| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 會計學系 === 106 === This paper analyzes the valuation relevance of the accounting treatment for the defined benefit plan after the revision of IAS19 “Employee Benefits” in 2013. Besides, we also focus on the components of the defined benefit costs included in the comprehensive income statement, and examine whether these components have valuation relevance. Our empirical model is based on the Ohlson (1995) valuation model. We use data from Taiwan's non-financial listed company with defined benefit plan disclosed from 2014 to 2016. The empirical results indicate that investors would regard net defined benefit liability (assets) as the company's liability (assets), thus give a negative evaluation response. Furthermore, the defined benefit cost recognized in the income statement have positive relation with evaluation response. However, the coefficient of the remeasurement of net defined liability (assets) is insignificant.
After separating the components of the defined benefit costs included in the comprehensive income statement, the investor's valuation factor for defined benefit costs after deducting the past service cost and the gain or loss from settlements is significant and positive. However, the past service cost and the gain or loss from settlements are not valuation relevant. Moreover, we do not find significant evaluation difference for defined benefit costs with or without past service cost and the gain or loss from settlements. Furthermore, investors do not give an valuation response to the actuarial remeasurement gain or loss, while investors give a significant and positive valuation response to the remeasurement of the return on plan assets. Nevertheless, the difference between actuarial remeasurement gain or loss and the remeasurement of return on plan assets are significantly different.
Keywords: Pension accounting, Defined Benefit Plan, Value Relevance, IAS 19
|
|---|
