The academic community’s participation in global accounting standard-setting

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are now used in more than 100 countries. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering a “Work Plan” to allow or require US corporations to use IFRS. Considering the rising importance of IFRS, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the SEC, the European Union (EU), and others have called for broader stakeholder participation in the global accounting standard-setting process. Academicians are seen as one group that has the potential to have a strong positive influence in the shaping of accounting standards.This study investigates the academic community’s participation in the IASB’s standard-setting process through the submission of comment letters for 79 issues. For 55 IASB issues, 90 academics and academic organizations (5.8% of all respondents) provided 153 responses (2.7% of total responses). For 24 Draft Interpretations issued by the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), just 17 academics and academic organizations (4.9% of respondents) provided 20 responses (1.9%).Overall, Anglo country writers dominated, with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States together providing a majority of writers and responses. Non-Anglo EU countries provided about a quarter of the writers and responses. While academic interest increased for a few issues, usually discussion papers and substantive issues, the overall response rate remained low. Possible reasons for low participation rates are discussed, as well as some changes that may increase academic engagement with the IASB’s standard-setting process.     

Constituent Participation and the IASB's International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee

Abstract

While international convergence of accounting standards is becoming more of a reality, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) continues to seek greater acceptance and legitimacy as an institution. Constituent participation is one key component for an organization to obtain legitimacy and success. This study investigates constituent participation of one significant part of the IASB, the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC). IASB/IFRIC constituents are classified in two ways: (1) geographically (by country and region); and (2) stakeholder interest group (the accounting profession, regulators, preparers and users). Respondents writing comment letters in regards to IFRIC's first 18 Draft Interpretations are examined. A total of 272 respondents from 40 countries generated 714 comment letters. The European Union provided a majority of writers and letters, with the UK being the largest contributor. The USA, Canada and developing countries generated few letters. Constituent participation significantly increased over IFRIC's predecessor committee, but responses remain concentrated with 35 respondents, mostly professional accountancy bodies and accounting standard-setters, generating 58% of the comment letters. Users accounted for only 5% of letters. While improved constituent participation may support the notion of increased legitimacy, limited participation by some IFRIC constituents suggests that the IASB should further promote constituent participation to achieve greater legitimacy.     

The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users

The interests of users of financial statements are, in theory, paramount to accounting standard-setters. However, there is a dearth of research into users' participation in, and influence on, the process of setting accounting standards. The enhanced status now accorded to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) offers the opportunity to examine these issues in a new regulatory context. This study reports the results of a questionnaire survey of the perceptions of, and participation in, the IASB process of a sample of UK investment management firms. The findings suggest that these firms' participation is not as low as is often inferred from the public record of comment letters. In particular, a considerable number of firms participate through representative report user organisations such as the Investment Management Association. Other findings suggest that the major factor inhibiting investment firms from participating is the cost of lobbying, not complacency that the IASB is ‘on their side’ and will naturally safeguard their interests. Moreover, the respondents consider the accounting profession and the European and US accounting standard-setters to be the dominant interest groups in the IASB standard-setting process.     

The Political and Unstable Nature of the IASB's 'Stable Platform': Post-Convergence Australian Experience

On 31 March 2004, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) established the 'stable platform' of new and revised standards applicable from 1 January 2005. We review the major changes made by the IASB to its stable platform of standards to illustrate how politics and lobbying influence the standard-setting process. Furthermore, Australian experience since International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption is used to illustrate the impact and extent of these and other changes within the local environment. Continuous changes to IFRS undoubtedly complicate the convergence process, particularly when they are largely indicative of political considerations rather than conceptual underpinnings.     

An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.     

Interpreting the European Union’s IFRS Endorsement Criteria: The Case of IFRS 9

EU Regulation requires that any international accounting standards (International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS) and interpretations (IFRIC) pronounced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) meet three sets of criteria before they become binding for EU-based companies: a ‘true and fair view’ criterion, a list of qualitative criteria, and a ‘European public good’ criterion. During the endorsement process, EU institutions evaluate each standard or interpretation’s compliance with these three criteria. Nevertheless, despite plenty of past endorsement decisions, there is still disagreement about a unanimous interpretation of the criteria in the literature. In this study, we interpret all three criteria against the background of European accounting law and academic accounting research. Then, the paper illustrates for the case of the new IFRS 9 standard on accounting for financial instruments how these criteria can be applied in the endorsement practice. We conclude that the standard cannot reasonably be rejected on grounds of the IAS Regulation. We also explain that the vagueness of the endorsement criteria and the inherent discretion in the eventual endorsement decision help maintain the EU’s political influence on the IASB’s standard-setting ex ante.     

IFRS in the United States: If,When and How

This paper provides an overview of the convergence efforts of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It begins with their 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and traces developments up to the December 2011 announcement by the IASB Chair that convergence has come to a close, and it is now time to incorporate IFRS into the US financial reporting system. The paper then assesses approaches being considered by the SEC for incorporating IFRS into the US financial reporting model. The conclusion calls on the SEC to ‘make a decision’ and set a date for US adoption of IFRS. Otherwise, the SEC effectively will have abandoned its goal of a single set of high quality global accounting standards.     

Understanding participation in accounting standard-setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework

This paper explores the motives of participants in the standard-setting process, based on the premise that standard-setters strive for standards that are useful for decision-making by a wide range of financial statement users. Our setting is the development of a contentious but contained Australian accounting standard, Reduced Disclosure Requirements. A consultative process initiated by the Australian Accounting Standards Board to create a specific Australian accounting standard for differential reporting provided an opportunity for interested parties to participate. We analyse the motives of participants through semi-structured interviews with members of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and comment letter writers who responded to the relevant exposure draft. Our findings identify participants’ economic and political motivations and question the ability of the current standard-setting process to extract decision-making requirements from a wide range of users of financial statements and to reflect these in financial reporting standards. We find that the perspectives gathered are homogenised and that the process privileges the voices of powerful elites.     

关于中国会计标准的国际化问题

会计标准的国际化是大势所趋 ,是时代潮流 ,是未来财务会计发展的方向 ,也是世界各国都面临的共同课题。会计标准国际化的实质是各国的利益之争 ,对此我们应当有充分的认识。我国在会计标准的国际化大潮中 ,一直保持积极的姿态促进中国会计标准的国际化 ,并为此在理论准备、人员培训、对外交流等方面作了大量工作。当前 ,我国除了应当加强会计标准本身的国际化之外 ,还应当强化会计标准执行机制的建设 ,以促使会计标准的贯彻落实。     

Over-Complexity in Accounting Standards and the Emerging Duopoly of US GAAP AND IFRS

US accounting regulation has been criticised for maintaining an over-complex "rules-based" approach, cited as the partial cause of significant failures in corporate governance. US regulators state that they are now on a pathway to a more "principles-based" approach, but the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) claims superiority in this approach already. The recent efforts of the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and IASB are examined to see if either claim is clearly supportable. As these authorities appear to be in the process of creating a world accounting standard-setting duopoly, unresolved problems involving over-complexity are likely to be transported to other countries, including Australia.     

Convergence with IFRS in an expanding Europe: progress and obstacles identified by large accounting firms’ survey

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) acquired greater legitimacy and stature when the European Union (EU) decided to require all listed companies to prepare consolidated accounts based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) beginning in 2005. This study examines the progress and perceived impediments to convergence in 17 European countries directly affected by the EU's decision. These include: (1) the 10 new EU member countries, (2) EU candidate countries, (3) European Economic Area (EEA) countries, and (4) Switzerland. We utilize data collected by the six largest international accounting firms during their 2002 convergence survey. Additionally, we analyze subsequent events and studies.While all surveyed countries will either require or effectively allow listed companies to prepare consolidated financial statements in accordance with IFRS by 2005, few are expected to require IFRS for non-listed companies. This suggests the development of a “two-standard” system. The two most significant impediments to convergence identified by the survey appear to be the complicated nature of particular IFRS (including financial instruments) and the tax-orientation of many national accounting systems. Other barriers to convergence include underdeveloped national capital markets, insufficient guidance on first-time application of IFRS, and limited experience with certain types of transactions (e.g. pensions).     

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective

The release of CLERP 9 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) requires the Financial Reporting Council and the Australian Accounting Standards Board to adopt International Accounting Standards (IAS) en bloc as domestic reporting standards by 1 January 2005. This article considers the current and future role and direction of the conceptual framework (CF) under the CLERP proposals and a potential IAS reporting environment after January 2005. It is argued that Australia, which has been a major innovator on CF issues, may suffer a major setback if the International Accounting Standards Board's CF is adopted in January 2005. Furthermore, while the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has been aggressively pursuing a set of global accounting standards, it remains unclear whether the IASB will, or can, develop an internationally relevant and generally accepted CF which can guide the development of a globally compatible set of accounting standards.     

Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Beaufsichtigung und Rechnungslegung von Versicherungsunternehmen: IFRS und Solvency II

Accounting and supervision are closely related, especially via the determination of regulatory capital. As a precondition for the harmonisation of solvency rules within Europe, as discussed in the context of Solvency II, there is a need for harmonised accounting rules regarding the recognition and measurement of assets and liabilities. The International Financial Reporting Standards resp. International Accounting Standards (IFRS resp. IAS) are used as a starting point. Insurance contracts are accounted for under IFRS 4, published in March 2004, which is only established as an interim standard allowing insurance companies to continue their existing accounting policy without major changes in their accounting systems. The IASB has just begun working on a final standard (Phase II). The IASB’s work on the final standard should be taken into account for the determination of regulatory capital as well. The third pillar of Solvency II is an additional connection between international accounting standards and the Solvency II project: extensive disclosure requirements companies shall provide disciplinary transparency with regard to their risk management systems and risk profiles.     

Have IFRS made a difference to intra-country financial reporting diversity?

According to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are intended to provide a common set of globally applicable accounting standards, having the ultimate aim of reducing international financial reporting diversity. Much previous research on standards harmonisation has been conducted on relatively small samples and in periods which pre-date the introduction of mandatory IFRS in the EU and Australia. Most of these studies have also relied on some form of indexing technique to measure harmonisation (such as the modified C-index) which have since been challenged in the literature. Based on a sample of 81,560 firm years, this study examines whether the mandatory IFRS regime has led to any significant reductions in overall financial reporting diversity by companies within the EU and Australia. Financial reporting diversity is proxied by the variability of several balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement ratios measured over the pre-IFRS and post-IFRS periods. Variability is measured by the coefficient of variation (CV), a scale neutral measure of dispersion of a probability distribution. This measure avoids many of the methodological problems associated with index techniques. Notwithstanding some mixed findings, the group mean comparisons and multiple regression results indicate some statistically significant reductions in the variability of ratio measures in the post-IFRS period, even after controlling for factors such as firm size, industry and adoption status (whether a country is an IFRS adopter or not). While the results should be viewed as preliminary, they provide some tentative support for IASB’s current policy direction towards global accounting standards convergence (for instance, the IASB-FASB convergence project). The results also have implications for other countries contemplating a shift to IFRS, such as the United States and several Asian nations, including Japan and India. A useful direction for future research is to determine whether the same results hold using a more extensive post-IFRS sample.     

Has the IASB Been Successful in Making Accounting Earnings More Useful for Prediction and Valuation? UK Evidence

When producing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), one of the main goals of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was to create a set of standards which were more useful to investors as a predictive tool. We assess the success of the IASB in achieving this goal by investigating the effects of the introduction of IFRS on the relative information content of reported earnings and forecasted earnings under UK generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) and IFRS. Results indicate that the value relevance of forecasted earnings is significantly lower under IFRS while the value relevance of reported earnings is significantly larger. These findings suggest that IFRS substitutes price‐relevant information previously provided to the market in the form of analyst forecasts with information encoded by companies in their reported earnings. This implies that the IASB was indeed successful in its stated goal and points towards IFRS forecasts being more accurate and less dispersed than UK GAAP forecasts. This, in turn, implies that analysts are able to provide more informative forecasts under IFRS than under pre‐IFRS regimes and that the aforementioned substitution effect is not a consequence of any decrease in the quality of forecasts under the new regime.     

Commentary: Has Australia (or Any Other Jurisdiction) ‘Adopted’ IFRS?1

This paper replies to a statement made in this journal that ‘Australia definitely adopts IFRSs’. We analyse and compare the several methods that jurisdictions can use to implement International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These include adopting the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) process of setting standards, as well as various forms of standard‐by‐standard implementation. We conclude that the Australian method of implementation is different in major ways from those used in such countries as Israel and South Africa, which involve adopting the IASB's process. By contrast, Australia follows a multi‐step process of enrolling each new standard into a category still entitled ‘Australian Accounting Standards’. To refer to the Australian method as ‘adoption’ of IFRS might therefore mislead, even though Australian companies eventually comply with IFRS.     

The rise and rise of IFRS: An examination of IFRS diffusion

We seek to understand the ever-increasing push towards the international harmonization of accounting standards and particularly the inexorable rise of standards produced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). While the primary justifications for the increasing recognition given to these standards (IFRS) are economic, we question whether the empirical evidence to date has yielded convincing support for these arguments. We therefore offer an alternative explanation for the origin and diffusion of IFRS that incorporates social and political factors. Outsourcing the manufacture of accounting standards to a single private agency appears to be a rational, lower cost option – lowering both economic and political costs for individual states as long as they continue to retain residual decision rights with respect to the adoption of IFRS. However, such outsourcing must also be perceived to be legitimate. IFRS confer institutionalized legitimacy because they possess three characteristics required of a technology for global governance. These are sponsorship by powerful interest groups/regulators, internationality and plasticity. We therefore conclude that the widespread diffusion today of IFRS can at best be only partially explained as an economically rational phenomenon. Rather, the demand for legitimate action in the face of tightly coupled and complex global markets is at least equally important in generating support for IFRS.     

A geographic analysis of constituents’ formal participation in the process of international accounting standard setting: Do we have a level playing field?

As a private organization, input legitimacy, being achieved when inputs received reflect the opinions of all stakeholders involved, is a key issue for the IASB’s acceptance as global standard setter. To study this input legitimacy, this paper examines the evolution of constituent participation in international accounting standard setting in terms of geographic diversity over the period 1995–2007 and examines whether biases (due to differences in institutional regimes) or unequal access (due to differences in participation costs) are present in this process. Based on an analysis of 7442 comment letters we observe an increase in participation over time. However, we also find distortions in the geographic representation of constituents, due to differences in the institutional regimes of countries and due to differences in participation costs, proxied by the level of familiarity with the accounting values embedded in IFRS, with the system of private standard setting, and with the English language. These geographic biases in constituent participation might induce criticism in relation to the input legitimacy of the international accounting standard setting process.     

Why is there inconsistency in accounting for liabilities in IFRS? An analysis of recognition,measurement, estimation and conservatism

We report that International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are inconsistent with respect to the recognition and measurement of liabilities, both in the conceptual framework for financial reporting and in accounting standards themselves. We demonstrate that this arises in part because the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) does not make a conceptual distinction between the process of measurement, which requires a currently observable measurement attribute, and the process of estimation, which is inherently subjective. The IASB employs only the logic and language of measurement, while actually requiring entities to report both measurements and estimates in financial statements. Our contribution is to identify and interpret this conceptual conflict, to demonstrate that this has particular relevance to accounting for liabilities, and to draw implications for accounting research and policy with respect to recognition, measurement and conservatism.     

Measuring convergence of National Accounting Standards with International Financial Reporting Standards

This paper analyses three methods for measuring the success achieved in effecting convergence between any two sets of accounting standards. We begin by reviewing a measurement method based on the concept of Euclidean distances. We then propose two better measures (involving Jaccard's coefficients and Spearman's coefficients) to assess the progress of National Accounting Standards setting bodies in converging their standards with International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS]. For illustrative purposes, we measure the convergence of National Accounting Standards in Portugal with International Accounting Standards [IAS] and IFRS over the period 1977–2003.