Practice versus Prescription in the Disclosure and Recognition of Derivatives

The contentious issue of the recognition and measurement of derivative instruments is again high on the Australian standard-setting agenda, following pronouncements by the International Accounting Standards Committee (USC) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). This study investigates firms' disclosure of derivative accounting policies and measurement practices pursuant to the introduction of AASB 1033. A lack of clarity and completeness in the disclosures suggests that supplementary requirements are necessary. A preference for using hedge accounting is also apparent. Should an Australian standard disallow or impose conditions on hedge accounting, fims will need to alter their current accounting practices and risk management strategies and they will probably reassess their use of derivatives.     

The Changing IASB and AASB Relationship

This article takes the reader inside the changing relationship between the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and other standard setters, and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in 2012. Critically, it looks at the prospect that relationships between the IASB and domestic standard setters might now change markedly as attempts are made to establish more formal links with domestic and regional groupings of standard setters, a move currently being mooted by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Trustees and the IASB. Related to this development, the article looks at a rapidly emerging aspect of standard setting – the rise of regional groupings such as the Asian‐Oceanian Standard‐Setters Group (AOSSG). Such groups are having a direct impact on relationships between domestic standard setters and the IASB.     

An Evaluation of the Decision Usefulness of Cash Flow Statements by Australian Reporting Entities

In June 1991, the Australian Accounting Standards Board issued AASB 1026, Statement of Cash Flows. Since replacing the funds flow statement, the new accounting standard has become a compulsory part of Australian corporate financial reporting. In contrast to cash flow developments in the US and UK. the emergence of AASB 1026 has been preceded by almost no significant research attention by Australian academics. This study surveyed the attitudes to cash flow statements of 210 public companies listed on the Australian stock exchange. Findings revealed that there was particularly strong support for the essential provisions of AASB 1026 and the underlying principles of cash flow reporting. The results indicated that the cash flow statement is important for a wide variety of internal and external decision contexts, and appealed to a wide range of users. Furthermore, compared with previous research (e.g. McEnroe, 1989), the present survey demonstrated that operating profit was not considered by a large number of Australian companies to be a superior measure of business performance to operating cash flow.     

Climate‐related Risk and Financial Statements: Implications for Regulators,Preparers, Auditors and Users

Interest among investors in understanding climate‐related risk from companies’ management has increased in recent years. Despite this, climate‐related risks are currently predominantly discussed outside the financial statements, if at all. However, as set out in the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB)/International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) Practice Statement 2 Making Materiality Judgements (APS/PS 2), qualitative external factors such as the industry in which the entity operates and investor expectations may make such risks ‘material’ and warrant disclosures when preparing financial statements, regardless of their numerical impact. The AASB and the AUASB expect that directors, preparers and auditors will be considering APS/PS 2 when preparing and auditing financial statements. This paper provides an outline of the guidance and motivation behind the issuance of the bulletin on climate‐related risk disclosures, key takeaways and recommendations, and the AASB's and AUASB's suggestions on the type of evidence that would be useful for standard setters.     

The Financial Milieu of the IASB and AASB

This paper considers the implications of the convergence of the accounting standards of the International Accounting Standards Board with those of the Australian Accounting Standard Board. Australia seems well placed to comply with the international accounting standards in 2005, but not quite in the way the boards would have us imagine. While actively seeking funds from large multinational corporations and elite accounting firms, the AASB is dominated by stakeholder groups with what are described as "corefinancial" and "partial-financial" interests. This financial milieu may offer cosy deals for the key stakeholders, but does little in the way of civic responsibilities and accounting service for the wider public .     

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.     

Special issue: Australian Accounting Standards Board Research Forum

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) engages with academics and encourages them to make practical recommendations for the standard‐setter across three sectors: for‐profit, public and other not‐for‐profit sectors. In doing so, the AASB organised Research Forums in 2016 and 2017 that were of great value to researchers, practitioners and the standard‐setters. Four papers from the Forums in 2016 and 2017 were submitted and accepted for publication in this special issue. This paper provides an overview of the Forum, discusses the impact of conducting research and how the findings of the researchers informed the AASB’s standard‐setting process.     

Developing Accounting Regulations that Reflect Public Viewpoints: The Australian Solution to Differential Reporting

In this paper, we analyse the factors that have shaped the approach taken by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) in addressing the issue of differential reporting in Australia. In contrast to its early adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005, the AASB has signalled an independent approach to differential reporting. Still in progress at the time of writing, we show how the AASB's approach has been shaped by feedback from key stakeholder groups, as well as by influential individuals and key events. In the face of strongly held views on both sides of the debate, the Board has moved from reliance on discursive techniques to develop and justify proposed policies to embracing to a greater extent, the use of more objective research evidence to resolve the empirical questions presented in the public debate.     

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.     

Direct or Indirect Cash Flow Statements?

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the Financial Reporting Standards Board (FRSB) have issued a joint proposal that will allow reporting entities to choose between the direct and indirect method of reporting cash flow statements. This evidence presented in this paper indicates that the direct cash flow reporting format, relative to the indirect method, leads to better prediction of future firm performance and has a stronger association with share prices. The AASB and the FRSB have to decide whether to support high quality reporting or harmonisation.     

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.     

Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards

The perspective of public interest and interest group theories of regulation is adopted to consider the future of Australian accounting standards following major reforms proposed by the Australian Commonwealth government as part of its 1997 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP). Interest groups in the Australian environment are identified. Their lobbying had influenced the initial proposals; and their reactions when the CLERP proposals were published resulted in substantial modifications to the CLERP proposals, which had initially recommendedthat International Accounting Standards (IASs) be adopted as national standards from 1 January 1999.
The role of accounting standards and the structure of standard setting are explored. The political nature of standard setting is illustrated through a review of the CLERP proposals, submissions of various interest groups and the government's responses to them. The central arguments are that key assumptions underlying the CLERP proposals are flawed, and that the CLERP proposals could not achieve the outcomes desired of them.
It seems inevitable, however, that international standards eventually will supplant domestic standards. In the longer term, Australian standard setters seem destined to have a diminished role in the international standard setting arena.     

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.     

Accounting Reform in Australia: Contrasting Cases of Agenda Building

On 4 March 1997, the Department of Treasury of the Australian Government announced sweeping measures to reform standard setting arrangements in Australia ( CLERP Paper No.1 , Commonwealth of Australia, 1997 ). The Government's agenda is profoundly reformist as it recommended the wholesale adoption of International Accounting Standards by Australian reporting entities, as well as advocating the introduction of market (selling) price accounting both nationally and internationally. While the notion of market value accounting is not new, this recommendation appears to be a historical first from a government, regulatory or standard setting body. Against this background, our study draws on a framework of 'political agenda building' proposed by Cobb and Elder (1972 ) and Cobb et al . (1976 ), in order to compare and contrast the competing standard setting reform agendas adopted by the Australian accounting profession and the Government. Using the Cobb and Elder framework, we discuss potential reasons why the CLERP agenda has supplanted that of the Australian accounting profession as well as some implications of these developments for the future of standards harmonization.     

All for Nothing? Accounting for Land under Roads by Australian Local Governments

Accounting for land under roads by local governments has been one of the most controversial and protracted episodes in the setting of Australian accounting standards. However, after more than two decades of exposure drafts, regulation, transitional provisions and re‐regulation, most land under roads has not been recognised in local government balance sheets. Australian Accounting Standard AAS 27 Financial Reporting by Local Governments was first issued in 1991 and, among other significant reforms, proposed that local governments report land under roads as an asset in their financial reports. However, persistent opposition to this requirement and practical difficulties associated with its implementation gave rise to a succession of transitional provisions deferring its mandatory application. Finally, in 2007 – 16 years after AAS 27 was first promulgated – the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) sought to bring closure to this issue with the release of AASB 1051 Land Under Roads. However, in the interim some state governments had pursued their own resolutions, forbidding the recognition of land under roads. This research reports the results of a survey of the impact of land under roads on local government financial reports. After two decades of debate and regulation, diversity is found to persist in the extent and manner of recognition of this ‘asset’. However, recognition remains the exception rather than the norm and is typically confined to recent acquisitions that comprise only a very small portion of total assets. These circumstances are suggestive of an episode of regulatory failure.     

Fifty-Seven Serious Defects in 'Australian' IFRS

Australian accounting standards commonly used in the preparation of company financial reports have a controversial origin. Under a protocol adopted by the Financial Reporting Council, Australian accounting standards since 2005 substantially replicate the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) made by the International Accounting Standards Board. These standards' continued development is largely outside the control of Australian authorities. The standards examined are found to have such a large catalogue of conceptual and technical deficiencies that the authors call to question the adoption of an Australian IFRS protocol.     

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.