Research horizons for public and private not‐for‐profit sector reporting: moving the bar in the right direction

The examination of public and private not‐for‐profit sector financial reporting has been a topic of interest on a cyclical basis in Australia over the last 30 years. Traditional topics have included examinations of the intended and unintended consequences of specific standards, the accountability value of financial reports, transaction neutrality, compliance with the accounting standards, and more recently, the prospective implications of new, differently focused reporting standards considering such issues as income measurement and outcomes reporting. With increased recent attention from standard setters and regulators, and greater data availability, the opportunities for undertaking impactful research in these and related areas are increasing. In this paper, we focus on research that has examined the following questions: (i) Which private and public NFPOs lodge financial reports and what is reported; (ii) Who are the users and what are their information needs? (iii) Which private and public NFPs should lodge financial reports and what should be included in them; and (iv) How should the accounting frameworks for NFP sector reporting be set? For each of these issues, we identify the research gaps and opportunities for further research.     

Defining the Reporting Entity in the Not‐for‐profit Public Sector: Implementation Issues Associated with the Control Test

This paper reports the main findings of a research project carried out on behalf of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the New Zealand Financial Reporting Standards Board. The purpose of the research is to inform standard setters about implementation issues that had been encountered in the not‐for‐profit (NFP) public sector when applying the control concept in AASB 127, Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements. The intention is to use the findings to inform proposed implementation guidance for AASB 10, Consolidated Financial Statements. Data were collected via a literature review and meetings with various NFP public sector constituents. Identified issues were either conceptual in nature (for example, who are the relevant users of NFP public sector general purpose financial statements and what are their needs?) or related to implementation concerns (for example, is the power exerted by one NFP public sector entity over another of an ‘ownership’ or a ‘regulatory’ form?). The findings give rise to several suggested actions that standard setters could take in providing useful guidance to NFP public sector constituents.     

Do Not‐For‐Profits Need Their Own Conceptual Framework?

This paper raises the issue of whether not‐for‐profit (NFP) oganisations require a conceptual framework that acknowledges their mission imperative and enables them to discharge their broader accountability. Relying on publicly available documentation and literature, it suggests the current Conceptual Frameworks for the for‐profit and public sectors are inadequate in meeting the accountability needs of NFPs. A NFP‐specific conceptual framework would allow the demonstration of broader NFP‐specific accountability and the formulation of NFP‐appropriate reporting practice, including the provision of financial and non‐financial reporting. The paper thus theoretically challenges existing financial reporting arrangements and invites debate on their future direction.     

Voluntary Disclosures as a Mechanism for Defining Entity Status in Australian Not‐for‐Profit Organisations

This study examines managerial efforts to portray an entity's not‐for‐profit (NFP) status based on voluntary disclosure practices. The annual report text of 61 NFPs are analysed in accordance with Salamon and Anheier's (1997) NFP definitional framework. Results indicate a predominant application of the structural‐operational definition. Furthermore, the ‘organised’ attribute of this definition prevails over the ‘non‐profit‐distributing’ criterion that has been advocated by various parties. Standard‐setting bodies may want to consider: (1) NFP management perspectives in any revised NFP definition; and (2) greater clarity in conceptual framework and standard‐setting arrangements to improve overall transparency in NFP reporting practices.     

Australian not‐for‐profit sector views on the conceptual framework,accounting standards and accounting information

In this paper, we examine the conceptual framework, accounting standards and accounting information relevant to the not‐for‐profit (NFP) sector. Based on the responses of 242 Australian NFP managers, we find support for the inclusion of accountability in the conceptual framework, and for a common set of accounting standards across NFP and for‐profit sectors with additional standards or paragraphs to recognise NFP specific issues. Respondents also rated information within general‐purpose financial reports to be useful for decision making within their organisations. We offer suggestions as to what our findings mean for the development of accounting standards for the NFP sector.     

Evaluating Constructive Lease Capitalization and Off‐Balance‐Sheet Financing: An Instructional Case with FedEx and UPS

This case illustrates the effects of the proposed new lease standard by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board on existing outstanding operating leases. Specifically, the case examines the effects of the proposal that all firms report existing operating leases as capital leases upon the initial adoption of the proposed standard. By applying a constructive capitalization model to two firms who rely on operating leases for financing, FedEx and UPS, we found that both companies would have to record billions of dollars of liabilities that had only appeared in the footnotes of their financial statements under the current lease standards. In addition, the firms would experience a decline in retained earnings and key financial ratios, such as the debt‐to‐equity, return‐on‐assets, and interest coverage ratios, by reporting operating leases as capital leases under the new proposed standard. Furthermore, the magnitude of the lease capitalization impact is much smaller for UPS than for FedEx.     

Accountability and not‐for‐profit organisations: Implications for developing international financial reporting standards

This paper provides empirical evidence which informs contemporary debates on developing international financial reporting standards for not‐for‐profit organisations (NPOs). Drawing on a global survey with respondents showing experience of NPO reporting in 179 countries, we explore: practice and beliefs about NPO financial reporting internationally; perceptions of accountability between NPOs and stakeholders; and implications for developing international financial reporting standards. Interpreting our research in the context of accountability, we find considerable support for developing international financial reporting standards for NPOs, recognising broad stewardship accountability to all stakeholders as important, but prioritising accountability upwards to external funders and regulators.     

Do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? An Australian experiment

International accounting standards are deliberately designed to be principles‐based (i.e. ‘substance over form’). With Australia's recent adoption of international accounting standards, a relevant question is, do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? The present paper describes a study that analysed the consolidation judgements of senior accounting officials from Australian listed companies. Participants made consolidation judgements based on AASB 1024 Consolidated Accounts. Although AASB 1024 is not identical to IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, there are many similarities and both follow a principles‐based approach. In aggregate, the present study finds that principles‐based accounting standards do not necessarily lead to biased financial reporting.     

Accountability Beyond the Headlines: Why Not‐for‐profit Organisations Need to Communicate Their Own Expenditure Stories

This paper analyses the expenditure patterns of 97 Australian international aid and development organisations, and examines the extent to which they disclose information about their expenditure in order to discharge their accountability. Not‐for‐profit (NFP) expenditure attracts media attention, with perceptions of excessive costs potentially damaging stakeholder trust in NFP organisations. This makes it important for organisations to be proactive in communicating their expenditure stories to stakeholders, rather than being judged on their performance by standardised expenditure metrics. By highlighting what it costs to ensure longer‐term operational capability, NFP organisations will contribute to the discharge of their financial accountability and play a part in educating all stakeholders about the dangers of relying on a single metric.     

Not‐For‐Profit Ratios for Financial Resilience and Internal Accountability: A Study of Australian International Aid Organisations

Not‐for‐profit (NFP) financial ratio research has focused primarily on organisational efficiency measurements for external stakeholders. Ratios that also capture information about stability, capacity (liquidity), gearing and sustainability enable an assessment of financial resilience. They are thus valuable tools that can provide a framework of internal accountability between boards and management. The establishment of an Australian NFP regulator highlights the importance of NFP sustainability, and affirms the timeliness of this paper. We propose a suite of key financial ratios for use by NFP boards and management, and demonstrate its practical usefulness by applying the ratios to financial data from the 2009 reports of ACFID (Australian Council for International Development) affiliated international aid organisations.     

Layering of IFRS and Dual Institutionality of Accounting Standards in Belarus

There is an ongoing debate about the applicability and efficacy of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption in countries with diverse institutional infrastructures. We examine financial reporting in Belarus and factors that are shaping its development. In Belarus, IFRS has been adopted through layering where it is an additional requirement to the existing reporting specified by the national accounting regulations. We explore how global standards were transposed and function in a highly specific institutional context. Based on an examination of reporting in the banking sector, we conclude that different objectives of IFRS and local reporting contribute to dual institutionality of standards where differing formats target the needs of diverse users. Thus, adoption through layering is unlikely to contribute to convergence between different reporting standards used for different purposes, and parallel reporting is expected to persist. By examining financial reporting practices in Belarus, we provide insights for practitioners, regulators, and standard-setters on implementation of IFRS in countries with similar heavy state involvement, and still using local regulations and traditions in parallel with IFRS.     

THE SUBSTANCE OF ACCOUNTING FOR PUBLIC‐PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

This article evaluates Public‐Private Partnerships (PPP) accounting practice and the related financial accounting and reporting requirements. Governments across the world are seeking to access private finance to improve public infrastructure. Accounting for PPPs has encountered many difficulties, one of which is the practice by which PPPs are not accounted for as fixed assets on the balance sheet of either the public sector client or the private sector operator. Accounting for PPPs has grown in importance at a time of transition from national Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under UK GAAP, both client and operator accounting adopt the reasoning – familiar from leasing standards – of the allocation of risks and rewards between the parties to determine the party which should recognize the fixed asset on its balance sheet. The gap in IFRS with regard to operator accounting has been filled by the interpretation IFRIC 12 on service concession agreements: this moves the reasoning from risks and rewards to control, familiar from consolidation standards. The UK Treasury and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) have required/proposed the adoption of the mirror‐image treatment of IFRIC 12. In most, but not all, cases, control will be assessed to rest with the client, which will recognize property, plant and equipment, and not with the operator, which will recognize either a financial asset or an intangible asset on the basis of an assessment of which party bears the majority of risks and rewards. Under both UK GAAP and IFRS, accounting policy choices are strongly influenced by, for the client, governmental control frameworks, and for the operator, by the implications for the profile of distributable profits and for taxation. An important public policy issue is that the national accounts, which for European Union member states must comply with European System of Accounts 1995, will remain on a risks and rewards basis. It is these numbers that will be used in assessments of macro‐fiscal policy and fiscal risks, notwithstanding that the Eurostat version of risks and rewards is even more open to manipulation than were the national financial reporting standards.     

An Assessment of the Impact of IFRS Adoption on Public Sector Audit Fees and Audit Effort – Some Evidence of the Transition Costs on Changes in Reporting Regimes

While many countries have adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for private sector enterprises, New Zealand (NZ), Australia and the United Kingdom adopted IFRS for all sectors, including the public sector. This approach is consistent with the concept of sector‐neutral accounting standards that gained wide acceptance in NZ and Australia in the early 1990s. Although a number of studies have assessed the impact of IFRS adoption in the private sector, and the public sector has provided some evidence as to the effects of IFRS adoption on financial statements, the costs of adopting IFRS have not been examined. One measure of cost is the change in audit fees in an IFRS reporting environment. The authors examine the impact of IFRS adoption in the NZ public sector on audit fees and audit effort. They obtained data regarding audit fees and audit effort in the NZ public sector and compared the pre‐adoption year with the first year of adoption for all segments. Their results indicate a substantial increase in audit fees and audit effort in the first year of IFRS adoption for all segments, with some variation across the segments. Two sectors, local authorities and energy companies, have had significant increases in audit fees and audit effort. These findings provide some empirical evidence regarding the cost of transition to IFRS and are of interest to researchers and regulators in countries that are currently considering transitioning to IFRS or IFRS‐based International Public Sector Accounting Standards standards in reporting for the public sector.     

Commentary: IFRS and the Domestic Standard Setter – Is the Mourning Period Over?

The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has changed but not lessened the roles of domestic standard setters. After a grieving period, they are now coming to realise that they have fundamental roles supporting international standard setters and ongoing roles in the public and not‐for‐profit sectors. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has focused on for‐profit reporting, and the International Public Sector Standards Board (IPSASB) is a developing standard setter in the public sector. Domestic standard setters can help fill the gaps, support the development of the international standard setters and assist at the coalface when standards are applied.     

IPSAS or IFRS as the Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting? New Zealand Preparers’ Perspectives

The last 30 years have seen public sector accounting in many countries undergo considerable change. More recently, some governments adopted accrual accounting and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), some adopted modified International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) while others continued with cash‐based accounting. New Zealand (NZ) has, for more than two decades, followed a sector neutral approach to financial reporting and standard setting where the same accounting standards were applied to all entities in all sectors: for‐profit, not‐for‐profit and the public sector. This period included the adoption of IFRS by for‐profit entities with minor modifications for the public sector. The suitability of IFRS for the public sector has been questioned and, recently, standard setters in NZ decided to adopt a sector‐specific standard‐setting approach with multiple tiers for each sector. The for‐profit sector will continue to follow IFRS but reporting standards for the public sector will be based on IPSAS. In this period of change we sought the views of preparers of public sector financial reports regarding the users of such reports and their preferences for the public sector reporting framework. We also sought the views of the preparers regarding the usefulness of each financial statement for users, and whether the benefits of reporting by their organisations exceeds the costs. The findings indicate support for maintaining IFRS as a basis for reporting in the NZ public sector. However, IPSAS modified to NZ conditions is also perceived as an acceptable option by respondents in this study. The income statement is, in the opinion of the respondents in this study, the most useful statement while cash flows appear to hold little value. A high proportion of respondents believe that the benefits of reporting exceed the costs, which contradicts the view that such reports are mainly compliance documents that provide little value. This finding contributes to the continuing debate on costs versus benefits on the recent introduction of IPSAS as the reporting framework for the public sector and the perceived appropriateness of IPSAS in public sector reporting.     

The Influence of Country‐ and Firm‐level Governance on Financial Reporting Quality: Revisiting the Evidence

This paper examines how firm‐level governance and country‐level governance interplay in shaping financial reporting quality. Using IFRS adoption as a source of variation in firms’ reporting discretion, and a large sample of European firms that mandatorily switch to the new set of standards, we find that in countries with low enforcement and weak oversight over financial reporting, only firms with strong board‐level corporate governance mechanisms experience an increase in financial reporting quality, consistent with firm‐ and country‐level governance mechanisms being substitutes. However, in countries with high enforcement and strict oversight over financial reporting, firms with either strong or weak board‐level governance mechanisms experience an increase in financial reporting quality, even if the increase is larger for the former group. Overall, our findings indicate that in the debate about the effects of governance on the quality of financial reporting, it is important to consider both country‐ and firm‐level corporate governance mechanisms.     

Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy

In this paper we present an index designed to capture differences between countries in relation to the institutional setting for financial reporting, specifically the auditing of financial statements and the enforcement of compliance with each country's accounting standards. The use of a common set of standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) aims, in broad terms, to promote the comparability and transparency of financial statements and to improve the quality of financial reporting. However, the effectiveness of IFRS adoption may be hampered by differences, across countries, in the institutional setting in which financial reporting occurs. Studies of outcomes from adopting IFRS use a range of legal system proxies to capture these country differences, but the proxies are deficient in that they seldom focus explicitly on factors that affect how compliance with accounting standards is promoted through external audit and the activities of independent enforcement bodies. To address this deficiency, we calculate measures of the quality of the public company auditors’ working environment (AUDIT) and the degree of accounting enforcement activity (ENFORCE) by independent enforcement bodies. We do this for 51 countries for each of the years 2002, 2005 and 2008, using publicly available data provided by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the World Bank and the national securities regulators. Preliminary tests suggest our indices have additional explanatory power (over more general legal proxies) for country‐level measures of economic and market activity, financial transparency and earnings management. We expect they will prove useful to researchers and other interested parties who require country‐level measures that focus on the degree of enforcement of financial reporting practices.     

Politics of Financial Reporting and the Consequences for the Public Sector

This article examines the political processes surrounding public sector accounting standard setting, in particular, the Australian decision to adopt sector-neutral International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It contends that the history of private and public sector involvement in the accounting standard setting process to date, and recourse to regulatory theory, assist in understanding these contemporary developments. The article reveals that private sector interests have dominated accounting standard setters at all important stages of standard setting in Australia. It concludes by arguing that, given this continued neglect by standard setters, if public sector financial reporting standards are to remain relevant to the public sector, then it may be necessary for public sector regulators to set their own standards.     

Finding diamonds in the rough: Analysts’ selective following of loss‐reporting firms

Investors face greater difficulty valuing loss‐reporting than profit‐reporting firms: losses may be due to very different reasons (e.g., poor operating performance or investments in intangibles, and financial accounting information is of more limited use for valuing loss‐making firms than profit‐making firms. Because of increased uncertainty about loss firms’ future financial and business viability, we hypothesize that financial analysts will be more selective when choosing to follow loss firms than profit firms, with the result that “abnormal” analyst following will be more informative to investors regarding the future performance of loss firms than profit firms. Consistent with this prediction, we find that abnormal analyst coverage is useful for predicting firms’ future prospects, and is more strongly associated with future performance (stock returns and ROA) for loss firms than for profit firms. The market, however, does not seem to use this useful information when pricing loss firms: for loss firms a portfolio investment strategy based upon abnormal analyst following can generate positive excess returns over 1‐ to 3‐year holding periods. These results are stronger for persistent‐loss firms than for occasional‐loss firms. We conclude that abnormal analyst following contains useful information about firms’ future prospects, and even more so for loss firms than for profit firms.     

Prudential Application of IFRS 9: (Un)Fair Reporting in COVID‐19 Crisis for Banks Worldwide?!

IFRS 9 and ASC 326 were developed after the 2008–2009 financial crisis, and both accounting standards include an expected loss model as a means of providing for credit losses. As a result of the COVID‐19 worldwide pandemic, however, banks face considerable uncertainty about the potential scale of the bad debts for which they will need to provide. Banks need to reassess their loan assets, by updating their risk models with expectations about potential default rates and future macro‐economic and financial developments. However, we see several interventions worldwide. The European Securities and Markets Authority addresses a position paper on the prudential application of IFRS 9. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in the US has given banks an optional deferral of implementation of the CECL model until 31 December 2020. This paper addresses the challenges banks face when applying the expected losses model during the current crisis. More importantly, it discusses the impact of supervisor and regulators’ intervention on future financial reporting comparability, transparency and whether there is a level playing field.