http://hbr.org/2013/03/why-fair-value-is-the-rule/ar/2
For the past two decades, fair value accounting—the practice of measuring assets and liabilities at estimates of their current value—has been on the ascent. This marks a major departure from the centuries-old tradition of keeping books at historical cost. It also has implications across the world of business, because the accounting basis—whether fair value or historical cost—affects investment choices and management decisions, with consequences for aggregate economic activity.
The argument for fair value accounting is that it makes accounting information more relevant. However, historical cost accounting is considered more conservative and reliable. Fair value accounting was blamed for some dubious practices in the period leading up to the Wall Street crash of 1929, and was virtually banned by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from the 1930s through the 1970s. The 2008 financial crisis brought it under fire again. Some scholars and practitioners have connected its proliferation in accounting-based performance metrics to the actions of bankers and other managers during the run-up to the crisis. Specifically, as asset prices rose through 2008, the fair value gains on certain securitized assets held by financial institutions were recognized as net income, and thus sometimes used to calculate executive bonuses. And after asset prices began falling, many financial executives blamed fair value markdowns for accelerating the decline.
Yet both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States and International Financial Reporting Standards, adopted by nearly 100 countries worldwide, continue to use fair value extensively—for example, in accounts concerning derivatives and hedges, employee stock options, financial assets, and goodwill impairment testing.
One explanation for the rise of fair value