SAC 4: A Source Of Accounting Change

Despite its long gestation, the latest release in the Australian Accounting Research Foundation's conceptual framework, Statement of Accounting Concepts 4 Definition and Recognition of the Elements of Financial Statements (SAC 4), is poorly understood by many accountants. The statement specifies definitions for the elements which form the basis of the information in financial reports and sets out the criteria to be used in deciding when these elements should be recognised (reported) in the reports. Statements of accounting concepts do not attract the same direct legal force as AASB accounting standards. Nevertheless, this statement promises significant reforms to financial reporting. Because of its potential to create far-reaching changes, it is essential that accounting professionals are familiar with its contents and application. This paper describes the structure of SAC 4, comments upon some of its important components and illustrates its operation and key features in the context of one element, “assets”.     

SAC 4 And The Challenge To The Mandatory Status Of Concepts Statements

This paper expresses no doubt about the worth of concepts statements such as Statement of Accounting Concepts SAC 4 Definition and Recognition of the Elements of Financial Statements, which spells out the essential characteristics of assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenses along with broad criteria for their recognition in financial statements. However, the authors have reservations about giving mandatory status to such a statement. It is, after all, but one piece of a conceptual framework and as the other pieces take shape they may call for alterations in the interpretation and operation of the elements. Without the benefit of the light which might be cast by reference to other concepts statements, SAC 4 in isolation could lead to undebated and questionable consequences, as well as supplying equivocal guidance on many important issues. This paper examines the reasons for unrest about the mandatory status of concepts statements.     

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.     

'Fair Value' for Financial Instruments: How Erasing Theory is Leading to Unworkable Global Accounting Standards for Performance Reporting

The LASC is pursuing proposals for accounting for financial instruments that are conceptually flawed and unworkable in practice. "Fair value" has been elevated to a catch-all concept to resolve measurement issues objectively. Adoption of fair value, as cuwently interpreted by standard-setters (eg, by the FASB in Concepts Statement No. 7, issued in February 2000), threatens to drive out a long-understood, theory-based approach to the rationales for cuwent value accounting — founded on "deprival value" — that has recently been comprehensively restated in Accounting Theory Monograph 10, issued by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation in 1998, and reaffirmed in the UK Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Principles for Financial Repovting, issued in December 1999.     

如何评价美国FASB的财务会计概念框架?

总体上来看, 美国财务会计准则委员会的财务会计概念框架的内容是详细、充实和严谨的, 基本上能自成一个完整的体系并符合佩顿和利特尔顿提出的连贯、协调、内在一致的理论体系的要求。本文肯定FASBCon cepts具有许多独创性, 值得借鉴学习。例如, 第 1号概念公告提出用财务报告代替财务报表, 发展了财务会计;第 5号概念公告提出四项确认的基本标准等等。但FASBConcepts仍有弱点和不足之处。因此, 本文提出若干建议, 试图说明它的不足和如何加以改进。     

Application of the Reporting Entity Concept in Australia

For decades, the reporting entity concept has been the foundation of differential reporting in Australia. Those entities classified as ‘reporting entities’ are, prima facie, required to produce full GAAP‐based financial reports while other (non‐reporting) entities are generally able to produce less complex and shorter ‘special purpose’ financial reports. In recent years, the application of the concept, as originally set out in the Statement of Accounting Concepts (SAC) 1 Definition of the Reporting Entity, has been criticized on several grounds—particularly, that it does not yield the reporting outcomes originally intended by regulators. Our analysis of 1,546 companies lodging financial statements with the corporate regulator in Australia (ASIC) shows the principles‐based criteria in SAC 1, designed to indicate the existence of a reporting entity, do not systematically explain its application by entities. Our findings are relevant for policy makers, researchers, and regulators concerned with how these choices might be more effectively regulated in future and whether this is best done through principles‐based or rules‐based approaches.     

Objectives of Financial Reporting

Conceptual framework documents can be evaluated in terms of four criteria: clarity of expression, consistency of assumptions with knowledge of commercial practices and the behaviour of external users of accounting information, internal consistency, and comprehensiveness as a guide to financial reporting practice. On this basis, the Australian Accounting Research Foundation's (AARF's) Statements of Accounting Concepts No. 2 (AARF, 1990a), Objectives of General Purpose Financial Reporting , is found wanting. SAC 2 is inappropriately drafted in terms of normative statements, and incorporates considerable ambiguity because of its allusions to inconsistent objectives without guidance as to weightings or how apparently inconsistent statements might be reconciled. Supporting analysis is rudimentary at best and it relies on an inappropriate use of terminology, while statements lack empirical support and are not linked to any analysis of users' needs for information. Six recommendations for the redrafting of a more narrowly focused SAC 2 (concentrating on annual reports by profit-seeking entities) are presented.     

A Statement of Accounting Concepts for Level 1 of the Conceptual Framework?

The type of reporting found in corporate governance includes financial reporting, but over time various arguments have developed regarding a tension found between conventional and financial type reporting, especially as to the role of financial statements. Further tensions follow from the introduction of economic and social issues within both conventional accounting and financial reports.
This article argues that distinct, though related, frameworks at particular levels are required. The mingling of conventional accounting with financial and economic ideas and issues is evident in the conceptual framework (CF) project where there is reference to economic benefits and costs in making economic decisions for the allocation of resources. This results in a misconception of the function of these distinct types of information. An unravelling of particular issues will require a Statement of Accounting Concepts (SAC) for Level 1 of the CF.     

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.     

The recognition and measurement guidelines of FASB concepts no. 5

In making recognition and measurement decisions, accountants often encounter complex and controversial issues. They must decide what events to record, when to record the events, and how to properly measure the financial effects. A framework that could provide guidance for those difficult decisions would be helpful.In 1984 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5 (SFAC No. 5) titled “Recognition and Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises” to meet this need for guidance. The document bears special significance because it may be the “end of the line,” representing the culmination of the efforts of the FASB to develop a theoretical basis for accounting [Kirk, 1984, p. 20]. In this article we review the recognition criteria established in SFAC No. 5 and present a flowchart that may be helpful to accounting educators as a portrayal of those criteria. The article also may be useful in classroom discussions of theory formulation since it indicates that the adoption of SFAC No. 5 took into consideration the diverse views of accountants, statement users, and reporting firms.     

The Impact of Mandated Cash Flow Disclosure on Bid‐Ask Spreads

Abstract:   This study provides evidence that mandatory cash flow disclosure required by Approved Australian Accounting Standard AASB 1026, Statement of Cash Flows (June 1992) was associated with a decline in bid‐ask spreads following the introduction of the regulation, even after controlling for changes in trading volume and price volatility. More pronounced decreases in bid‐ask spreads were associated with firms having lower correlations between reported CFO and estimates of CFO using balance sheet reconstructions. We conclude that mandatory cash flow disclosure reduces information asymmetry across market participants.     

Market's perception of deferred tax accruals

This study investigates the value relevance and incremental information content of deferred tax accruals reported under the ‘income statement method’ (AASB 1020 Accounting for Income Taxes) over the period 2001–2004. Our findings suggest that deferred tax accruals are viewed as assets and liabilities. We document a positive relation between recognized deferred tax assets and firm value using the levels model, while the results from the returns model suggest that deferred tax liabilities reflect future tax payments. The balance of unrecognized deferred tax assets provides a negative signal to the market about future profitability, particularly for companies from the materials and energy sectors and loss‐makers.     

Mandated successful efforts and auditor choice

This paper presents evidence that petroleum firms whose financial statements were adversely affected by Statement of Accounting Standards No. 19 (SFAS-19) increased the rate at which they changed auditors during the full cost/successful efforts controversy. Firms relatively unaffected by SFAS-19 experienced no such increase in auditor change rates. While some important theoretical and empirical limitationns are encountered, the evidence is generally inconsistent with the accounting irrelevancy view that SFAS-19 had no economic consequences for petroleum firms. Auditor-client disagreement on this accounting standard appears to be an important determinant of the decision to change auditors. However, there is no observed tendency for firms to switch to auditors with whom they agree on petroleum accounting.     

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.     

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.     

Selling-price estimates in revenue recognition and the usefulness of financial statements

Revenue is one of the largest and most value-relevant items in firms’ financial statements. Based on the “realizable” and the “earned” criteria of SFAC No. 5 (FASB in Concepts statement no. 5. Recognition and measurement in financial statements of business enterprises, 1984), revenues should reflect both selling price and timing of delivery. Of those two aspects, selling-price estimates are required for revenue recognition when standalone selling prices for products and services are not available. In this study, I examine the effects of selling-price estimates in revenue recognition on the contracting and informational roles of financial statements. Particularly, I examine the setting of SOP 97-2 (AICPA in Software revenue recognition. Statement of Position (SOP) 97-2, AICPA, New York, 1997) that removed software firms’ flexibility to recognize revenues using selling-price estimates. I find that SOP 97-2 implementation did not improve the contracting role of earnings. However its implementation partly shifted the informational role of financial statements from income-statement to balance-sheet components.     

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 .     

AASB 1037 Sows the Seeds of Change: A Survey of SGARA Measurement Methods

International developments are set to reignite the controversy over how self-generating and regenerating assets (SGARAs) are measured. The International Accounting Standards Committee is working on an international accounting standard on agriculture due to be effective some time after 1 January 2002. The standard is expected to be similar to AASB 1037 Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets. This is an interesting development since the Australian Accounting Standards Board was urged to not move ahead of international developments when it released Exposure Draft 83 Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets
This paper surveys Australian SGARA measurement practices to assess the extent of reporting change required by AASB 103 7 and its international counterpart.     

Economic consequences of SFAS 142 goodwill write‐offs

This paper examines the economic consequences of goodwill write‐offs under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 (SFAS 142). Although write‐off firms have performed poorly, it is evident that deteriorating economic performance explains only a small proportion of write‐offs. After controlling for endogeneity of write‐off choice, I fail to find evidence that investors and analysts fixate on SFAS 142 goodwill write‐offs. I also provide evidence that write‐off firms pay higher audit fees, suggesting that auditors charge higher fees in response to extra audit effort. These results are consistent with the principles of market efficiency, analyst‐forecast rationality and efficient audit pricing.     

Evaluating the Work of Internal Audit: A Comparison of Standards and Empirical Evidence

Numerous changes have recently been proposed or made to audit standards providing guidance for external auditors' evaluations of internal audit work. This paper reports the results of a study to compare the UK's Accounting Practices Board Statement of Auditing Standard 500, first, with similar standards promulgated by international, Canadian and US societies, and second, with audit quality factors derived from practising internal auditors. The data for the latter comparison was obtained from a two-phase study that first generated a set of potential quality factors through intensive structured interviews with audit groups from six different and diverse organisations, and then obtained evaluations of these factors from a large sample of internal auditors worldwide. Results first indicate that there are strong similarities between the guidance provided by SAS 500 and that proposed or promulgated by the UK, international, Canadian and US audit groups. Furthermore, the guidance provided by these SASs for items to consider in evaluating the quality of internal audit work are largely in agreement with the factors determined by practising internal auditors. There are, however, several items listed in SAS 500 that are not considered useful by internal auditors and there are other factors considered crucial by internal auditors but not mentioned in the SASs.