The problems of value that accountants wrestle with have also historically plagued philosophers, economists, tax assessors, and the judiciary. Moral philosophers over the centuries grappled with the notion of a “fair” price for merchants to charge. Early economists attempted to derive a product’s intrinsic value by calculating the units of labor embodied in it. Several distinct
approaches have evolved for assessing real property. These include capitalization
of rentals, inferring a value based on sales of comparable properties, and estimating the value a property would have if put to its“highest and best” use. Similar theories are involved when the courts seek to value the assets of bankrupt companies, although vigorous negotiations
among the different classes of creditors play an essential role in the final determination. With commendable clarity of vision, the accounting profession has cut through the thicket of valuation theories by establishing historical cost as the basis of its system. The cost of acquiring or constructing an asset has the great advantage of being an objective and verifiable figure. As a benchmark for value, it is, therefore, compatible with accountants’ traditional principle
of conservatism. Whatever its strengths, however, the historical cost system also has disadvantages
that are apparent even to the beginning student of accounting. As noted, basing valuation on transactions means that no asset can be reflected on the balance sheet unless it has been involved in a transaction. The most familiar difficulty that results from this convention involves goodwill.