An available-for-sale security (AFS) is a debt or equity security purchased with the intent of selling before it reaches maturity or holding it for a long period should it not have a maturity date. Accounting standards necessitate that companies classify any investments in debt or equity securities when they are purchased as held-to-maturity, held-for-trading, or available-for-sale. Available-for-sale securities are reported at fair value; changes in value between accounting periods are included in accumulated other comprehensive income in the equity section of the balance sheet.
Key Takeaways
Available-for-sale securities (AFS) are debt or equity securities purchased with the intent of selling before they reach maturity.
Available-for-sale securities are reported at fair value.
Unrealized gains and losses are included in accumulated other comprehensive income within the equity section of the balance sheet.
Investments in debt or equity securities purchased must be classified as held to maturity, held for trading, or available for sale.
Available-for-Sale Security
How an Available-for-Sale Security Works
Available-for-sale (AFS) is an accounting term used to describe and classify financial assets. It is a debt or equity security not classified as a held-for-trading or held-to-maturity security—the two other kinds of financial assets. AFS securities are nonstrategic and can usually have a ready market price available.
The gains and losses derived from an AFS security are not reflected in net income (unlike those from trading investments), but show up in the other comprehensive income (OCI) classification until they are sold. Net income is reported on the income statement. Therefore, unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities are not reflected on the income statement.
Net income is accumulated over multiple accounting periods into retained earnings on the balance sheet. In contrast, OCI, which includes unrealized gains and losses from AFS securities, is rolled into “accumulated other comprehensive income” on the balance sheet at the end of the accounting period. Accumulated other comprehensive income is reported just below retained earnings in the equity section of the balance sheet.
Important
Unrealized gains and losses for available-for-sale securities are included on the balance sheet under accumulated other comprehensive income.
Available-for-Sale vs. Held-for-Trading vs. Held-to-Maturity Securities
As mentioned above, there are three classifications of securities—available-for-sale, held-for-trading, and held-to-maturity securities. Held-for-trading securities are purchased and held primarily for sale in the short term. The purpose is to make a profit from the quick trade rather than the long-term investment. On the other end of the spectrum are held-to-maturity securities. These are debt instruments or equities that a firm plans on holding until its maturity date. An example would be a certificate of deposit (CD) with a set maturity date. Available for sale, or AFS, is the catch-all category that falls in the middle. It is inclusive of securities, both debt and equity, that the company plans on holding for a while but could also be sold.
From an accounting perspective, each of these categories is treated differently and affects whether gains or losses appear on the balance sheet or income statement. The accounting for AFS securities is similar to the accounting for trading securities. Due to the short-term nature of the investments, they are recorded at fair value. However, for trading securities, the unrealized gains or losses to the fair market value are recorded in operating income and appear on the income statement.
Changes in the value of available-for-sale securities are recorded as an unrealized gain or loss in other comprehensive income (OCI). Some companies include OCI information below the income statement, while others provide a separate schedule detailing what is included in total comprehensive income.
Recording an Available-for-Sale Security
If a company purchases available-for-sale securities with cash for $100,000, it records a credit to cash and a debit to available-for-sale securities for $100,000. If the value of the securities declines to $50,000 by the next reporting period, the investment must be “written down” to reflect the change in the fair market value of the security. This decrease in value is recorded as a credit of $50,000 to the available-for-sale security and a debit to other comprehensive income.
Likewise, if the investment goes up in value the next month, it is recorded as an increase in other comprehensive income. The security does not need to be sold for the change in value to be recognized in OCI. It is for this reason these gains and losses are considered “unrealized” until the securities are sold.
The term “at par” means at face value. A bond, preferred stock, or other debt instrument may trade at par, below par, or above par.
Par value is static, unlike market value, which fluctuates with credit ratings, time to maturity, and interest rate fluctuations. The par value is assigned at the time the security is issued. When securities were issued in paper form, the par value was printed on the face of the security, hence the term “face value.”
Key Takeaways
Par value is the price at which a bond was issued, also known as its face value.
A bond’s price will then fluctuate based on prevailing interest rates, time to maturity, and credit ratings, causing the bond to trade either at above par or below par.
“At par” will always refer to the original price that a bond was issued at.
The owner of a bond will receive its par value at its maturity date.
Understanding at Par
Due to the constant fluctuations of interest rates, bonds and other financial instruments almost never trade exactly at par. A bond will not trade at par if current interest rates are above or below the bond’s coupon rate, which is the interest rate that it yields.
A bond that was trading at par would be quoted at 100, meaning that it traded at 100% of its par value. A quote of 99 would mean that it is trading at 99% of its face value.
Par value for common stock exists in an anachronistic form. In its charter, the company promises not to sell its stock at lower than par value. The shares are then issued with a par value of one penny. This has no effect on the stock’s actual value in the markets.
A New Bond
If, when a company issues a new bond, it receives the face value of the security, the bond is said to have been issued at par. If the issuer receives less than the face value for the security, it is issued at a discount. If the issuer receives more than the face value for the security, it is issued at a premium.
The yield for bonds and the dividend rate for preferred stocks have a material effect on whether new issues of these securities are issued at par, at a discount, or at a premium.
A bond that trades at par has a yield equal to its coupon. Investors expect a return equal to the coupon for the risk of lending to the bond issuer.
Example of at Par
If a company issues a bond with a 5% coupon, but prevailing yields for similar bonds are 10%, investors will pay less than par for the bond to compensate for the difference in rates. The bond’s value at its maturity plus its yield up to that time must be at least 10% to attract a buyer.
If prevailing yields are lower, say 3%, an investor is willing to pay more than par for that 5% bond. The investor will receive the coupon but have to pay more for it due to the lower prevailing yields.
What Is a Bond’s Par Value?
A bond’s par value is its face value, the price that it was issued at. Most bonds are issued with a par value of $1,000 or $100. Over time, the bond’s price will change, due to changes in interest rates, credit ratings, and time to maturity. When this happens, a bond’s price will either be above its par value (above par) or below its par value (below par).
Are Bonds Always Issued at Par Value?
No, bonds are not always issued at par value. They can be issued at a premium (price is higher than the par value) or at a discount (price is below the par value). The reason for a bond being issued at a price that is different than its par value has to do with current market interest rates. For example, if a bond’s yield is higher than market rates, then a bond will trade at a premium. Conversely, if a bond’s yield is below market rates, then it will trade at a discount to make it more attractive.
What Is a Bond’s Coupon Rate?
The coupon rate of a bond is the stated amount of interest that the bond will pay an investor at the time of its issue. A bond’s coupon rate is different from a bond’s yield. A bond’s yield is its effective rate of return when the bond’s price changes. A bond’s yield is calculated as coupon rate / current bond price.
The Asian financial crisis, also called the “Asian Contagion,” was a sequence of currency devaluations and other events that began in July 1997 and spread across Asia. The crisis started in Thailand when the government ended the local currency’s de facto peg to the U.S. dollar after depleting much of the country’s foreign exchange reserves trying to defend it against months of speculative pressure.
Just weeks after Thailand stopped defending its currency, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia were also compelled to let their currencies fall as speculative market pressure built. By October, the crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the government to the brink of default.
Other economies also came under pressure, but those with solid economic fundamentals and hefty foreign exchange reserves fared much better. Hong Kong fended off several major but unsuccessful speculative attacks on its currency, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar via a currency board system and backed by massive U.S. dollar reserves.
Key Takeaways
The Asian financial crisis started in July 1997, when Thailand stopped defending the baht after months of downward market pressure, causing the currency to fall quickly.
The contagion spread quickly, with currencies across the region falling—some quite catastrophically.
The crisis was rooted in economic growth policies that encouraged investment but also created high levels of debt (and risk) to finance it.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailed out many countries but imposed strict spending restrictions in exchange for the help.
Affected countries have since put in place mechanisms to avoid creating the same scenario in the future.
Impact of the Asian Financial Crisis
As the Thai baht fell, other Asian currencies fell—some precipitously. Across Asia, inflows of capital slowed or reversed.
The Thai baht had been trading at about 26 to the U.S. dollar before the crisis but lost half its value by the end of 1997, falling to 53 to the dollar by January 1998. The South Korean won fell from about 900 to the dollar to 1,695 by the end of 1997. The Indonesian rupiah, which had been trading at around 2,400 to the dollar in June 1997, plummeted to 14,900 by June 1998, less than one-sixth its precrisis level.
Some of the more heavily affected countries fell into severe recession. Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell from 4.7% in 1997 to -13.1% in 1998. In the Philippines, it slid from 5.2% to -0.5% over the same period. Malaysia’s GDP growth similarly slid from 7.3% in 1997 to -7.4% in 1998, while South Korea’s contracted from 6.2% to -5.1%.
In Indonesia, the ensuing economic crisis led to the collapse of the three-decade-old dictatorship of President Suharto.
The crisis was alleviated by intervention from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank, among others, which poured some $118 billion into Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea to bail out their economies.
As a result of the the crisis, affected countries restructured their economies, generally because the IMF required reform as a condition of help. The specific policy changes were different in each country but generally involved strengthening weak financial systems, lowering debt levels, raising interest rates to stabilize currencies, and cutting government spending.
The crisis also serves as a valuable case study for economists to understand how interwoven markets affect one another, especially as it relates to currency trading and national accounts management.
Causes of the Asian Financial Crisis
The crisis was rooted in several threads of industrial, financial, and monetary government policies and the investment trends that they created. Once the crisis began, markets reacted strongly, and one currency after another came under pressure. Some of the macroeconomic problems included current account deficits, high levels of foreign debt, climbing budget deficits, excessive bank lending, poor debt-service ratios, and imbalanced capital inflows and outflows.
Many of these problems were the result of policies to promote export-led economic growth in the years leading up to the crisis. Governments worked closely with manufacturers to support exports, including providing subsidies to favored businesses, more favorable financing, and a currency peg to the U.S. dollar to ensure an exchange rate favorable to exporters.
While this did support exports, it also created risk. Explicit and implicit government guarantees to bail out domestic industries and banks meant investors often did not assess the profitability of an investment but instead looked to its political support. Investment policies also created cozy relationships among local conglomerates, financial institutions, and the regulators who oversaw their industries. Large volumes of foreign money flowed in, often with little attention to potential risks. These factors all contributed to a massive moral hazard in Asian economies, encouraging major investment in marginal and potentially unsound projects.
As the crisis spread, it became clear that the impressive economic growth rates in these countries were concealing serious vulnerabilities. In particular, domestic credit had expanded rapidly for years, often poorly supervised, creating significant leverage along with loans extended to dubious projects. Rapidly rising real estate values (often fueled by easy access to credit) contributed to the problem, along with rising current account deficits and a buildup in external debt. Heavy foreign borrowing, often at short maturities, also exposed corporations and banks to significant exchange rate and funding risks—risks that had been masked by long-standing currency pegs. When the pegs fell apart, companies that owed money in foreign currencies suddenly owed a lot more in local currency terms, forcing many into insolvency.
Many Asian economies had also slid into current account deficits. If a country has a current account surplus, that means it is essentially a net lender to the rest of the world. If the current account balance is negative, then the country is a net borrower from the rest of the world. Current account deficits had grown on the back of heavy government spending (much of it directed to supporting continued export growth).
Response to the Asian Financial Crisis
The IMF intervened to stem the crisis with loans to stabilize the affected economies. The IMF and others lent roughly $118 billion in short-term loans to Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea. The bailouts came with conditions, though: Governments had to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate many subsidies. By 1999, many of the affected countries began to show signs of recovery.
Other financial institutions also intervened. For example, in December 1997, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank brokered a deal under which U.S. banks owed money by South Korean companies on short-term loans voluntarily agreed to roll them over into medium-term loans.
Lessons from the Asian Financial Crisis
Many of the lessons of the Asian financial crisis remain relevant today. First, beware of asset bubbles, as they have a habit of bursting. Another is that governments need to control spending and pursue prudent economic development policies.
How do government spending and monetary policy affect a currency’s value?
When governments spend, implement policies that keep taxes low, subsidize the price of staple goods, or use other methods that effectively put more money in people’s pockets, consumers have more money to spend. As most economies rely at least partly on imports for many goods and services, this increased spending creates demand for foreign currency (usually U.S. dollars), as importers have to sell local currency and buy foreign currency to pay for imports.
Demand for foreign currency (and selling of local currency to buy it) increases exponentially when those policies also promote heavy investment in infrastructure, new businesses, and other economic projects. As more local currency is offered for sale on foreign exchange markets, its value goes down, unless there is a corresponding demand to buy it (say, by exporters selling foreign currency that they earn from exports).
Why do governments keep exchange rates high?
Governments, especially in developing economies, seek to manage exchange rates to balance their ability to pay debts denominated in foreign currencies. Because investors generally prefer instruments denominated in more stable currencies, governments in developing economies often raise funds by issuing bonds denominated in U.S. dollars, Japanese yen, or euros.
However, if the value of the domestic currency falls vs. the currency in which its debt is denominated, that effectively increases the debt, as more local currency is needed to pay it. So, when the Thai baht lost half of its value in 1997, that meant local borrowers needed twice as many baht to pay debts denominated in U.S. dollars. As many developing countries also rely on imports, a higher-valued local currency also makes those imports cheaper in local currency terms.
Why do governments keep exchange rates low?
Conversely, governments may seek to keep their exchange rates low to increase the competitiveness of exports.
In the 1980s, following years of complaints from U.S. companies about competition from cheap Japanese imports, the U.S. government convinced Japan to allow its currency to appreciate as part of the Plaza Accord. The currency’s value climbed from 250 yen to one U.S. dollar in early 1985 to less than 130 yen by 1990. The U.S. trade deficit with Japan fell from $55 billion in 1986 to $41 billion in 1990.
The Bottom Line
In 1997, decades of economic policy planning that featured close relationships among government policy planners, regulators, the industries they regulated, and financial institutions came to a head when markets began putting downward pressure on Asian currencies. The most vulnerable were those countries with high levels of debt and insufficient financing to pay it.
The IMF stepped in to bail out the most affected economies, but it imposed strict conditions in exchange for the help. Some measures included requiring governments to cut spending, raise taxes, eliminate subsidies, and restructure their financial systems.
The crisis also serves as a case study in asset bubbles and how quickly panic selling can trigger contagion that central bankers cannot control.
Accounting principles are the rules and guidelines that companies and other bodies must follow when reporting financial data. These rules make it easier to examine financial data by standardizing the terms and methods that accountants must use.
The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is the most widely used set of accounting principles, with adoption in 167 jurisdictions. The United States uses a separate set of accounting principles, known as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Key Takeaways
Accounting standards are implemented to improve the quality of financial information reported by companies.
In the United States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issues generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
GAAP is required for all publicly traded companies in the U.S.; it is also routinely implemented by non-publicly traded companies as well.
Internationally, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issues International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The FASB and the IASB sometimes work together to issue joint standards on hot-topic issues, but there is no intention for the U.S. to switch to IFRS in the foreseeable future.
The Purpose of Accounting Principles
The ultimate goal of any set of accounting principles is to ensure that a company’s financial statements are complete, consistent, and comparable.
This makes it easier for investors to analyze and extract useful information from the company’s financial statements, including trend data over a period of time. It also facilitates the comparison of financial information across different companies. Accounting principles also help mitigate accounting fraud by increasing transparency and allowing red flags to be identified.
The ultimate goal of standardized accounting principles is to allow financial statement users to view a company’s financials with certainty that the information disclosed in the report is complete, consistent, and comparable.
Comparability
Comparability is the ability for financial statement users to review multiple companies’ financials side by side with the guarantee that accounting principles have been followed to the same set of standards.
Accounting information is not absolute or concrete, and standards are developed to minimize the negative effects of inconsistent data. Without these rules, comparing financial statements among companies would be extremely difficult, even within the same industry. Inconsistencies and errors also would be harder to spot.
What Are the Basic Accounting Principles?
Some of the most fundamental accounting principles include the following:
Accrual principle
Conservatism principle
Consistency principle
Cost principle
Economic entity principle
Full disclosure principle
Going concern principle
Matching principle
Materiality principle
Monetary unit principle
Reliability principle
Revenue recognition principle
Time period principle
The most notable principles include the revenue recognition principle, matching principle, materiality principle, and consistency principle. Completeness is ensured by the materiality principle, as all material transactions should be accounted for in the financial statements. Consistency refers to a company’s use of accounting principles over time.
When accounting principles allow a choice among multiple methods, a company should apply the same accounting method over time or disclose its change in accounting method in the footnotes to the financial statements.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are uniform accounting principles for private companies and nonprofits in the U.S. These principles are largely set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), an independent nonprofit organization whose members are chosen by the Financial Accounting Foundation.
A similar organization, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), is responsible for setting the GAAP standards for local and state governments. And a third body, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), publishes the accounting principles for federal agencies.
Although privately held companies are not required to abide by GAAP, publicly traded companies must file GAAP-compliant financial statements to be listed on a stock exchange. Chief officers of publicly traded companies and their independent auditors must certify that the financial statements and related notes were prepared in accordance with GAAP.
Privately held companies and nonprofit organizations also may be required by lenders or investors to file GAAP-compliant financial statements. For example, annual audited GAAP financial statements are a common loan covenant required by most banking institutions. Therefore, most companies and organizations in the U.S. comply with GAAP, even though it is not a legal requirement.
Accounting principles differ around the world, meaning that it’s not always easy to compare the financial statements of companies from different countries.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issues International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These standards are used in more than 120 countries, including those in the European Union (EU).
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting investors and maintaining order in the securities markets, has expressed interest in transitioning to IFRS. However, because of the differences between the two standards, the U.S. is unlikely to switch in the foreseeable future.
However, the FASB and the IASB continue to work together to issue similar regulations on certain topics as accounting issues arise. For example, in 2014, the FASB and the IASB jointly announced new revenue recognition standards.
Since accounting principles differ around the world, investors should take caution when comparing the financial statements of companies from different countries. The issue of differing accounting principles is less of a concern in more mature markets. Still, caution should be used, as there is still leeway for number distortion under many sets of accounting principles.
Who sets accounting principles and standards?
Various bodies are responsible for setting accounting standards. In the United States, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are regulated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). In Europe and elsewhere, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are established by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).
How does IFRS differ from GAAP?
IFRS is a standards-based approach that is used internationally, while GAAP is a rules-based system used primarily in the U.S. IFRS is seen as a more dynamic platform that is regularly being revised in response to an ever-changing financial environment, while GAAP is more static.
Several methodological differences exist between the two systems. For instance, GAAP allows companies to use either first in, first out (FIFO) or last in, first out (LIFO) as an inventory cost method. LIFO, however, is banned under IFRS.
When were accounting principles first set forth?
Standardized accounting principles date all the way back to the advent of double-entry bookkeeping in the 15th and 16th centuries, which introduced a T-ledger with matched entries for assets and liabilities. Some scholars have argued that the advent of double-entry accounting practices during that time provided a springboard for the rise of commerce and capitalism. What would become the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) attempted to launch the first accounting standards to be used by firms in the United States in the 1930s.
What are some critiques of accounting principles?
Critics of principles-based accounting systems say they can give companies far too much freedom and do not prescribe transparency. They believe because companies do not have to follow specific rules that have been set out, their reporting may provide an inaccurate picture of their financial health. In the case of rules-based methods like GAAP, complex rules can cause unnecessary complications in the preparation of financial statements. These critics claim having strict rules means that companies must spend an unfair amount of their resources to comply with industry standards.
The Bottom Line
Accounting principles are rules and guidelines that companies must abide by when reporting financial data. Whether it’s GAAP in the U.S. or IFRS elsewhere, the overarching goal of these principles is to boost transparency and basically make it easier for investors to compare the financial statements of different companies.
Without these rules and standards, publicly traded companies would likely present their financial information in a way that inflates their numbers and makes their trading performance look better than it actually was. If companies were able to pick and choose what information to disclose and how, it would be a nightmare for investors.
