Many assets that a company has on their balance sheet is listed at historical costs, and this doesn't reflect the true market values of these assets (i.e. land, PPE, etc.). By re-valuing these assets to fair market value (what it would sell for today), this would have the effect of increasing the book value of the company. Therefore, this would raise the value of the company, since the book value is very correllated with the market cap of that company (i.e. share prices). Also, it's not illegal to value the assets to their true value as opposed to their historical value.
Another words, by being more honest and transparent, senior management
- who are typically compensated based on stock prices - can fatten their wallets by restating the values of all their assets. They would spend far less time doing this than doing alternatives such as: acquiring other companies, marketing blitz, laying off employees, raising prices (i.e. profits), etc.
IMO the market generally knows what a company's assets are worth. Fiddling with the books isn't likely to change much. If a company revalued their assets on the books that way, tthe stock would just sell at less of a multiple to book value.
One negative is that companies pay property taxes. Since these directly effect the bottom line, the name of the game is to avoid all that's legally possible.
Yes, it is illegal in audited financial statements (in the USA) to value fixed assets (land, property, equipment) at its market value, unless the market value if less than the book value. This is called the "lower of cost or market" valuation rule in accordance with GAAP rules.
Certain other kinds of assets, such as stocks and marketable securities can be valued at market value on audited financial statements.
Most stock analysts know what the market value of the assets for a company are, regardless of the book value. This is usually already reflected in the price of the stock.
Financial accounting reporting requires that fixed assets be valued at the lower of cost (less accumulated depreciation) or market. Cost (less accumulated depreciation) is known as book value.
To make things a bit more complicated, the tax depreciation rules (because they are determined by tax laws that are often times intended to provide certain incentives) may be different than the depreciation used for financial accounting depreciation calculations. Often times, an asset is depreciated faster for tax purposes than it is for financial accounting purposes.
Kindly point to the research showing a positive correlation between book value and stock prices. Actual book value is only meaningful if you plan to liquidate most or all of a company.
And then it is only relevant to figure out the gains and/or losses on the sale of the assets. As mentioned earlier, gains/losses have to calculated for financial reporting purposes and for tax purposes (which may not be same because of depreciation differences).
You did a very good job explaining to me what was going on. I totally forgot about the "Lower of Cost or Market" method of accounting.
You're totally correct about equity analysts making adjustments to the financial statements to adjust for the market value of PPE and other assets. This is reflected in the stock price, I'm sure. I personally think that it would be an outstanding accounting improvement for the voluntary disclosure of 'Market Value of PPE and other Assets.'
various asset values (from actual historical costs) means nothing, until the day they sell and the $$ is banked...only then, would or do you "book" the difference...and.....pay tax of the $$ difference....until the day they sell... value is just a "shot in the dark" guess.....
379 companies - you're joking, aren't you? And to top it off you picked the
379. Take 50 NYSE listed utilities and 50 NASDAQ NMS biotech and software companies and show the correlation between market cap and book value. If this method of investing works for you, then use it.
That's what makes this country great.....everyone's entitled to an opinion..... I think he and a couple others who have absolutely NO idea which end is up, think that if they have their computers figure some ratios out to 9 decimal places, it has some practical use..... When you see them quote a P/E ratio as 14.012473032, are you more impressed than someone saying the P/E is 14???? It's funny at first to watch their mental masturbation, but when others continue the thread, you wonder how people made money before computers.....
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.