Regulatory flexibility and management opportunism in the choice of alternative accounting standards: an illustration based on large French groups

Due to the flexibility of domestic accounting regulations, French groups are entitled to refer to international or American standards for their consolidation. The objective of this research paper is to focus on the choices made by the 100 largest French companies during the last 16 years (1985-2000). In practice, apart from the French rules, three “alternative” sets of standards are used: the International Accounting Standards (IAS), “international principles,” and the U.S. GAAP. The percentage of companies referring to alternative (i.e., non-French) standards rose in the first part of the period, then fell. Additionally, while the number of companies choosing U.S. GAAP increased over the period as a whole, the number preferring IAS or “international principles” has been in sharp decline since 1994-1995. Our results show that in this voluntary move towards international accounting harmonization, the choices made by French companies have clearly varied according to developments in French accounting regulations and the changing power balance between the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) and the SEC-FASB. This indicates a certain degree of opportunism by the management, who clearly keeps one eye constantly on the cost-benefit trade-off.     

Does implementation guidance affect opportunistic reporting and value relevance of earnings?

In recent years, both the SEC (2003) and the FASB (2004) [Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003. Study Pursuant to Section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC; the Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2004. On the road to an objectives-oriented accounting system. Financial Accounting Series: The FASB Report (August 31), 1–5.] have indicated a need for accounting standards where principles are balanced by implementation guidance (i.e., a framework for exercising professional judgment). In this study, we take advantage of a jurisdictional split during 1996–2001 whereby the same economic event (i.e., an impairment in oil and gas assets) in the extractive petroleum industry was accounted for by “full cost” firms under a SEC standard (Regulation SX 4-10) which provides extensive implementation guidance, and by “successful efforts” firms under a FASB standard (SFAS No. 121) that provided relatively little guidance for implementing the standard.     

Discourses surrounding the evolution of the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework: What they reveal about the “living law” of accounting

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) recently published the final version of Chapter 1 of their joint Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (IASB/FASB, 2010). In this article, we focus on two of the key issues addressed in Chapter 1: stewardship and the definition of the primary user groups of financial statements. To address the discourses surrounding the evolution of Chapter 1, we introduce the concept of “living law” from sociological jurisprudence into accounting scholarship. We first trace the role of stewardship/accountability in the evolution—from antiquity to the present day—of the living law of accounting. We then explore the origin, nature, and implications—from a living law perspective—of the moral traditions associated with stewardship/accountability. Our analysis suggests that stewardship has been, and continues to be, embedded in the living law of accounting—notwithstanding the formal pronouncements of standard setters. We also examine the social accounting project from a living law perspective and we suggest that such an analysis provides new possibilities for addressing core social accounting concerns. We conclude by arguing that, particularly in light of the far reaching impact of the neoliberal agenda, there is an urgent need for scholars in both contemporary “social” and “mainstream” accounting to recognize and build upon their shared living law heritage rooted in the age-old traditions of stewardship/accountability.     

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.     

GFC or KFC?: How Standard Setters Were Battered and Fried

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has exposed the fragility of both the alleged independence of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and their agreement to work together on major projects such as accounting for financial instruments. This paper outlines the events that have dogged the IASB and FASB in their attempts to respond to the GFC and explores the implications of the recent political pressures on accounting standard setting for the likelihood of ultimately achieving one global set of accounting standards.     

Individual investors’ attitudes towards listing requirements for foreign entities on U.S. stock exchanges and the promulgation of international accounting standards

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) currently requires foreign issuers of securities listed on U.S. securities exchanges to either employ U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) or include a statement of reconciliation to U.S. GAAP if they use their home country's accounting standards. With some exceptions, they are also required to comply with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOA). John Thain, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, states that these requirements hamper U.S. investments, economic growth, and employment opportunities. The Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), Sir David Tweedie, echoed Thain's comments. An important stakeholder who is affected significantly by the U.S. listing requirements is the U.S. individual investor. Accordingly this study examines their attitudes involving the extant rules for foreign listings on U.S. exchanges and other aspects of the issue. The study also examines their perceptions regarding accounting standard promulgation authority and the use of a global set of accounting principles. The results indicate that although U.S. investors are very much in favor of the listing of foreign companies on U.S. exchanges, they also endorse the current rule requiring either employment of U.S. GAAP or reconciliation to it as well as mandatory adherence to the SOA. In the area of accounting standards, although a large majority believed that the U.S. should control the accounting standards for U.S. listings, a smaller majority also believed that there should be a universal set of accounting principles for all stock exchanges.     

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.     

The valuation properties of earnings and book values reported under IAS,domestic GAAP and U.S. GAAP: Evidence from China,Hong Kong,Japan, Korea and Singapore

This paper examines whether earnings or book value is the dominant valuation accounting measure for companies reporting under alternative accounting standards — International Accounting Standards (IAS)/International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) or domestic accounting standards of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Singapore. Our sample consists of domestic firms in the five Asian countries and firms from these countries cross-listed in the United States as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from 2002 to 2011. For domestic firms, book value is more informative than earnings for firms from Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Japan and Korea during 2002–2011 although their accounting standards are influenced by different systems. For the ADR sample, book value is more informative than earnings for U.S. GAAP reporters and reconcilers during 2002–2007. However, earnings are more informative than book value for U.S. GAAP reconcilers from China. After 2007, ADRs in our sample from Hong Kong, Japan and Korea continued to file under U.S. GAAP. Some ADRs from China filed under U.S. GAAP and some filed under IFRS. Earnings are more informative than book value for IFRS users; however, book value has higher incremental value relevance than earnings for U.S. GAAP users. We contribute to prior research by providing evidence on the valuation properties based on accounting measures reported under different GAAPs for the Asian countries.     

会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析

本文从会计准则的经济后果出发 ,讨论了会计准则制定的政治化问题 ,并以此为基础对会计准则国际发展的利益关系进行了探讨。文章探讨了国际会计准则委员会改组后的准则立项所涉及的利益关系 ,分析了欧盟、美国和澳大利亚等国采纳国际会计准则的利益所在 ,论证了会计准则的国际发展过程的政治化程序的必然性 ,指出了建设中的国际会计准则体系将主要是发达国家利益争斗的结果。本文对我国的会计准则发展战略、分析和利用国际层面的会计信息将有所裨益。     

(No) Limits to Anglo-American accounting? Reconstructing the history of the International Accounting Standards Committee: A review article

The development of the current International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from the earlier International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) provides insight into many issues of international financial reporting, among them the characteristics of international accounting standards themselves. This article reviews Camfferman and Zeff’s [Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets. A history of the international accounting standards committee 1973–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press] volume on the organizational development of the IASC and contextualizes it in the broader literature of cross-border standardization in accounting. While having produced a seminal piece, the authors take a clear Anglo-American perspective. The downsides are insufficiencies regarding a simplistic understanding of experts and expertise, a neglect of the role of auditing firms, and only an imbalanced integration of different stakeholders.     

Reversing an impairment loss and earnings management: The role of corporate governance

This paper examines whether the reversal of a previously recognized impairment loss provides an opportunity for earnings management, and whether such behavior is associated with managers' incentives. It also examines whether a corporate-governance mechanism can mitigate this behavior. Since 2005, listed companies in Taiwan have been required to comply with accounting standards, equivalent to International Accounting Standards (IAS) No. 36 “Impairment of Assets,” which allow reversals of asset-impairment losses. Data on a sample of 55 firms that reversed impairment losses between 2005 and the first quarter of 2007 were matched by industry and size with 55 control firms. Empirical results show that firms recognizing more impairment losses are more likely to reverse impairment losses when doing so would avoid an earnings decline in a subsequent period, which is consistent with the “cookie jar” reserve hypothesis. We also show that such behavior is more pronounced for firms with higher debt ratios, consistent with earnings management being associated with the incentive to avoid violation of debt covenants. However, an effective corporate governance mechanism could mitigate such behavior. Our study may contribute to the debate on global convergence with IFRS, especially convergence between IFRS and U.S. GAAP with respect to the “Impairment of Assets,” by providing a rationale for the latter's prohibition of reversals. It may also contribute to the corporate-governance literature by showing the effect of governance mechanisms on deterring earnings management.     

贯彻科学民主决策要求 完善我国会计准则体系

本文简述财政部会计准则委员会的重大改组、工作机制及其同会计准则制定机构之间的关系,并提出进一步完善我国会计准则体系的工作思路。会计准则委员会的改组及其工作机制的建立,为完善我国会计准则体系提供咨询,从而使会计准则的制定更加民主、科学和透明。在此基础上,我国会计准则体系建设将会取得重大进展。     

The Conceptual Framework as a Coherent System for the Development of Accounting Standards

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) visualized a conceptual accounting framework as a 'coherent system of interrelated objectives and fundamentals that can lead to consistent standards that prescribes the nature, function, and limits of financial accounting and financial statements' (FASB, 1976). To Australian standard setters, the primary purpose of the conceptual framework (CF) was only to be used as a 'guide' in developing and reviewing accounting standards (AASB, 1995, para. 5). The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) diminished the role of a conceptual framework even further by openly acknowledging that some standards are inconsistent with the guidelines offered by the framework (IASC, 1989 para. 12). Even though the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) supposedly pursues a policy of harmonization of conceptual frameworks and accounting standards, there are also acknowledged inconsistencies in the conceptual frameworks of the IASC.
The aim of this article is to assess the coherence of the Australian (and IASC) conceptual framework. This analysis identifies confusion in drafting or construction of the conceptual framework, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistency with the legal framework within which business entities operate. Accordingly it is suggested that the adoption of a conceptual framework will not lead to consistent accounting standards, and inevitably the conceptual framework will lack credibility so long as it is inconsistent with legislation.     

Does the Control-based Approach to Consolidated Statements Better Reflect Market Value than the Ownership-based Approach?

Motivated by the recent Discussion Paper (DP) issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on how to define reporting entities, this study investigates the value relevance of consolidated statements under the ownership-based approach of U.S. Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51 (ARB 51) and the control-based approach of International Accounting Standard No. 27 (IAS 27). The results show that consolidated financial statements based on a broader definition of control provide more useful accounting information than those based only on majority-ownership control. We also address one concern raised in the DP, namely, whether a reporting entity should use the common control model to include entities that are under common control of an individual investor or family. The results suggest that accounting standard boards should include the common control model in defining the group reporting entity for firms with complex ownership structures.     

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.     

Examining the differences between United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Accounting Standards (IAS): implications for the harmonization of accounting standards

Current trends indicate continued movement towards the harmonization of accounting standards, but not without difficulty and concern. At times, the political and financial market pressure, push the movement in opposite directions. The paper discusses the conceptual framework used in establishing Global Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (International Accounting Standards, IAS) and U.S. GAAP. Numerous transactional examples are illustrated under both Global GAAP and U.S. GAAP treatment. Several country specific references are presented demonstrating the difficulty in achieving harmonization. Implications for harmonization of accounting standards include arguments “for” and “against” Global GAAP.     

Altering Investment Decisions to Manage Financial Reporting Outcomes: Asset‐Backed Commercial Paper Conduits and FIN 46

We evaluate the manner in which sponsors of highly leveraged asset‐backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduits responded to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities an Interpretation of ARB No. 51, and its Canadian counterpart Accounting Standards Board of Accounting Guideline 15 (AcG‐15), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. By matching commercial paper investors with corporations seeking liquidity, ABCP sponsors facilitate a significant amount of short‐term, securitized financing in the United States. FIN 46 and AcG‐15 require sponsors to consolidate their ABCP conduits with their financial statements. We demonstrate that the volume of ABCP began to decline when FIN 46 was first proposed, and that this decline is primarily attributable to a reduction in North American banks' sponsorship of ABCP. We also demonstrate that North American banks entered into costly restructuring arrangements to avoid having to consolidate their conduits per the new accounting standards. Our results suggest that, in certain settings, accounting standards appear to have real effects on investment activity and product‐market competition.     

国际公共部门会计准则的回顾、基本框架及其启示

本文通过回顾国际公共部门会计准则 (IPSASs) 的发展史, 从公共部门财务报告的目标、会计核算基础、会计要素的分类、定义、确认和计量, 以及财务报表的列报等方面, 简要地介绍了国际公共部门会计准则的基本框架及其对我国开展公共部门会计改革和会计标准制定的启示。     

Using Form 20-F reconciliations to internationalize an accounting course

Accounting courses and textbooks in the United States focus on US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As a result, US accounting students have little exposure to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and to differences between these standards and US GAAP. To familiarize students with the differences between IFRS and US GAAP, accounting instructors can develop assignments based upon the reconciliation of IFRS to US GAAP net income included in Form 20-F, the annual document submitted to the SEC by non-US firms. The course assignment described in this paper provides students with a “road map” of the differences underlying specific company financial reporting, and helps instructors identify where these differences occur. The assignment represents an innovative way of integrating international financial reporting standards and SEC reporting requirements into a higher level undergraduate or graduate accounting course.     

Meeting user information needs: The impact of major changes in FASB and GASB standards on financial reporting by colleges and universities

This longitudinal study reports the impact of changes in generally accepted accounting principles on financial statement disclosures for 100 public and private institutions of higher education. Disclosures from the period when all colleges and universities followed the same accounting standards are compared with disclosures in periods after major changes in accounting and reporting standards were made by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) for private institutions and by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) for public institutions. We find that an importance-weighted disclosure index shows that user needs are better met using the new reporting standards for public but not private institutions. An expanded unweighted index, however, shows improvement for both public and private colleges and universities. Using this disclosure index, the improvement for universities reporting under GASB standards exceeded the improvement for those reporting under FASB standards.