자산재평가 동기에 따른 차별적 시장반응과 기업가치

Asset revaluation has been early adopted from 2008 by the Fast Track Program. It is done in accordance with the regulation(No. 1016) in K-IFRS, allowing firms to have discretion in choosing between “Cost Model” and “Revaluation Model” in the tangible asset after acquisition. Asset revaluation, which had been prevented since 2001 till 2008, is the newly adopted accounting treatment for the tangible asset whose book value and revaluation reserve increments are changed depending on its market value. Therefore, firms can adopt the revaluation model strategically to meet their economic purposes. It is reported that firms high in debt-to-equity ratio and tangible asset ratio, and firms announcing the earnings as loss are likely to implement revaluation, signaling the financial health and reassuring creditors(Brown and Loh 1992; Whittred and Chan 1992; Aboody et al. 1999; Frank 2007; Barlev et al. 2007; Ban, 1990; Chung, 1993; Song and Choi, 1995; Shin, 2001; Kim and Choi, 2010). Generally, the literature assumes that these motives and outcomes are associated with firms facing improved investment opportunities. Given the motives are strategic, market would consider the effect of revaluation to be different. It is needed to know whether market accepts the revaluation as a whole or reacts depending on the motives respectively. The aim of this study is to examine how market reacts on each motives and magnitude of revaluation. Furthermore, we are to explore if market reaction is right by observing the one year returns after revaluation. We analyzed a total of 225 firms implementing the revaluation model for the fiscal years between 2008 and 2009. We limited the sample to ones that announce the revaluation increments on the DART system in Financial Supervisory Service. The results are like followings; First, market reacts positively on the revaluation increments irrespective of revaluation motives. But market reacts differently depending on the revaluation motives. In particular, market reacts more positively under the motives to improve the financial structure and guide the financial health to its externality. Second, generally, the one year returns after revaluation have become more increased as the incremental magnitude of revaluation are more. Still more, the positive effect of revaluation increments on one year return is different depending on the revaluation motives. It is more sensitive to the motives to improve the financial structure and guide the financial health to its externality. Therefore, the market reaction observed around the event day, the announcement of revaluation increments, proved to be right. In conclusion, market is likely to react depending on the motives of revaluation as well as the incremental magnitude of revaluation. It is obvious for the case of firms implementing the revaluation under the financial structure improvement and guiding the financial health motives. These results have an implication that revaluation could be a value-pursuing financial decision given it is timely and is implemented for right motives. Asset revaluation will become a value-oriented financial decision considering above things.