A Proposal for Teaching Introductory and Intermediate Accounting in an Environment of International Financial Reporting Standards and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Private Enterprises*

Teaching introductory and intermediate financial accounting in an environment of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) and generally accepted accounting principles for private enterprises (GAAP for PEs) is an issue facing faculty at Canadian universities and colleges. We present a number of options and then propose an approach that we believe provides a balanced treatment of accounting standards for both publicly accountable and private enterprises. This approach focuses on the concepts and principles that are common to both IFRS and GAAP for PEs. We argue that this approach encourages deep learning resulting in students’ better understanding of accounting standards and their application.     

China's Convergence with IFRS: Analysis of Dual-listed Companies

This study investigates China's convergence towards International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) differences data disclosed in AH-share companies’ annual reports from 2006 to 2017. We firstly find that 92% of AH-share companies disclosed GAAP differences in 2006, immediately prior to implementation of converged Chinese accounting standards (CAS). This ratio decreased to 88% in 2007, 58% in 2010, and 38% in 2011, respectively. After 2011, less than one third of AH companies disclosed GAAP differences. Secondly, an increasing number of AH companies (35%) have published CAS-based financial statements in Hong Kong from 2014. Thirdly, except for the first few years after 2007, the disclosed GAAP differences have dropped to a very low level; since 2010 the net profit and net assets GAAP differences ratios have been below 0.5%. Fourthly, reduction of the disclosed GAAP differences appears to be the result of efforts by Chinese standard setters and regulators, work related to the International Accounting Standards Board, or changes in China's special socio-economic environment. Distinct from word-by-word comparison between CAS and IFRS, this research shows that China has achieved its original goal, namely an enterprise applying CAS should produce financial statements that are the same as those of an enterprise that applies IFRS. Our findings provide insights regarding China's institutional evolution in terms of the country's IFRS convergence effort, which are useful for further empirical study.     

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.     

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.     

Professional Judgment and Departures from GAAP: “Judgment in Jeopardy” Revisited*/ JUGEMENT PROFESSIONNEL ET DÉROGATION AUX PCGR: LA PIERRE ANGULAIRE REVISITÉE

Prior to 2003, the CICA Handbook both required and allowed reporting entities to depart from generally accepted accounting principles if, in the professional judgment of the preparers and the auditors, compliance with GAAP would result in misleading financial statements. In 2003, the CICA Handbook was amended to remove these provisions. In this paper, the history of the amendment is discussed in light of Skinner's 1995 article “Judg‐ment in Jeopardy". I argue that while there is evidence of certain shortcomings in the exercise of professional judgment, remedies are available. Those remedies include (1) revisiting pre‐existing recommendations; (2) improving dialogue between standard‐setters, researchers, and practitioners; (3) increasing emphasis on accounting theory in professional accounting curricula; and (4) rigorously investigating and disciplining lapses in professional judgment. I suggest that we can rely on professional judgment, and that such reliance is both necessary and desirable. Admittedly, there will likely be few situations where compliance with GAAP would result in misleading financial statements and the discretion to depart from GAAP can lead to abuses that, at the very least, would hamper the comparability of financial statement information. However, the requirement to verify that the application of GAAP results in fair presentation is an important safeguard given the complexity of the financial reporting environment.     

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.     

IFRS adoption,reporting incentives and financial reporting quality in private firms

This study examines financial reporting quality (FRQ) effects around voluntary International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoptions by German private firms across two important dimensions, earnings quality and disclosure practices. To capture differences in the motivations for IFRS adoptions, we identify four different types of IFRS adopting firms based on a comprehensive set of firm characteristics. We observe earnings quality improvements around IFRS adoptions primarily for one type of firm, which is young, fast growing and seeking access to public equity markets. Using a matched sample of private German GAAP and IFRS reporting firms, we find some evidence suggesting that IFRS also contribute to higher earnings quality. Recognizing that our earnings quality metrics are only incomplete measures of FRQ, we also compare the disclosure practices of IFRS and German GAAP firms. We find that all IFRS firm types disclose significantly more information in their financial reports and show a higher propensity to publish their financial reports voluntarily on the corporate website. Our findings indicate that failure to identify earnings quality changes around IFRS adoption cannot be automatically interpreted as IFRS adoption having no effect on the FRQ of (private) firms. Collectively, our results suggest that both incentives and accounting standards shape private firms’ FRQ.     

The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic

There has been considerable discussion about the U.S. reporting standards becoming less rules based, similar to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). One proposed advantage of a change to IFRS is increased comparability across multinational and non-U.S. companies. Additionally, some believe that IFRS afford greater flexibility in its principles, thereby enabling firms’ accounting choices to better reflect the true economic nature of any given transaction (FASB, 2002; SEC, 2003). With fewer rules, both financial statement preparers and auditors would be expected to adjust to having more options with regards to financial reporting. However, some proposed changes leave the option open to implement IFRS (or other principles-based standards) in ways that still follow rules in U.S. GAAP. This paper investigates whether prior year accounting treatments influence the judgment for current year treatments when one way to implement the standard is to follow the prior year treatment. We find that some auditors fixate on prior year scenarios and judgments, even if the current year scenario and applicable accounting standards are different. We find that holding auditors accountable for their decision making process reduces the likelihood of sticking with the prior year treatment most notably when the prior year standards were U.S. GAAP.     

Economic Benefits of Adopting IFRS or US‐GAAP – Have the Expected Cost of Equity Capital Really Decreased?

Abstract:   The question of whether the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) results in measurable economic benefits is of special interest, particularly in light of the European Union's adoption of IFRS for listed companies. In this paper, I investigate the common conjecture that internationally recognised financial reporting standards (IAS/IFRS or US‐GAAP) reduce the cost of capital for adopting firms. Building on Leuz and Verrecchia (2000) , I use a set of German firms that have adopted such standards and investigate the potential economic benefits of this reporting strategy by analysing their cost of equity capital through the use and customisation of available implied estimation methods. Evidence from the 1993–2002 period fails to document lower expected cost of equity capital for firms applying IAS/IFRS or US‐GAAP. During the transition period I analyse, the expected cost of equity capital in fact appear to have rather increased under non‐local accounting standards.     

Inconsistency in U.S. Accounting Standards: The Treatment of Interest

Consistency is an essential part of financial reporting: it applies both to the continuous use of the same accounting principles by an entity from period to period, and to consistency between various accounting principles used by the same entity. In the development of accounting standards, risks to users of inconsistencies can be reduced by good disclosure requirements, particularly so between various pronouncements. A study examining the treatment of interest found inconsistencies in two-thirds of the relevant U.S. GAAP pronouncements.     

Attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings: An exploratory study

In this study we explore attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings. Our study is motivated by the ongoing harmonization process in accounting standard setting as well as by recent convergence projects by the FASB and the IASB. We test two market-based earnings attributes, i.e., value relevance and timeliness, as well as two accounting-based earnings attributes, i.e., predictability and accrual quality. These attributes are tested for German New Market firms as they are allowed to choose between IFRS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting purposes. Overall, we find that U.S. GAAP and IFRS only differ with regard to predictive ability. The fact that U.S. GAAP accounting information outperforms IFRS also holds after controlling for differences in firm characteristics, such as size, leverage and the audit firm. However, our results also seem to suggest that these differences are not fully valued by investors, as we do not observe significant and consistent differences for the value-relevance attribute.     

IFRS within the Multi‐GAAP Canadian Reality: A Teaching and Learning Imperative for Intermediate Financial Accounting

Intermediate accounting instructors need to be engaged in the specific complexities and challenges of the new international financial reporting standards (IFRS) reality within the Canadian multi‐GAAP environment. Intermediate accounting courses are directly affected because they represent substantive coverage of the corporate reporting environment. In this article I make the case that these courses should primarily reflect IFRS standards in order to entrench IFRS competencies in students who wish to pursue a professional designation, to prepare students for the global environment, and to concentrate IFRS expertise issues in a robust instructor group. The competency maps of each of the three Canadian professional accounting bodies clearly reflect IFRS. Students can analyze the implications of major areas of policy differences between IFRS and private enterprise GAAP (PEGAAP) through specific targeted course coverage, but also through active learning elements, particularly research elements. This commentary reflects some of the active debate occurring regarding postsecondary curriculum as Canada adapts to IFRS and PEGAAP, and encourages action.     

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.     

Perceptions of the true and fair view concept: an empirical investigation

If major groups of financial reporting participants differ in their perceptions of standards for financial reporting quality, such as 'true and fair view', 'present fairly' and 'fair presentation', a financial reporting expectation gap may occur. This article reports the results of a survey designed to explore this potential gap by determining New Zealand financial directors', auditors' and shareholders' perceptions of terms associated with financial reporting quality.
The results show that a clear majority of all three groups share similar perceptions of the 'true and fair view'; but perceive 'true and fair view' to be quite different from 'fairly presents' and 'fair presentation', terms the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants' (2005) describes as equivalent to 'true and fair view'. Thus there appears to be a perception gap between the respondents surveyed and the Institute. The findings also support a literal rather than a technical interpretation of 'true and fair view'; that respondents do not perceive 'true and fair view' as compliance with GAAP; and that 'true' ('truth' in accounting), the word separating 'true and fair view' from terms that include only 'fair', may be perceived as a key factor required for financial reporting quality.     

IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry–Based Evidence from Germany's New Market

Motivated by the debate about globally uniform accounting standards, this study investigates whether firms using U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) vis‐à‐vis international accounting standards (IAS) exhibit differences in several proxies for information asymmetry. It exploits a unique setting in which the two sets of standards are put on a level playing field. Firms trading in Germany's New Market must choose between IAS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting, but face the same regulatory environment otherwise. Thus, institutional factors such as listing requirements, market microstructure, and standards enforcement are held constant. In this setting, differences in the bid‐ask spread and share turnover between IAS and U.S. GAAP firms are statistically insignificant and economically small. Subsequent analyses of analysts' forecast dispersion, initial public offering underpricing, and firms' standard choices corroborate these findings. Thus, at least for New Market firms, the choice between IAS and U.S. GAAP appears to be of little consequence for information asymmetry and market liquidity. These findings do not support widespread claims that U.S. GAAP produce financial statements of higher informational quality than IAS.     

The Silent Majority: Private U.S. Firms and Financial Reporting Choices

This study uses a comprehensive panel of tax returns to examine the financial reporting choices of medium-to-large private U.S. firms, a setting that controls over $9 trillion in capital, vastly outnumbers public U.S. firms across all industries, yet has no financial reporting mandates. We find that nearly two-thirds of these firms do not produce audited GAAP financial statements. Guided by an agency theory framework, we find that size, ownership dispersion, external debt, and trade credit are positively associated with the choice to produce audited GAAP financial statements, while asset tangibility, age, and internal debt are generally negatively related to this choice. Our findings reveal that (1) equity capital and trade credit exhibit significant explanatory power, suggesting that the primary focus in the literature on debt is too narrow; (2) firm youth, growth, and R&D are positively associated with audited GAAP reporting, reflecting important monitoring roles of financial reporting; and (3) many firms violate standard explanations for financial reporting choices and substantial unexplained heterogeneity in financial reporting remains. We conclude by identifying opportunities for future research.     

Earnings Quality under Rules‐ versus Principles‐based Accounting Standards: A Test of the Skinner Hypothesis / LA QUALITÉ DES RÉSULTATS SELON QUE LES NORMES COMPTABLES SONT AXÉES SUR LES RÈGLES OU SUR LES PRINCIPES: VÉRIFICATION DE L'HYPOTHÈSE DE SKINNER*

We provide preliminary evidence, consistent with Skinner (1995), that Canada's relatively principles‐based GAAP yield higher accrual quality than the United States' relatively rules‐based GAAP. These results stem from a comparison of the Dechow‐Dichev (2002) measure of accrual quality for cross‐listed Canadian firms reporting under both Canadian and U.S. GAAP. However, we document lower accrual quality for Canadian firms reporting under U.S. GAAP than for U.S. firms, which are subject to stronger U.S. oversight, reporting under U.S. GAAP. The latter results suggest that stronger U.S. oversight compensates for inferior accrual quality associated with rules‐based GAAP. Consistent with the positive effect of Canada's principles‐based GAAP and the offsetting negative effect of Canada's weaker oversight, we find no overall difference in accrual quality between Canadian firms reporting under Canadian GAAP and U.S. firms reporting under U.S. GAAP. Our results imply that (1) policymakers who wish to compare the effectiveness of oversight across jurisdictions must control for the GAAP effect; and (2) accounting standard‐setters who wish to compare the effectiveness of principles‐ versus rules‐based GAAP must control for oversight strength.     

The measurement and recognition of intangible assets: then and now

“In the Fortune 500 there are thousands upon thousands of statistics that reveal very little that’s meaningful about the corporations they purportedly describe. At least that’s the verdict of a growing number of forward-thinking market watchdogs, academics, accountants, and others.”(Fortune, April 2001). In today’s economy value is often created by intangible (intellectual) capital. The accounting profession has not met the challenge of measuring and reporting the results of knowledge-based entities. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimates that in the year 2000 more than US$ 1 trillion was invested in Intangibles. The problems relating to the measurement and recognition of intangibles are international in scope.This paper reviews existing and recently promulgated US, UK, and IASC accounting standards relating to Intangibles. Inconsistencies in the measurement and reporting of Intangibles under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are highlighted, and evidence is provided that suggests that recognition of Intangible (Intellectual) Capital is in accordance with existing accounting principles In particular, the newly promulgated Financial Accounting Standards Statements on Business Combinations, Goodwill, and other Intangibles is reviewed. The objective of the comparisons to UK and IASC standards and the review is to provide evidence that will improve the measurement and reporting of intangible (intellectual) capital and facilitate harmonization. Improving the global financial reporting infrastructure will ultimately lead to the reporting of relevant and reliable quality earnings.     

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.     

GAAP,GFS and AASB 1049: perceptions of public sector stakeholders

Efforts by Australian standard‐setters to harmonise public sector financial reporting resulted in AASB 1049, which sought to bridge the divide between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)‐based and government finance statistics (GFS)‐based financial statements. However, whether AASB 1049 has resulted in information that is considered appropriate for the public sector has not been examined. We explore this issue by comparing the requirements of AASB 1049 with the responses from a survey of public sector stakeholders on the appropriate accounting treatment and presentation of selected financial items. The analysis suggests consensus with AASB 1049 on presentation issues but less consensus on accounting treatments.