Econometric analysis of the use of biological assets in agricultural organizations

The purpose of the study. The purpose is to analysis the use of biological assets through econometric models and quantifies the relationship between economic indicators of agricultural activity. The article is devoted to the possibilities of econometric analysis in the context of limited empirical data on Russia regarding the use of biological assets.

Materials and methods. The article analyzed the Russian and foreign bibliography on the problems of biological assets research. In the context of the study of biological assets, the possibilities of using econometric analysis methods based on spatial, temporal or panel data are shown. A multi-regression model based on three groups of indicators (livestock and crop indicators, as well as indicators reflecting agricultural development in general) and implemented in two phases has been built. This model allowed making estimates of the impact of biological assets on the value of agricultural products in Russia. The methods of correlation analysis investigated the closeness of the relationship between the variables in the model. The initial data for this study were the annual data for the period 2000–2018. An array of more than 150 observations was used. For the purpose of comparability, this array has been converted into relative values, i.e. econometric analysis was carried out on growth rates.

Results. This article highlights the main areas of research on biological assets presented in the works of Russian and foreign scientists-economists. It is concluded that there are a wide range of issues of assessment and accounting of biological assets in Russian publications and in the context of the transition to international reporting standards. These problems are not relevant for foreign researchers – in foreign publications presented mainly the search for effective mechanisms for assessing the market value of biological assets using complex econometric models. The article substantiates the importance of using econometric analysis methods in Russian conditions, highlights a number of areas of such analysis and presents a multifactorial regression model. The implementation of the model allowed quantifying the hypothesis of the strong impact of biological asset productivity on the value of agricultural organizations. Based on the construction of the trend line and the choice of the optimal value of the value of the value of the approximation, a short-term forecast of the value of agricultural products produced by livestock and crop production was made. In addition, the correlation matrix assesses the closeness of the relationship between economic indicators.

Conclusion. Economic analysis of biological assets should include a variety of areas – valuation, accounting and auditing, insurance and leasing, efficient use and management. The debate between proponents and opponents of the valuation of biological assets at fair value as an alternative to historical value accounting is of particular relevance today. Many issues relating to the valuation and use of biological assets can be addressed by econometric analysis techniques. In Russian practice, this approach is not yet widespread. However, it is it that it quantifies the complex links between economic variables (including biological assets) that characterize agricultural activities.

1. Trushkina I.R. Biological asset: recognition and evaluation. Izvestiya Mezhdunarodnoy akademii agrarnogo obrazovaniya = Bulletin of the International Academy of Agrarian Education. 2015; 24:172–175. (In Russ.)

2. Shishkova T.V., Beroza A.O. Biological assets as a special economic category. Sovershenstvovaniye ucheta, analiza i kontrolya kak mekhanizmov informatsionnogo obespecheniya ustoychivogo razvitiya ekonomiki = Improving accounting, analysis and control as mechanisms of information support for sustainable economic development. 2015; 1: 178–183. (In Russ.)

3. Gazizov R.R., Mukhina I.A. Biological assets as an object of ownership and management in agriculture. Vestnik Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Kazan State Agrarian University. 2010; 5; 2 (16): 46–51. (In Russ.)

4. Vlasova N.I. Modern practice of insurance of biological assets. Izvestiya Samarskoy gosudarstvennoy sel’skokhozyaystvennoy akademii = News of Samara State Agricultural Academy. 2009; 2: 100–102. (In Russ.)

5. Tokareva Ye.V., Balashova N.N. Leasing of biological assets (biolizing): classification features and accounting and analytical support. Izvestiya Nizhnevolzhskogo agrouniversitetskogo kompleksa: Nauka i vyssheye professional’noye obrazovaniye = Bulletin of the Lower Volga Agro-University Complex: Science and Higher Professional Education. 2017; 2 (46): 289–296. (In Russ.)

6. Alekseyeva N.A. Theoretical and methodological approaches to solving the problems of managing biological stocks at a poultry farm. In Situ = In Situ. 2017; 1-2: 25–27. (In Russ.)

7. Aydarova V.V. Classification of biological assets. Teoriya i praktika sovremennoy nauki = Theory and practice of modern science. 2017; 5 (23): 74–79. (In Russ.)

8. Lukashova O.A., Sharabanova O.N. The concept, essence and classification of biological assets in agriculture. Plodovodstvo i vinogradarstvo Yuga Rossii = Fruit growing and viticulture in the South of Russia. 2019;57 (3): 1–17. (In Russ.)

9. Bereza A.O. Valuation of biological assets: problems of methodology and organization. Ekonomika ustoychivogo razvitiya = Sustainable Development Economics. 2019; 1 (37): 23–26. (In Russ.)

10. Tochiyeva L.K., Yandiyev R.R. Accounting and valuation of biological assets. Finansovaya ekonomika = Financial Economics. 2019. No 1. S. 393–394. (In Russ.)

11. Krinichnaya Ye.P. Development of methods for accounting for biological assets in the Russian Federation based on foreign experience. Uchet i statistika = Accounting and Statistics. 2011; 1 (21): 50–58. (In Russ.)

12. Gasanov M.YU. Valuation of biological assets of cattle breeding at fair value. Ekonomika, sotsiologiya i parvo = Economics, Sociology and Law. 2016; 4-1: 45–50. (In Russ.)

13. Klychova G.S., Zakirova A.R., Klychova A.S., Sitdikova L.F. Methodological approaches to the accounting of biological assets of crop production. Mezhdunarodnyy bukhgalterskiy uchet = International Accounting. 2015; 23 (365): 14–26. (In Russ.)

14. Hinke J., Stárová M. The Fair Value Model for the Measurement of Biological Assets and AgriculturalProduce in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2014; 12: 213–220.

15. Allen, D.W. and Lueck, D.v‘The nature of the farm’. Journal of Law and Economics. 1998; XLI (2): 343–386.

16. Watts, R.L. Conservatism in accounting. Part I: explanations and implications. Accounting Horizons. 2003;17 (3); 207–221.

17. Watts, R.L. What has the invisible hand achieved? Accounting and Business Research. 2006; 36 (special issue). P. 51–61.

18. Ball, R. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research. 2006; 36 (special issue). P. 5–27.

19. Rayman, R.A. Fair value accounting and the present value fallacy: the need for an alternative conceptual framework. British Accounting Review. 2007; No. 39. P. 211–225.

20. Ronen, J. To fair value or not to fair value: a broader perspective. Abacus. 2008; 44 (2): 181–208.

21. Bleck, A. and Liu, X. Market transparency and the accounting regime. Journal of Accounting Research. 2007; 45 (2): 229–256.

22. Gigler, F. Kanodia, Ch. and Venugopalan, R. Assessing the information content of market-to-market accounting with mixed attributes: the case of cash flow hedges. Journal of Accounting Research. 2007; 45 (2): 257–276.

23. Barlev, B. and Haddad, J.R. (2003). Fair value accounting and the management of the firm. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. No. 14. P. 383–415.

24. Barth, M.E. and Landsman, W.R. Fundamental issues related to using fair value accounting for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons. 1995; No. 9 (4): 97–107.

25. Penttinen, M., Latukka, A. Meriläinen, H., Salminen, O. and Uotila, E. IAS fair value and forest evaluation on farm forestry. Proceedings of Human dimension of family, farm and community forestry international symposium. March 29-April 1. 2004.

26. Dowling, C. and Godfrey, J. AASB 1037 sows the seeds of change: a survey of SGARA measurement methods. Australian Accounting Review. 2001; 11 (1): 45–51.

27. Elad, Ch. ‘Fair value accounting and fair trade: an analysis of the role of International Accounting Standard No. 41 in social conflict’. Socio-Economic Review. 2007; 5: 755–777.

28. J. M. Argilés, A. Sabata y J. García-Blandón. A Comparative Study of Difficulties in Accounting Preparation and Judgement in Agriculture Using Fair Value and Historical Cost for Biological Assets Valuation. Revista de Contabilidad. 2012; 15; 1: 109–142.

29. Gonçalves R., Lopes P. and Craig R. Value relevance of biological assets under IFRS. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation .2017; 29: 118–126.

30. Ohlson, J. A. Earnings, Book Values, and Dividends in Security Valuation Contemporary Accounting Research. 1995; 11: 661–687.

31. Khoruzhiy L.I. A model for assessing the fair value of biological assets and the results of their biotransformation. Bukhuchet v sel’skom khozyaystve = Accounting in agriculture. 2011; 8: 6–10. (In Russ.)

32. Magnus YA.R., Katyshev P.K., Peresetskiy A.A. Ekonometrika = Econometrics. Moscow: Delo; 2004. 576 p. (In Russ.)

33. Bernanke B., Boivin J., Eliasz P. Measuring the Effects of Monetary Policy: A Factor-Augmented Vector Autoregressive (FAVAR) Approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2005; 120: 387– 422.

34. Litterman R. Forecasting with Bayesian Vector Autoregressions – Five Years of Experience. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 1986; 4(1): 25–38.