This study provides evidence that noncurrent asset revaluations are differentially considered by market participants based on the level of debt in the capital structure. Contracting theory (e.g. Brown et al., Abacus 28 (1992) 36) implies that revaluations made by firms with high-debt levels may be viewed as being opportunistic, while revaluations for firms with low-debt levels may be viewed as reducing information asymmetry between the firm and capital providers. For a sample of New Zealand firm/years that excludes certain observations with extreme stock returns, we find that revaluations of fixed assets are more value-relevant for firms with low leverage than for firms with high leverage. This suggests that the value relevance of fixed asset valuations depends on management's motivation for making the revaluation. The results of the research should be considered within certain limitations such as a small sample.