K-IFRS에 따른 자산재평가 기업의 재평가 전 이익조정에 관한 연구 (A Study on Earnings Management Prior to Asset Revaluation by K-IFRS)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기업경영학회
· 수록지 정보 : 기업경영연구 / 19권 / 1호 / 107 ~ 122페이지
· 저자명 : 김문현

초록

본 연구에서는 자산재평가 전에 이익조정이 있었는지를 검증하고자 하였다. 재량적 유동발생액과 손실보고 여부를 이익조정의 측정치로 삼아 이를 재평가 전의 기간에 대해 재평가 기업과 비재평가 기업사이에 차이가 있는지를 비교하였다. 표본의 선정기간은 국제회계기준이 전면 시행되기 이전인 2008년 12월에 재평가가 허용된 이후 2009년～2010년이며, 유가증권시장에 소속된 12월 결산 제조기업으로 재평가를 실시한 기업 134개가 재평가 표본으로 선정되었다.
실증분석 결과는 다음과 같았다. 첫째, 재량적 유동발생액으로 측정한 이익조정이 재평가 기업과 비재평가 기업이 다르지 않아, 이익조정이 재평가와 관련성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 재평가 기업에서 오히려 재평가 이전 손실보고 비중이 낮았다. 셋째, 재평가 기업만을 대상으로 한 분석에서는 재평가 2기 전의 재량적 발생액의 크기가 클수록 재평가차액 비중이 컸으며, 재평가 후 손실보고와 재평가차액 비중은 음(-)의 관계를 보였다. 대체로 본 연구의 실증 결과에 따르면 재평가 여부와 재평가 이전의 재량적 발생액 또는 손실보고와 무관한데 이는 자산재평가 전에 이익조정이 있었음을 의미하지 않는다. 재평가차액이 자산에서 차지하는 비중은재량적 발생액과 관련되어 있는데 이는 규모효과로 보인다. 이러한 결과는 최초 재평가 시점에서 인식되는 재평가잉여금이 순이익을 구성하지 않고 자본으로 인식된 후 해당 유형자산의 사용이나 처분에 따라 이익으로 실현되는 회계처리의 영향으로 판단된다

영어초록

As K-GAAP adopted asset revaluation in 2008, many companies achieved the reduction effect of leverage ratio. For the purpose of improving financial structure. revaluation policy was adopted earlier than K-IFRS, which became obligatory in 2011. In total, 137 manufacturing firms announced the results of asset revaluation in 2009 and 2010. That is, among 770 manufacturing firms in Korean stock exchange market, about 17.7% companies carried out asset revaluation during this period. According to K-IFRS on asset revaluation, revaluation surplus is included in net asset. It is not certain, however, that revaluation has any effect on earnings now and in the future, because revaluation surplus is not recorded as components of net income. In addition, revaluation surplus is transferred to earning surplus only after the relevant assets are used or sold. Since revaluation surplus is deferred in this way, asset revaluation makes a difference in the reporting time of earnings.
The purpose of this study is to test the relation between asset revaluation and earnings management prior to revaluation. It investigates whether asset revaluation is used for earnings management or not. The suggested hypothesis is that there will be no significant relation between asset revaluation and earnings management prior to revaluation. In other words, asset revaluation won't make any difference on the behavior of earnings management. To test the hypothesis, the behaviors of two groups, asset revaluation firms and non-revaluation firms, on earnings management, were compared. If the behaviors of two groups are not significantly different, it implies that there is no relation between asset revaluation and earnings management. For this purpose, this paper used discretionary current accounting accruals as a measure of earnings management. According to Dechow and Dichev (2002)ʼs current accounting accruals model, discretionary current accounting accruals was calculated by the degree of current accounting accruals not being realized into operating cash-flows, Then, discretionary current accounting accruals a year before revaluation. were compared between asset revaluation firms and non-revaluation firms. Discretionary current accounting accruals are considered to be decided by the CEOʼs discretion. In addition, loss reporting was compared between these two groups of firms. If firms are reluctant to report loss in general,loss reporting ratio will be significantly different between two groups.
Test period is from 2009 to 2010. Revaluation samples are 134 firms, which were selected from public manufacturing firms. Asset revaluation firms must disclose revaluation-related information in-cluding revaluation date, objects, revaluation surplus, etc. Land, buildings, machinery was on the list of revaluation assets, of which land accounts for 91.3% (121 cases out of 134). Large portion of land is due to the fact that revaluation surplus effect of land is powerful than that of others, having a stronger impact on financial status. On the other hand, there were 23 cases of machinery, 20 cases of buildings, and 23 cases combined on the list of revaluation. The empirical results are as follows. First, there was no difference in discretionary current accruals for revaluation firms and non-revaluation firms. Earnings management measured by discretionary current accruals is not significantly different between two groups of firms, which means there was no earnings management prior to revaluation. Second, the ratio of loss reporting was higher in revaluation firms than in non-revaluation firms. It implies that loss-reporting firms are less likely to carry out revaluation. Thus, it is considered that not reporting loss is not the motivation of earnings management related to revaluation. Third, the analysis of revaluation firms shows that the larger discretionary current accruals are, the higher revaluation surplus ratio is, two years before revaluation. Revaluation surplus ratio was calculated by revaluation surplus divided by total asset. The results are considered to represent the size effect. Fourth, there was a negative relation between revaluation surplus ratio and loss ratio of non-revaluation firms. It represents that there is no relation between loss reporting and revaluation. The empirical results imply that there is no relation between asset revaluation and earnings management or loss reporting before revaluation. The firms which tend to manage earnings are not likely to try asset revaluation. As revaluation surplus is included in net asset, asset revaluation will not be used as a means of earnings management.
Since this study investigated the first revaluation effect after adopting revaluation policy as K-IFRS, all sample firms reported revaluation surplus. If firms report revaluation loss afterwards, the results might be different. Revaluation loss is included as components of net income unlike revaluation surplus. If the similar examination is carried out on KOSDAK market, the results might be different as well. Further study on market reaction on revaluation will be required.

참고자료

· 없음