A Critique of the Concept of Measurement in Financial Accounting

C. Richard Baker
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York 11530
Telephone: 516-877-4628
E-mail: Baker3@Adelphi.edu

A Critique of the Concept of Measurement in Financial Accounting

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of measurement in financial accounting,
starting with an examination of the approach to measurement taken by the International
Accounting Standards Board (IASB), followed by a summary of the general theory of
measurement employed in the natural sciences, and finally a review of the arguments raised by
various accounting theorists including Edwards and Bell, Chambers and Sterling. While agreeing
generally with Sterlings argument that enterprise income should be measured by the difference
between owners equity (i.e. assets minus liabilities) at two points in time adjusted for
investments and disinvestments, and also his argument that the difference in owners equity
should be determined by the market (i.e. exit) prices of the net assets of the entity at the
beginning and the end of the accounting period, the conclusion that the determination of exit
prices is a measurement process is unfounded. This leads to the primary argument of this
paper, which is that financial accounting measurement is not measurement.

A Critique of the Concept of Measurement in Financial Accounting

1. Introduction
Measurement is one of the most important issues in financial accounting; however, it is also one
of the least developed areas of all accounting theory in terms of the degree of guidance provided
to preparers and users of financial statements. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5
(CON 5) of the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board entitled, Recognition and
Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises (FASB, 1984) provides a list of
measurement bases that might be used under different circumstances to measure financial
statement elements. Similarly, the conceptual framework of the International Accounting
Standards Board lists examples of measurement bases that standard setters might consider
(IASB, 2007b). However, neither of these frameworks provides an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of different measurement bases, nor do they offer guidance regarding choices among
them. Consequently, there is a diversity of measurement practices in financial accounting (e.g.
current market value for marketable securities; lower of cost or market for inventory stocks;
amortized historical cost for fixed assets).

The argument of this paper is that the use of the word measurement is a misnomer with
respect to financial accounting, and that financial accounting measurement ought to be
described as simply a calculative practice in which certain numbers are associated with elements
in financial statements, leading to an aggregation of such numbers, resulting in summations
which are difficult to interpret. This is not a new topic; various scholars have previously
addressed the issue of measurement in financial accounting (see for example: Hicks, 1946;
Boulding, 1955; Haig, 1959; Gordon, 1960; Edwards and Bell, 1961; Chambers, 1966; Ijiri,

1967; Sterling, 1970). It is also recognized that the IASB and the FASB have expended
significant amounts of time and effort directed towards the improvement of measurement
practices in financial reporting. It must be recognized, however, that these efforts will not
produce numbers that are measurements; rather, financial accounting ought not to be called a
process of measurement, but recognized for what it is, a calculative practice with social
implications.

The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 presents a summary of the
approaches to measurement contained in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2, and the FASB/IASB
joint Conceptual Framework project. Section 3 summarizes the principles of measurement theory
as they pertain to measurement in financial accounting. Section 4 discusses the arguments of
Robert Sterling in his book Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income and uses these
arguments to critique current measurement practices in financial accounting. While agreeing
with Sterlings premise that enterprise income should be measured by the difference between
owners equity (i.e. assets minus liabilities) at two points in time adjusted for investment and
disinvestment, and also his argument that the difference in owners equity should be determined
by calculating the current exit prices of the net assets at the beginning and the end of the period,
we disagree that the process of determining current exit prices is a measurement process.
2. Measurement in Financial Accounting
2.1 Measurement in the FASB Conceptual Framework
The use of the word measurement in financial accounting is commonplace1. The fundamental
premise of FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5 (CON 5), Recognition and

A search of the FASB website at:

http://www.fasb.org/SearchEngine/search.php?zoom_query=measurement&x=11&y=8, using the word

Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises (FASB, 1984) is that the issuance
of financial statements is central to financial reporting, and that the recognition and measurement
criteria for inclusion of elements (e.g. assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenses) in
financial statements is essential to the financial reporting process. Consequently, the concept of
measurement in financial reporting is directly connected with the idea of recognition in financial
statements. CON 5 sets forth recognition criteria and guidance about what information should be
incorporated into financial statements and when (p. 1).

CON 5 defines recognition as a process of formally incorporating an item into financial

statements (p. 1). Since a recognized item is depicted in both words and numbers, the recognition
process has the appearance of producing a measurement (p. 1).

Recognition in financial

statements allows the aggregation of numerical amounts, resulting in totals which may be
interpreted in various ways by financial statement users. While emphasizing the importance of
financial statements in the financial reporting process, CON 5 acknowledged that financial
statements involve simplified, condensed, and aggregated data (p. 1). It warns against undue
reliance on aggregate measures like earnings (p. 1). Moreover, while a statement of financial
position provides information about an entitys assets, liabilities, and equity, such statements do
not purport to measure the value of a business enterprise (p. 2). CON 5 states that: valuations
belong to the realm of financial analysis, not financial reporting (p. 2). In the same way,
statements of earnings and comprehensive income reflect the ways in which the equity of an
entity increased or decreased from sources other than transactions with owners during a period.

measurement produced 1605 citations to authoritative accounting literature. The word measurement appears 60
times in FASB Concepts Statement No. 5 alone.

Such statements do not purport to represent the increase in value of the enterprise during a
particular period (p. 2).

CON 5 acknowledges that the items currently recognized in financial statements may be
measured according to different calculative practices which seek to represent a certain attribute
of the item being measured (e.g. historical cost, current replacement cost, current market value,
net realizable value, or the present value of future cash flows)(p. 3). Thus, it is questionable
whether any meaningful measurement results from aggregating numbers produced through
different calculative practices. CON 5 also acknowledged that the measurement scale is a
nominal monetary unit unadjusted for changes in purchasing power (p. 3), thereby producing
aggregated numbers from different time periods representing different values which are difficult
or impossible to interpret. Finally, subjective judgments about the outcomes of uncompleted
transactions lead to the recognition of revenues which may not be realized, thereby questioning
both the relevance and the reliability of the measured numbers. In sum, while current accounting
practice conveys the impression of precision, it is questionable whether financial accounting
practice constitutes a measurement process at all as that term is commonly understood in the
sciences.

2.2. Measurement in the FASB/IASB Joint Conceptual Framework Project

In 2004, the FASB and IASB initiated a joint project to revise their existing conceptual
frameworks. The goal of this project was to create a new conceptual framework which both
Boards would use to develop and revise their accounting standards. The Boards have been
conducting the project in eight phases (A to H). Phase C deals with measurement (FASB
2007b). The previous conceptual frameworks did not provide an analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of measurement bases, nor did they offer guidance concerning preferable choices
among bases. Hence, the overall objective of Phase C has been to provide improved guidance
regarding measurement in financial reporting (FASB, 2007b). While, the Boards began their
deliberations with a discussion of measurement concepts, principles, and terms (FASB, 2008),
there is no public record concerning whether the boards considered whether measurement in
financial accounting is actually a measurement process.

Two problems have arisen on a regular basis when discussing measurement. The first
problem is a language problem. More than one definition can apply when a particular item is
measured (e.g. replacement cost can mean an occurrence where an asset is replaced with an
identical asset, or with a similar but not identical asset, or with a technologically improved asset).
In addition, more than one term can refer to several different measurement bases, none of which
is clearly defined (e.g. the fair value of an asset can be measured by current exit price, current
entry price or the discounted present value of future cash flows). To help resolve these problems,
a specific set of definitions has been developed by the FASB and IASB as indicated in Table 1
(FASB, 2007b).

***Insert Table 1 here***

The second problem relates to the way that different measurements are used. A particular
accounting standard may specify how an item ought to be measured in financial statements, but
this can differ from one standard to another. Moreover, some standards combine measurement
bases (e.g. the lower-of-cost-or-market rule). Phase C of the Conceptual Framework Project has
been intended to resolve these problems (FASB, 2007b, p. 5)

Table 1 provides two definitions for each measurement basisone from the perspective of
an asset and one from the perspective of a liability. It also provides examples. Unfortunately, the
definitions do not address the way the items ought to be measured. For example, the current
entry price of an asset is defined as the price that an entity would pay to purchase an asset. This
price depends on the transaction. If an entity acquires a new asset, the current entry price might
be measured by the actual price for the asset. If the entity already owns the asset, the entry price
might be measured by the price that would be paid to acquire an identical or similar asset (FASB,
2007b, p. 6 and Appendix C). Clearly these are not the same.

Most of the proposed measurement bases are either prices or values. In addition, each basis
provides information about a past, present, or future event. Of the nine bases, seven are prices
(past entry price, past exit price, current entry price, current exit price, current equilibrium price,
future entry price, and future exit price), one is a value (value in use), and one is neither a price
nor a value (modified past amount). Both prices and values are assessments of economic utility.
However, values are specific to an entity, whereas prices are determined by markets. There is no
indication whether a price or a value is preferable as a measurement basis.. While, the FASB and
IASB have been attempting to develop a logically consistent approach to measurement, they
have not concluded whether accounting measurement is actually a measurement process. The
following section discusses this issue.

3. Is Financial Accounting Measurement a Measurement Process?

In a general sense, measurement can be defined as a process which associates numbers with
certain attributes of objects or phenomenon (Suppes, 1959). Many different attributes can be

measured, including physical quantities, time duration, or economic values (Churchman and
Ratoosh, 1959). In the classical definition, measurement involves the estimation of ratios of
quantities. In that sense, quantity and measurement are mutually defined. Quantitative attributes
are those that can be measured; if something cannot be measured, it is not quantitative; and if it
is not quantitative it is not measurement (Nagel, 1961).

The theory of measurement focuses on three basic issues: representation (the degree to
which the measured attribute provides an accurate representation of the physical reality of the
object in question); uniqueness (the degree to which the representation is the only
representation possible for the object in question); and error (the deviation between
measurements of the same attribute at several points in time) (Roberts, 1979). In the
representational approach to measurement there must be a correspondence between numbers and
objects that are not numbers. In the strictest sense, a representational theory of measurement
rests on a relationship between an attribute and the real number system. A true measurement
requires a close correspondence between the measured attribute and the system of real numbers
(Churchman, 1949). For example, the assignment of numbers to members of a sports team does
not constitute measurement because there is no correspondence between the assigned numbers
and the real number system (i.e. the team member who wears number 20 is not twice as much of
anything as the team member who wears number 10)(Campbell, 1928).

An axiomatic approach to measurement develops a series of axioms in order to determine

the necessary conditions for measurement. Among the axioms are: axioms of order; axioms of
extension; axioms of difference; axioms of conjointness; and axioms of geometry. Axioms of
order require that the order imposed on objects through the assignment of numbers to be

consistent with the empirically observed ordering. Axioms of extension deal with the
measurement of attributes like time, length, and mass, which are capable of being combined
(concatenated). Axioms of difference govern the intervals between points in the measurement
scale which are must be equal. Axioms of conjointness assume that attributes which cannot be
readily measured (for example: astronomical distances) can be measured by observing the way
their dimensions change in relation to each other. Axioms of geometry govern the representation
of complex attributes through geometric principles (Nagel, 1961; Roberts, 1979).

Measurement in financial accounting satisfies the extension and conjointness

assumptions in certain cases (i.e. $20 of cash is twice as much as $10 of cash), but in other cases
it does not (i.e. $20 of cash reported in 2008 does not equal twice as much cash as $10 of cash
reported in 2007 due to the instability of the monetary unit scale). Moreover, $20 of cash may
consist of $10 of cash in an American bank and the exchange equivalent of $10 of cash in a
French bank. Thus, the extension and conjointness assumptions are not satisfied in financial
reporting. In addition, even though measurement in financial accounting is said to possess
representational faithfulness, this claim is questionable because there is often little
representational faithfulness between the measured attribute and the economic reality of the
object in question (e.g. amortized historical cost does not represent the market value of an asset).
It is also clear that measurement in financial accounting does not satisfy the uniqueness criterion
because different measurement bases are used and combined in practice. Finally, measurement in
financial accounting does not address the problem of error, except on an ex post basis (i.e. errors
are corrected if they are discovered). Thus, from the perspective of measurement theory,
measurement in financial accounting does not constitute a measurement process. That being

10

said, what is the nature of so-called measurement in financial reporting, and even by its own
standards, is it a measurement process.
4. Sterlings Concept of Measurement
In Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income, Robert Sterling (1970) developed an
axiomatic approach to measurement in financial reporting. The starting point for Sterlings
approach to income measurement was Hicksian income, whereby income is defined as the
maximum amount that can be consumed during a period while leaving the entity as well off at
the end of the period as at the beginning (Hicks, 1946, p. 172). Consequently, the definition of
enterprise income can be stated as follows:
Ai Li = Pi
Pi+1 - Pi = Y
where A stands for assets, L stands for liabilities, P stands for owners equity and Y stands for
enterprise income, assuming that there has been no investment or disinvestment (Sterling, 1970,
p. 11). While there is virtual unanimity regarding this definition of income, there is a great deal
of disagreement regarding the application of this definition in practice. The disagreement centers
around the phrase as well off as.
Sterling indicated that there have been four different approaches to measuring the
welloffness (hereafter: net worth or wealth): (1) the Fisher Tradition, (2) the Accounting
Tradition, (3) Present Market, and (4) Bouldings Constant (p. 12). In the Fisher Tradition,
expectations about the future are assumed to be the basis for measuring income, hence, the
discounted present value of future cash flows is considered to be the correct way to measure the
net worth of an entity at the beginning and the end of a period. In contrast, the Accounting
Tradition, does not seek to measure the net worth of an entity, but rather seeks to match costs

11

against revenues. In the Present Market tradition, the measurement of net worth is based on
current exit prices, while in the Bouldings Constant tradition, the argument is that income is
essentially unmeasurable; therefore any constant factor would perform equally well as long as
the asset structure remains heterogeneous (Boulding, 1955, p. 45).

Sterling developed several propositions about measurement based on the definitions of

Churchman and Ratoosh (1959). These propositions rest on the premise that all measurements
are made with respect to a particular decision making context. Fore example: which piece of
wood is long enough to be used to construct a house; if the temperature reaches a certain level,
which clothes should be worn; when making an investment decision, which enterprise has the
greater net income). In a general sense, measurement is a process of comparison (Sterling, 1970,
p. 72). Comparisons are complied in order to distinguish between attributes of objects for the
purpose of making a decision. Thus:

Measurement Proposition 1: The purpose of measurement is to order or compare objects

to other objects.

Because measurement is concerned with comparisons between objects, the measured

attributes must be amenable to comparison. In financial reporting, comparisons are often made
between incomes of different entities; however, if the enterprises use different measurement
scales to report their income, it is difficult to make comparisons. Thus, the scale or dimension of
measurement is important.

Measurement Proposition 2: The construction and definition of a dimension is a

prerequisite to the operation of measurement.

12

While the overall purpose of measurement is to make comparisons between objects in

order to make decisions, it is also useful to compare objects with respect to a known dimension.
Thus, a unit of measurement is needed, and this requires numbers. Measurement involves the
comparison of a particular attribute to a known unit of measurement. The use of a unit of
measurement makes the comparisons possible. Ordinal scales of measurement without units can
be used, but this produces an inability to compare objects in one class with objects from another
class. For example, there may be an ordinal scale in a one dimension which indicates that A is
greater than B and an ordinal scale in a second dimension which indicates that X is greater than
Y.

These facts do not permit comparison of X to A (Sterling, 1970, p. 75). In financial

accounting, for example, inventory valuations using FIFO and LIFO are in different dimensions.
The need for a unit of measurement also leads to the following proposition:

Measurement Proposition #3: A known unit of measurement allows the general use of
measurements by different users.
If numbers are assigned to units of measurement, the properties of the real number system can be
used to make comparisons between objects. Moreover, a measurement expressed in numbers
can be carried to any degree of precision. The limits of precision arise from errors in the
measurement process and not from the characteristics of the number system (p. 78). Thus:

Measurement Proposition #4: The use of numbers is more convenient and permits a
higher degree of precision than a classification scheme.

It is important to emphasize that the assignment of numbers to attributes should not be arbitrary;
instead, once the dimension has been conceived and the unit of measurement has been defined,
the objects can then be said to possess a certain number of units (p. 79).

The goal of

13

measurement is then to determine the number of units that the object possesses. Consequently,
in a true process of measurement, if an asset is recognized in financial statements at $100, the
asset would possess $100 of economic value. Finally:

Measurement Proposition #5: The purpose of measurement is to determine the proper

placement of a given object in a given scale.
These five propositions lead to a process of measurement which proceeds through four steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Development of a dimension
Definition of a unit of measurement
Expression of the unit of measurement in numbers
Development of an operation that determines the number of units in a category.

The application of the operation in step 4 determines the placement of an object on a particular
scale and expresses that placement in terms of a specific number of units. Thus, an asset that is
recognized in financial statements at $200 would be placed on a scale which is twice that of an
asset recognized at $100, regardless of the type of asset concerned.

Sterling argued in favor of Present Market (i.e. current exit price) as the most logical way
of measuring net worth at any point in time. In making this argument, Sterling listed the
following advantages of Present Market: (1) it is relevant to all users of financial statements
because it specifies the currently available resources of the entity and measures the ability to
satisfy current obligations; (2) it is verifiable, in that all neutral observers would agree on the
value; (3) it is a measurement of an empirically meaningful dimension; (4) it is additive, in the
sense that the sum of the parts is equal to the independent measurement of the whole; (5) it is
temporally consistent, in that the measurement is made at a point in time as opposed to a
prediction; (6) it is a valuation, in that it can be inferred that the entity values the position it is in

14

more than any other position at that point in time; (7) it is more informative than any other
figure, because it indicates the direction of the expectations of the managers of the entity
(Sterling, 1970, p. 360).

While arguing in favor of Present Market (i.e. current exit prices), Sterling acknowledged
that markets are imperfect and that there will be disagreement among observers regarding current
exit prices, particularly if there is no intention to actually dispose of the assets. There are also
questions about the additivity of measurements when the price level is unstable.

Sterling

counters these criticism by arguing that current exit price is superior to all other ways of
measuring wealth or welloffness. However, he is less convincing when he argues that the
determination of current exit prices is a measurement process. Thus, while it may be agreed that
the measurement of income is correctly determined by the difference between owners equity (or
wealth) at two points in time adjusted for investment and disinvestment, and also that the
difference in owners equity should be determined by calculating the current exit prices (i.e.
Present Market) of the net assets of the entity at the beginning and the end of the period, the
process of determining current exit prices does not constitute a measurement as that term is
defined by measurement theory. This is because there is no unique and consistent way to
measure exit prices. Thus, the efforts of the FASB and IASB will not produce numbers that are
measurements. Instead, it should be recognized that financial accounting is not a process of
measurement, but rather a calculative practice with social implications.

5. Discussion
One of the reasons for revisiting the question of measurement in financial reporting at this time is
the growing emphasis by financial accounting standards setters on fair value measurements

15

combined with recent allegations on the part of political actors that fair value measurements were
instrumental in the worldwide financial crisis. In this regards, it is important to note that the
term fair value has been used in financial reporting over many years and in a variety of
different circumstances for different accounting pronouncements. There have been numerous
definitions of fair value and little guidance regarding the application of fair value to particular
situations (FASB, 2006). To resolve this issue, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurements in September 2006 (FASB, 2006)
Statement No. 157 defines fair value as: the price in an orderly transaction between market
participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability in the principal market in which the reporting
entity would transact for the asset or liability (Statement No. 157, paragraph 5). Thus, fair
value is very similar to Sterlings idea of Present Market.

The central feature of Statement No. 157 is a Fair Value Hierarchy (paragraphs 2231).
In this hierarchy, the FASB establishes a procedure for fair value measurement. This procedure
contains three levels. Level 1, focuses on what is the FASB considers to be the most reliable way
to measure fair value, that is: quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
In Level 1 measurement, the determination of fair value is based on direct observations of
transactions involving the same assets and liabilities. The FASB acknowledges that relatively
few items trade in active markets, thus making this type of measurement impracticable in most
cases, except for financial assets traded in active markets. Thus, it seems clear that Level 1 fair
value measurments are not measurements as defined by measurement theory, even though
Sterling would probably accept Level 1 measurements as being consistent with his framework.

16

Level 2. The Level 2 approach to fair value measurement contemplates one of three
situations. The first situation focuses on a determination of fair values by reference to the prices
of identical assets or liabilities traded in markets in which the trading is infrequent. The problem
with this approach is that there is a low degree of consensus about prices in markets with low
trading activity. The second situation focuses on determining the fair value of an asset or liability
by reference to the price of a similar asset or liability traded in an active market. The problem
here is that assumptions must be made about prices of non-identical assets or liabilities. The
reliability of such measures is questionable. The third situation arises when there are no active
markets, but some information is available. For example, a company may determine the fair
value of an untraded liability by applying the effective interest rate on its traded debt securities.
This third possibility reduces the reliability of the fair value measurement even further, and, it is
clearly not a measurement process, even by Sterlings standards.

Level 3. If the Level 1 and Level 2 conditions for fair value measurements do not exist, a
Level 3 is proposed which focuses on unobservable input factors. Level 3 is used to measure
fair value when observable inputs are not available. This category allows for situations in which
there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability (paragraph 30). The FASB
concluded that Level 3 inputs can provide useful information if estimates are generated in a
rational manner and without an attempt to bias users decisions. This may be a useful criterion,
but it does not constitute a measurement process; it is merely a subjective evaluation.

Therefore, it is clear that Statement No. 157 places an emphasis on Present Market or exit
values (i.e. the price that would be received when selling an asset) rather than entry value (i.e.

17

the price that would be paid to buy a new asset). The difference between exit value and entry
value has perplexed accounting theorist for a long time. For example, one could consider a
specialized machine purchased by one company at a high price even though it could only be sold
to another company at a substantially lower amount. The outcome of applying an exit value
approach to fair value measurement would result in an immediate loss to the buyer. However,
reporting the machine at entry value (i.e. replacement cost) would conceal the risk inherent in the
specialized strategy (Miller and Bahnson, 2007). Thus, there are inherent difficulties with
defining fair value, and there is little agreement on the best definition. Consequently,
measurement in financial reporting is confusing even after the issuance of Statement No. 157.

5.2 The IASB Fair Value Measurement Project

In November 2006, the IASB issued a Discussion Paper requesting comments on the use of fair
value measurements in international financial reporting (IASB, 2006). The IASB intended to
issue exposure draft regarding fair value measurement in 2009; however, due to the financial
crises and outside political pressures, the issuance has been delayed. In comment letters to the
IASB, various parties expressed disagreement with the approach to fair value measurement
contained in Statement No. 157 and the IASB exposure draft. For example, Deloitte argued that
for items not continuously measured at a current value (e.g. held to maturity securities, fixed
assets) an entry price instead of an exit price is a more relevant measure (Deloitte, 2007).

Deloitte also argued that the most appropriate measure for recognizing an asset or
liability that is not subsequently measured at fair value is entry price. If an asset is acquired but
not subsequently measured at fair value under current standards (e.g. a fixed asset), it is not

18

correct to recognize an up-front gain or loss (as in the case of the specialized machine discussed
above). With respect to subsequent measurements, exit price is not the most relevant measure for
non-financial items not traded in active markets; for example nonfinancial assets that will be
consumed, or a non-financial liability that will be settled through the delivery of goods or
services. In a business combination, all identifiable assets and liabilities are recognized at fair
value. However, for subsequent measurement purposes, some assets and liabilities are retained
at their initial entry prices (e.g. goodwill), whereas other assets and liabilities are re-measured to
fair value; thus, current exit price is not applicable to all assets and liabilities, and fair value
should not be defined as current exit price. Given a general inability to apply a common measure
to all assets and liabilities, financial reporting does not constitute a true measurement process.

6. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to present a critical examination of measurement issues in
financial reporting, starting with a discussion of the different approaches to measurement taken
by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB), followed in turn by a summary of the general theory of measurement
used in the sciences, and finally a review of the arguments raised by Robert Sterling in his book
Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income. While agreeing with Sterlings argument that
enterprise income should be measured by the difference between owners equity (i.e. asset minus
liabilities) at two points in time adjusted for investment and disinvestment, and also his argument
that the difference in owners equity should be determined by calculating the current exit prices
of the entitys net assets at the beginning and end of the period, we disagree that the
determination of fair value or current exit price is a measurement process as that term is

19

defined in the sciences.

This leads to the primary argument of the paper, which is that

accounting does not constitute a measurement process.

20

References
Bergmann, G. (1956) The logic of measurement, in: Proceedings of the Sixth Hydraulics
Conference, June 13-15, pp. 19-33 (Iowa City: State University of Iowa).
Boulding, K.E. (1955) Economic Analysis, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper Bros.).
Campbell, N.R. (1928) Account of the Principles of Measurement and Calculation (London:
Longmans).
Campbell, N.R. (1938) Measurement and its importance to philosophy, Aristotelian Society
Supplement 17.
Chambers, R.J. (1966). Accounting, Evaluation and Economic Behavior (New York: PrenticeHall).
Churchman, C.W. (1949) A materialist theory of measurement, in: R.W. Sellars, V.J. McGill and
M. Farber (Eds) Philosophy for the Future, pp. 476-94 (New York: Macmillan Co.).
Churchman, C.W. and Ratoosh, P. (Eds) (1959) Measurement: Definitions and Theories (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.).
Deloitte (2007) Comment Letter on Discussion Paper on Fair Value Measurements (London:
Deloitte
Touche
Tohmatsu)
accessed
on
18
September
2008
at
http://www.iasplus.com/dttletr/0705fairvalue.pdf.
Edwards, E.O. and Bell, P.W. (1961) The Theory and Measurement of Business Income
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
FASB (1984) Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5, Recognition and Measurement
in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises (Norwalk: Financial Accounting
Standards Board).
FASB (2006) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (Norwalk: Financial Accounting Standards Board).
FASB (2007a) Summary Report of the Conceptual Framework Measurement Roundtables Hong
Kong, London, and Norwalk January and February 2007 (Norwalk: Financial
Accounting
Standards
Board),
accessed
on 9 September
2008
at:
http://www.fasb.org/project/cf_roundtable_summary_report.pdf.
FASB (2007b) Conceptual Framework Project Phase C: Measurement Milestone I Summary
ReportInventory and Definitions of Possible Measurement Bases (Norwalk: Financial
Accounting Standards Board), accessed on 10 September 2008 at:
http://www.fasb.org/project/cf_phase-c.shtml.

21

FASB (2008) Project Update Conceptual FrameworkPhase C: Measurement, as of 4,

February 2008, (Norwalk: Financial Accounting Standards Board), accessed on 10
September 2008 at: http://www.fasb.org/project/cf_phase-c.shtml.
Gordon, M.J. (1960) Scope and method of theory in research in the measurement of income and
wealth, The Accounting Review 35(4): 603-18.
Haig, R.M. (1959) The concept of income-economic and legal aspects, in R.R. Musgrave and
C.S. Shoup (Eds), American Economic Association Readings in the Economics of
Taxation, IX, pp. 54-76 (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.)
Hicks, J.R. (1946) Value and Capital, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press).
IASB (2006) Discussion Paper: Fair Value Measurements Part 1: Invitation to Comment
(London: International Accounting Standards Board), accessed on 18 September 2008 at:
http://www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/6C8AF291-EB14-4034-84F154305F72024D/0/DDFairValue.pdf.
Ijiri, Y. (1967) The Foundations of Accounting Measurement (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall).
Measurement (2008) Encyclopdia Britannica. Accessed on 5
http://search.eb.com/eb/article-233664.

September 2008 at:

Miller, P. and Bahnson, P. (2007) Refining fair value. Journal of Accountancy 206(11):3-9.
Nagel, E. (1961) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.).
Roberts, F.S. (1979) Measurement theory: with Applications to Decision Making, Utility, and the
Social Sciences, in Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications vol. 7, (Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley).
Simons, H.C. (1938) Personal Income Taxation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Sterling, R. (1970) Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income (Lawrence: The University
Press of Kansas).
Stevens, S.S. (1951) Handbook of Experimental Psychology (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
Suppes, P. (1959) Measurement, empirical meaningfulness, and three-valued logic, in: C.W.
Churchman and P. Ratoosh (Eds), pp. 129-43, Measurement: Definitions and Theories
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)
Whittington, G. (2008). Fair value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework project: An
alternative view. Abacus 44(2):139-168.

22

Table 1
IASB Conceptual Framework Project
Phase C-Measurement
Measurement Basis Candidates
Basis
1. Past entry price

2. Past exit price

3. Modified past
amount

4. Current entry
price

Definition
Asset:
The price that an entity would have had to pay in the past in
exchange for purchasing an asset.
Example: The amount paid to purchase an office computer.
Liability:
The funds that an entity would have received in the past in
exchange for incurring a liability.
Example: The proceeds from issuing a corporate bond.
Asset:
The price that an entity would have received in the past in
exchange for selling an asset.
Example: The proceeds received from selling an investment.
Liability:
The price that an entity would have had to pay in the past in
exchange for extinguishing a liability.
Example: The amount paid to settle an account payable.
Asset:
The remainder of an assets original past entry after assigning
some of that price to subsequent accounting periods, according to
an accounting rule for amortization or depreciation.
Example: The depreciated book value of a vehicle, using straightline depreciation.
Liability:
The remainder of a liabilitys original past entry price after
assigning some of that price to subsequent accounting periods,
according to an accounting rule for amortization.
Example: The carrying value of a corporate bond issue sold at a
premium, using straight-line amortization.
Asset:
i. Identical replacement
The current entry price of replacing an existing asset with an
identical one through a purchase.
ii. Identical reproduction
The current entry price of replacing an existing asset with an
identical one by reproducing it.
iii. Equivalent replacement
The current entry price of replacing an existing asset with an
equivalent asset.
Example: The current entry price to replace a used Nikon
microscope with a used Leica microscope with the same power
and features.
iv. Productive capacity replacement
The current entry price of replacing the productive capacity of an

Synonyms
Historical cost

Net Proceeds

Past selling price

Past settlement
amount
Historical cost
Depreciated cost
Amortized cost
Net book value

Amortized cost
Carrying value

Replacement cost

Reproduction cost

Replacement cost

23

existing asset with the most current technology available.

Example: The current entry price to replace an air conditioning
unit with one that has the same cooling capacity but is more
energy efficient.
Liability:
The amount that an entity would receive currently in exchange for
incurring a liability.
Example: The amount that a bank would receive currently from a
depositor for a certificate of deposit.
5. Current exit price

6. Current
equilibrium price

7. Value in use

Asset:
The price that an entity would receive currently in exchange for
selling an asset.
Example: The amount that an entity would receive currently from
selling a parcel of land.
Liability:
The price that an entity would have to pay currently in exchange
for extinguishing a liability.
Example: The amount that an entity would have to pay currently to
pay off a mortgage.
Asset:
The price at which an asset could be exchanged currently between
knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms-length transaction
conducted in an efficient, complete, and perfect market.
Example: The price at which a security could be purchased or sold
currently, if the securities markets were efficient, complete, and
perfect.
Liability:
The price at which a liability could be exchanged currently
between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms-length
transaction conducted in an efficient, complete, and perfect
market.
Example: The price at which an insurance obligation could be
incurred or extinguished currently, if the market for insurance
contracts was efficient, complete, and perfect.
Asset:
The value that an entity places on an asset; typically, the
discounted net cash flow that the entity expects to receive from
using the asset.
Example: The forecast future cash flows(both positive and
negative) from using a printing press , discounted at the entitys
cost of capital.

Liability:
The value that an entity places on a liability; typically, the amount
of discounted net cash flow that the entity expects to pay with
respect to the liability.
Example: The forecast future cash outflows for a pension liability,
discounted at the entitys cost of capital.

Replacement cost

Current settlement
amount

Current exit value

Current market
value
Net realizable value

Current settlement
amount

Fair value

Fair value

Discounted value of
future
cash flows
Present value of
future
cash flows
Present value
Present value of
future
cash outflows

24

8. Future entry
price

9. Future exit price

Asset:
The price that an entity would have to pay in the future in
exchange for purchasing an asset.
Example: The amount that an entity forecasts it would have to pay
to purchase a replacement jet airplane eight years in the future.
Liability:
The price that an entity would receive in the future in exchange for
incurring a liability.
Example: The amount of premium that an insurance company
forecasts it would receive for issuing a life insurance policy.
Asset:
The price that an entity would receive in the future in exchange for
selling an asset.
Example: The amount that an entity forecasts it would receive in
exchange for selling a patent five years from now.
Liability:
The price that an entity would have to pay in the future in
exchange for extinguishing a liability.
Example: The amount that an entity forecasts it would have to pay
next year to satisfy a lawsuit that it expects to lose..

Future cost

Future proceeds

Future selling price

Expected outcome
Future settlement
amount

25