Serhan Gürkan
Karabük Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi
Yasemin Köse
Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, İİBF

Published 2014-01-30

How to Cite

Gürkan, S., & Köse, Y. (2014). VALUE RELEVANCE OF OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ITEMS. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 1(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v1i3.51


Other comprehensive income is the difference between net income as in the Income Statement and comprehensive income, and represents the certain gains and losses of the enterprise not recognized in the Profit or Loss Account. Value relevance of other comprehensive income is under discussion and considering other comprehensive income items all together might be misleading for financial performance. In the view of such information, discussing the value relevance of each other comprehensive income item, judgements are made.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Aboody, D., Barth M. E. & Kasznik R. (1999). Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26, 149–178.
  2. Barth, M. & Clinch G. (1998). Revalued financial, tangible, and intangible assets: associations with share prices and non-market-based value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 199–233.
  3. Barth, M, W. Beaver & Landsman W. (1996). Value-relevance of banks’ fair value disclosures under SFAS No. 107. The Accounting Review, 71 (4), 513–553.
  4. Bartov, E. (1997). Foreign currency exposure of multinational firms: accounting measures and market valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14, 623–652.
  5. Collins, D. & Salatka W. (1993). Noisy accounting earnings signals and earnings response coefficients: the case of foreign currency accounting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10, 119–159.
  6. Goncharov, I. & Hodgson A. (2008). Comprehensive income in europe: valuation, prediction and conservative issues. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 1 (10), 1-33.
  7. Hann, R., F. Heflin & Subramanayam K.R. (2009). Fair-value pension accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44 (3), 328-358.
  8. Kamu Gözetimi, Muhasebe ve Denetim Standartları Kurumu (2012); TMS 1 Finansal Tabloların Sunuluşu. TMS/TFRS Seti, Ankara.
  9. Kamu Gözetimi, Muhasebe ve Denetim Standartları Kurumu (2012); TFRS 7 Finansal Araçlar: Açıklamalar. TMS/TFRS Seti, Ankara.
  10. Kamu Gözetimi, Muhasebe ve Denetim Standartları Kurumu (2012); TFRS 9 Finansal Araçlar. TMS/TFRS Seti, Ankara.
  11. Kaval, H. (2011). TMS kapsamında çeşit esasina göre kâr zarar ve diğer kapsamli gelirler tablosu. E-Yaklaşım, 228.
  12. Khurana, I. K. & Kim M. (2003). Relative value relevance of historical cost vs. fair value: evidence from bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22 (1), 19–42.
  13. Lois, H. (2003). The value relevance of the foreign translation adjustment. The Accounting Review, 78 (4), 1027–1047.
  14. McConnell, P. (2010). Is our proposal the best fix for the own credit problem under the fair value option?. http://www.ifrs.org/Investor+resources/2010+perspectives/July+2010+perspectives/PM_best_fix_FVO.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2012).
  15. Melumad, N. D., Weyns G. & Ziv A. (1999). Comparing alternative hedge accounting standards: shareholders’ perspective. Review of Accounting Studies, 4, 265–292.
  16. Morais, A (2012). Value relevance of alternative methods of accounting for actuarial gains and losses. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 8 (1), 69 – 90.
  17. Nichols, L. & Buerger K. (2002). An investigation of the effect of valuation alternatives for fixed assets on the decision of statement users in the United States and Germany. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation, 11, 155–163.
  18. Örten, R, Kaval, H.& Karapınar A. (2011). Türkiye Muhasebe – Finansal Raporlama Standartları: Uygulama ve Yorum (5. Baskı). Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
  19. Soo, B. & Soo L. (1994). Accounting for the multinational firm: is the translation process valued by the stock market?. The Accounting Review, 69, 617–637.