Since the latest financial crisis in 2008, fair value measurement has been the center of debate like never before. It has been accused for adding considerably to the financial crisis. But is this true? Comparing fair value measurement with its often- suggested alternative historical cost accounting we assess, that fair value accounting provides in many aspects more feasible values for both investors and regulators like the FASB and the IASB. Thus, historical cost accounting cannot replace fair value accounting in the segment of valuation of financial instruments, but provides a value, which can add important information for investors, if it gets disclosed as well. Primarily criticized is the implementation of SFAS 157, which happened to be the mandatory standard for entities that account according to US GAAP just shortly before the beginning of the financial crisis. This standard implies a consistent definition of fair value and its scope of application, as well as valuation techniques for financial instruments, which lack observable inputs from the market. However, we have to note, that there was fair value accounting before this standard got adopted, hence banks did not get assigned new tasks, they rather had serious issues of interpreting this standard accordingly and of maxing out its possibilities, given a financial crisis. Indeed, SFAS 157 has a definition of fair value that needs to get revised. Especially in regard of fair value accounting the regulators face a trade-off between relevance and reliability, which certainly doesn?t ease the issue of satisfying all parties involved, but fair value measurement is definitely a step in the right direction.