Cryptocurrency continues to reshape the financial landscape. As cryptocurrency moves from niche to mainstream, companies are grappling with how to account for these volatile digital assets. New research from Scheller College of Business accounting professor Robbie Moon, and his co-authors Chelsea M. Anderson, Vivian W. Fang, and Jonathan E. Shipman, sheds light on how U.S. public companies have navigated crypto holdings and accounting practices over the past decade.
ASU 2023-08, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) newly enacted rule, aims to bring clarity and consistency to crypto asset reporting with the mandate for fair value reporting. Moon’s research, which examined a comprehensive set of companies from 2013 to 2022, looks at the exponential rise in corporate crypto investments and the diverse, and often inconsistent, ways firms have reported them.
In “Accounting for Cryptocurrencies,” Moon and his co-authors work to better understand this pivotal point in financial reporting with research that dives into why firms hold crypto – whether for mining, payment acceptance, or investment – and how reporting practices have evolved to meet this current moment.
Keep reading to learn more about Moon’s research and why it matters right now.
Why do companies hold cryptocurrencies, and how has this changed over time?
Companies hold cryptocurrency for three main reasons: they mine it, they accept it as payment, or they consider it an investment. Early on, most businesses kept crypto because customers used it to pay for goods and services. Around 2017, that trend declined, and more companies began mining crypto themselves. Today, mining accounts for about half of corporate crypto holdings, while payment acceptance and investment make up the rest.
What were the main challenges companies face when trying to report cryptocurrency holdings in their financial statements?
Until the end of 2023, there were no official rules on how companies should report cryptocurrency on their financial statements. Back in 2018, the Big Four accounting firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG) stepped in with guidance, suggesting that crypto be treated like intangible assets, similar to things like patents or trademarks. This is known as the impairment model.
What is the difference between the “fair value model” and the “impairment model” for accounting crypto assets, and why does it matter?
The two accounting methods differ in how they handle changes in crypto value. The fair value model updates the value of a company’s crypto to match current market prices every reporting period. If the price goes up or down, the change shows up on the company’s income statement as a gain or loss.
The impairment model only lets companies record losses when the value drops below what they paid. If the price goes up, they can’t record the increase.
The difference in the two approaches can best be seen when crypto prices rise. Under the impairment model, companies’ balance sheets understate the true value of the crypto since the gains cannot be recorded. The fair value model allows companies to adjust the balance sheet value of crypto as market prices change.
What factors led ASU 2023-08 to favor fair value reporting?
When the FASB was trying to decide if they should add crypto accounting to their standard setting agenda, they reached out to the public for feedback. The response was overwhelming and most practitioners and firms called for the use of the fair value model.
How do big accounting firms, like Deloitte or PwC, influence how companies report their crypto holdings?
When there aren’t official rules for complex issues like crypto accounting, the Big Four firms often step in to guide companies. In 2018, they recommended using the impairment model, which they viewed as most appropriate based on existing standards. After that, most companies switched from fair value reporting to the impairment approach.
Their guidance in 2018 was based on what was allowed under the standards at that time. With the new rule in place, the firms will likely help clients manage the transition.
Does using fair value accounting for crypto make a company’s stock price more volatile or its earnings reports more useful to investors?
The primary downside of using a fair value model for a risky asset like crypto is how volatility affects earnings. Moon’s research suggests that stock price volatility increases for firms using the fair value model, and it doesn’t appear the model makes earnings more useful for investors. That said, the results should be viewed cautiously because the study’s sample largely consisted of smaller companies.
Why does this research matter right now?
This research matters because more companies are investing in cryptocurrency. That trend is only expected to grow. This research looks at how businesses handled crypto before official rules came out in 2023, showing that many treated it like traditional investments. This provides a baseline against which future research can evaluate the new rule. The research also warns that the fair value approach could make stock prices more volatile without necessarily making earnings reports more useful for investors.