dengan data
3.4.2.1 Uji Signifikansi parameter
Uji signifikansi parameter dari variabel prediktor dilakukan untuk mengetahui apakah
taksiran parameter yang diperoleh berpengaruh secara signifikan terhadap model atau
tidak, dan seberapa besar pengaruh masing-masing parameter tersebut terhadap
model. Uji signifikansi terdiri dari dua tahap yaitu uji signifikansi parameter model
secara bersama dan uji signifikansi parameter model secara terpisah

Uji keseluruhan model secara simultan (Uji G)

Uji signifikansi parameter model secara bersama dilakukan dengan uji rasio
kemungkinan maksimum (likelihood ratio test). Menurut Hosmer dan Lemeshow (1989),
suatu statistik uji rasio likelihood G adalah fungsi dari Lo dan L1 yang berdistribusi (Chi-
square) dengan derajat bebas p (banyaknya variabel prediktor yang ada dalam model)
yang didefinisikan sebagai

= 2 ln [ ]
1

L0 = Log-likelihood dari model tanpa variabel prediktor/ variabel bebas

L1= Log-likelihood dari model p variabel prediktor/ variabel bebas
Ho: i =0, untuk semua k=1,2,3..,p yang berarti semua variabel prediktor tidak
signifikan terhadap model.
Prinsip dari metode maksimum likelihood adalah mencari nilai dengan
memaksimumkan fungsi likelihood (Raharjanti, dan Widiarti, 2012). Ho ditolak jika >
2 (;) , dengan kesimpulan bahwa variabel independen secara bersama
sama atau keseluruhan mempengaruhi variabel dependen, dapat jga dikatakan
bahwa paling sedikit ada satu koefisien j0.
Jika nilai prediksi ketika variabel prediktor di dalam model lebih baik daripada ketika
variabel tersebut tidak disertakan dalam model, maka dapat dikatakan variabel
signifikan dalam model.

Uji Parsial Wald

Statistik Uji Wald Chi-Square (W) digunakan untuk menguji parameter secara parsial
(Hosmer dan Lemeshow, 2000) didasarkan hipotesis:
Ho: i=0
H1: i0 (i=1,2,3,..p)

Statistik uji yang digunakan adalah = ()

merupakan penduga dari dan E (i) adalah penduga galat baku dari . Statistik
Wi mengikuti sebaran chi square dengan derajat bebas 1.
Hipotesis nol ditolak jika > . Jika H0 ditolak maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa i signifikan.
Dengan kata lain, variabel independen X secara
parsial berpengaruh signifikan terhadap variabel dependen

Hosmer and lemeshows Goodness of fit test

Model yang digunakan harus layak atau memenuhi Goodness of Fit (GoF). Suatu model
dikategorikan memenuhi GoF jika terdapat kesesuaian antara data yang dimasukkan
dalam model dengan data yang diamati.
Uji Hosmer-Lemeshow dilakukan dengan dasar pengelompokan pada nilai dugaan
peluangnya yang menyebar X2. Statistik uji Hosmer-Lemeshow di formulasikan sebagai
berikut:

Menguji hipotesis nol bahwa data empiris cocok atau sesuai dengan
model. Jika nilai statistik Hosmer dan Lemeshows Goodness of Fit Test
lebih besar dari 0.05, maka hipotesis nol ditolak yang berarti ada
perbedaan signifikan antara model dengan nilai observasinya sehingga
Goodnes fit model tidak baik karena model tidak dapat memprediksi nilai
observasinya. Jika nilai Statistik Hosmer and lameshow Goodness of fit
lebih besar dari 0.05, maka hipotesis nol tidak dapat ditolak dan berarti
model mampu memprediksi nilai observasinya

3.4.2.2 Rasio Kecenderungan (Odds Ratio)

Menurut (Hosmer dan Lemeshow, 1989) rasio kecenderungan adalah ukuran yang
memperkirakan berapa besar kecenderungan variabel-variabel independen
terhadap variabel dependen. Odd ratio merupakan ukuran untuk mengetahui risiko
kecenderungan untuk mengalami suatu kejadian tertentu antara kategori yang satu
dengan yang lain dalam suatu variabel yang dinotasikan dengan , didefinisikan
sebagai rasio dari odd ratio untuk x=1 terhadap x=0. Dengan kata lain, risiko
kecenderungan pengaruh observasi x=1 adalah m kali lipat risiko dibandingkan
1
dengan observasi x=0, atau risiko kecenderungan pengaruh observasi x=0 dalam

kali lipat dibandingkan dengan observasi x=1.

Adapun nilai odds rasio untuk Y=j terhadap Y=k yang dihitung pada dua nilai
(misal x=1 dan x=0) adalah:

( = | = 1)/( = | = 1)
= = exp[]
( = | = 0)/( = | = 0)

Untuk =0 berarti bahwa x=1 memiliki kecenderungan yang sama dengan x=0 untuk
menghasilkan Y=j. Jika 1< < berarti x=1 memiliki kecenderungan lebih besar kali
dibandingkan x=0 untuk menghasilkan Y=j dan sebaliknya untuk

0< <
Kenapa sampel perusahaan kelapa sawit yang terdaftar di RSPO?

1. Aktivitas utama di oil palm plantation adalah pengukuran tanaman kelapa sawit sebagai
aset biologis (stlh amandemen 2016 , tanaman kelapa sawit pake psak aset tetap). FFB
(Fruit Fresh Bunches) atau tandan buah segar adalah (aset biologis) , lalu di dlm ffb itu
produk agrikultur, yang biasanya tidak diakui sebagai inventory karena harus ditransfer
ke cpo mills dlm waktu 24 jam stlh dipanen atauga monetary valuenya di neraca bakal
insignificant
2. Biasanya gaada harga pasar untuk tanaman kelapa sawit di kondisi dan lokasinya,
makanya kalo ngukur pake fair value pake hirarki ketiga discounted cash flow .
Challengenya, ini highly subjective karena buat nentuin present value of expected net
cash flow, hrs include net cash flow dari aset yang market participants expect bisa
menggenerate di pasar plg relevan.
3. RSPO asosiasi yang berfokus pada isu seputar palm oil production dan neg impact ke
lingkungan, jadi sertifikasi RSPO merupakan langkah penting untuk masa depan produksi
CPO. Lalu, sertifikasi juga berguna supaya perusahaan bisa akses global markets dan
gain trust dari gov jg
4. Prinsip sertifikasi rspo ada 8, transparency, compliance, eco viability, best practice, env
responsibility, continuous improvement
5. Harga TBS yang berfluktuatif, misalnya untuk TBS umur 10-25 tahun. Fluktuasi TBS
dipengaruhi ketidakstabilan harga CPO akibat pengaruh ekonomi global.
Parameter kualitas CPO : DOBI

Life cycle kelapa sawit

1. Tanam benih
2. Benih menjadi bibit yang dipelihara hingga 1 tahun
3. Bibit menjadi tanaman dengan sekitar 12-15 daun hijau yang tumbuh (proses 12-14
bulan) lalu dipindah ke perkebunan dan ditanam
 4. Dibutuhkan waktu sekitar 4 tahun bagi pohon kelapa sawit utk menghasilkan buah yang
sesuai untuk panen. Setiap pohon biasanya bisa menghasilkan buah hingga 30 tahun
saat tingginya sekitar 12m.
5. Buah kelapa sawit tumbuh dlm bentuk tandan padat dan setiap buah berisi banyak buah
sawit. Tiap tahun bs hasilin 12-14 tandan
6. Setelah panen dibawa ke pabrik kelapa sawit
7. Setiap tandan ada inti sawit (kernel) dikelilingi buah (mesocarp). Lalu buah sawit itu
diubah jadi minyak kelapa sawit dan inti sawit

Keterbatasan nilai wajar untuk pengukuran aset biologis

Aktivitas agrikultur memiliki sifat spesifik dan membuat model biaya sulit diterapkan karena
adanya perkembangan dan pertumbuhan (growth and regeneration). IAS 41 konsepnya Living
asset yg merepesentasikan karakteristik khusus dari pertumbuhan aset biologis yang ga bs
dijelasin biaya historis.

Kerangka Pemikiran

Perbedaan dengan penelitian terdahulu

Penelitian terdahulu lebih ke penggunaan fair value di industri perbankan, atau aset tetap
(revaluasi). Untuk aset biologis masih jarang.

Perbedaan dengan jurnal rujukan :

Tidak adanya variabel country-level dan potential growth. Untuk country level datanya tidak
bisa didapat krn berhubungan dengan pemerintah, contohnya di malaysia kalo mau mengadopt
sebuah standar maka akademis-gov-perusahaan saling koordinasi. Krn tidak mempunyai akses
ke pemerintah maka variabel ini ditiadakan

Untuk potential growth, peneliti sblmnya ke masing2 perusahaan lalu interview dengan
akuntan dan manajer untuk mendapatkan informasi.
Sector. Krn kita sudah menentukan sektor agrikultur khususnya palm oil industry, kt tidak
mengcluster ke masing2 sektor lagi.

Penambahan variabel profitabilitas berpotensial karena di industri kelapa sawit, pendapatan

perusahaan bergantung pada penjualan tbs atau palm oil yang fluktuatif. Oleh karena itu, kt
mau liat apakah profitabilitas mempengaruhi pemilihan nilai wajar atau biaya historis

Klasifikasi per negara, di RSPO asosiasinya terdiri dari perusahaan dari berbagai negara. Jd ini
sudah mencakup 2 keterbatasan penelitian sblmnya

Kenapa purposive sampling?

Menurut statistik, ps pake kriteria2 yg tlh ditentukan yang kemudian stlh saya sortir didapatkan
36 perusahaan. Karena sampel dipilih berdasarkan kriteria yang telah ditentukan dan
pertimbangan tertentu. Jadi kriteria sampel sesuai dan relevan dengan penelitian yang
dilakukan. Kalo pake random sampling, tidak sesuai dengan penelitian yang ingin dilakukan.

Apakah variabel dummy bisa diregresikan

Bisa. Krn regresi logistik emg punya dummy variabel , var binernya di Y.

Logit cara ngukurnya gimana? Ada perusahaan FV dan HC. Perbedaan dengan
regresi berganda apa?

Kita mau liat/ bandingin perusahaan ketika memilih FV dan HC gmn? Apakah trnyata sbnrnya
perusahaan yg pake HC uda bs nerapin FV cuma gamau aja. Penelitian ini ingin melihat faktor yg
mempengaruhi perusahaan menggunakan nilai wajar dan mengapa terdapat perbedaan antara
kedua kelompok . Karena memprediksi variabel dependen yang berskala dikotomi (skala data
nominal dengan 2 kategori; Fair value atau biaya historis).

Regresi berganda Kalo cuma melihat pengaruh faktor2 ini ke pengukuran FV. Lalu var
dependen hrs numerik
OLS pake uji F Anova untuk mengukur tingkat signifikansi dan sbrp baik model persamaan yg
terbentuk. Kalo di logit, pake Chisquare dr perhitungan maximum likelihood

Skala nominal: membedakan kategori berdasarkan jenis dan macam, ga liat urutan atau tingkat
Skala ordinal: Kategori tingkat atau urutan
Skala interval: tidak ada 0 mutlak, kategorinya ada selang atau jarak
Skala rasio: Datanya bisa dikali atau dibagi

Logit fokus ke proses pemilihan, BUKAN nilai wajar atau biaya historisnya

Data yg diinput untuk diolah bersifat biner dimana angka 1 untuk FV dan 0 untuk HC. Nanti
dililat apakah berpengaruh secara signifikan atau tidak faktornya

1. Nilai beta akan keluar kalo uda di-run. Regresi itu forecast/ estimate ketika perusahaan
berusaha menaikkan 1 nilai di salah satu variabel nanti seakan2 1 0 dikalikan ke beta
Misalnya, beta 0.21 maka ketika 0 hilang di persamaan, 1 brrti ada di persamaan
2. Ex. ukuran perusahaan berpengaruh signifikan berapa persen bakal keluar nilainya
3. INGAT fokus penelitian kita pemilihan faktor yg signifikan. Nanti nilainya bakal keluar
faktor2 apa aja yg signifikan
4. Kenapa variabel ini masuk ke model?
Krn secara teoretis penelitian terdahulu, faktor2 ini mempengaruhi

Analisis deskriptif

untuk menggambarkan variabel penelitian. Ini ngmgin per variabel dan tidak akan
disangkutpautkan ke variabel lain. Outputnya mean, min, maksimum, standar deviasi dari
setiap variabel. Misal nilai minimal variabel x1 adalah 4,21, itu perusahaan X yg punya, di tahun
Y

Pembaca akan tau trnyata penelitian ini tuh nilai minimum ukuran perusahan brp, profitabilitas
brp, jd ada gambaran penelitian itu sbsr apa.
Kenapa LOGIT?

Krn penelitian ini melihat faktor yang mempengaruhi pemilihan FV dan HC (variabel Y). Faktor
ini saya bentuk menjadi 6 hipotesis dan didlm hipotesis itu ada unsur signifikansi, saya ingin
melihat faktor2 ini berpengaruh signifikan atau tidak ke Y sebagai acuan pengambilan
kesimpulan dan pembahasan untuk penelitian ini.

Krn data yg dihasilkan dari tabulasi data untuk variabel Y berskala biner ( 1 dan 0) dan metode
yg tepat untuk mengukur fenomena ini adalah logit krn variabel dependennya biner.

Logit pake pengujian2 sebagai berikut (jgn terlalu dibreakdown!!)

1. Overall fit model

Semacam validitas variabel layak masuk model atau enggak, keseluruhan model yg
bagus gmn
2. Goodness of Fit
Ada 8 kriterianya kalo di run, per hipotesis ngujinya. Kayak Ho diterima dimana aja,
ada good bad
3. Uji parsial wald
4. Uji simultan
Ngomongin p value juga, sama kayak Overall Fit Model. Beda dengan fitmodel td, kt
liat signifikan atau ngak. Fit model td bs menjadi kriteria penentuan dia signifikan
atau tidak.
5. Cox and Snell RSquare
Melihat sbrp bsr kemampuan x menjabarkan y. Misal ngukur eksistensi unpad gmn?
Liat alumni atau sharing IG.
Nanti ada persentasinya misal 55%, brrti diluar 45% itu faktor lain
6. 2x2
Penarikan kesimpulan

Signifikansi sebuah keputusan peneliti untuk ngasi margin errornya berapa.

Dasar signifikansi persamaan regresi (mengacu ke persamaan regresi beta tadi)

H0 0 Nilainya negatif, artinya korelasi negatif. Ha > 0 hipotesis yg kt mau krn

nilainya positif menunjukkan korelasi positif atau signifikan (semakin x naik, pake y)

Negatif = tidak signifikan (akun) tp kalo secara statistik, blm tentu yg nurunin itu tidak
signifikan

Kriteria P value Commented [A3]: Beda pengujian beda kriteria

Probabilitas (P value) > 0,05 Ho diterima jd tidak signifikan

HARUS PAKE EVIEWS ga bs SPSS krn kalo di SPSS, ga bs data panel krn nanti per
tahunnya ditumpuk (2011-2015 ditumpuk)

IAS 41 amandemen
FV bearer plants dianggap menjadi deemed cost (biaya perolehan) at beg of earliest
period presented (1 jan 15). Dimulai 1 jan 2016 dimana perusahaan harus melakukan
restatement 1 jan 2015.
Depresiasi brdsrkan deemed cost
FV gains yg sudah diakui di masa lalu Deemed cost meningkat dan
mengakibatkan depresiasi meningkat
Restated P/L 2015 akan mengecualikan penyesuaian FV dimasa lalu, jd pt yg
ngakuin FV gains akan mengalami penurunan profit
Maturity
Kapitalisasi biaya berhenti saat BP mencapai maturity dan dilanjutkan dengan depresiasi

BP diimpair CA>RA(lebih tinggi mana antara FV-cost atau value in use). VIU juga butuh
judgement dlm ngitung cash inflow atau outflow