财务会计概念框架研究:比较与思考

财务会计概念框架(CF)是会计界理论研究的产物,是制定会计准则的需要,也是社会环境综合作用的结果。FASB及IASB都非常重视财务会计概念框架的研究,正在联合研究国际通用的概念框架。本文对FASB和IASB概念框架的主要内容作了比较研究,在此基础上提出构建我国财务会计概念框架的若干思考,以期对我国会计理论研究和会计准则建设与完善提供一定参考。     

财务会计概念框架的国际趋同动态

一、FASB与IASB启动概念框架趋同联合项目的背景众所周知,概念框架是制定和评估会计准则的理论基础。各国制定会计准则的指导思想、基本理念、目标和原则都体现在其各自的概念框架之中。概念框架之间是否存在重大差异将直接影响到依其制定的会计     

FASB与IASB概念框架联合项目评价与启示

财务会计概念框架对于指导和评价会计准则体系的建立具有重要意义，本文在FASB和IASB概念框架联合项目研究的新发展趋势背景下，阐述了FASB和IASB概念框架联合项目计划安排和主要内容，分析了概念框架联合项目启动原因对其阶段性成果进行评价，并归纳了对我国财务会计概念框架的构建和发展的启示。     

财务报告概念框架第一章：通用目的财务报告的目标

2010年9月28日,国际会计准则理事会（IASB）与美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）联合发布了概念框架第一阶段工作成果——通用目的财务报告的目标和有用财务信息的质量特征,分别编为第一章和第三章。按照计划,IASB与FASB将逐步完成概念框架的其他部分,分别是：报告主体、有用财务信息的质量特征和约束、财务报表要素、确认计量、列报以及披露,其中报告主体将编为第二章,然后逐渐替代现有的概念框架。概念框架是制定和理解会计准则的重要概念基础,对国际财务报告准则和我国会计准则的未来发展都具有潜在的影响。为帮助读者了解和及时掌握概念框架项目的最新成果,本刊特约请上海市财政局乔元芳同志将新发布的概念框架译成中文,并分两期发表。需要说明的是,为方便我国读者的阅读习惯,我们在编辑时为大标题增加了序号。     

关于IASB/FASB联合概念框架相关观点评析

财务概念框架是会计的核心主导。本文对美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)的联合概念框架的构建进展进行了介绍,并对其研究成果进行深入剖析和客观评价,以期对我国财务会计概念框架的构建有所裨益。     

关于IASB/FASB联合概念框架相关观点评析

财务概念框架是会计的核心主导。本文对美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)的联合概念框架的构建进展进行了介绍,并对其研究成果进行深入剖析和客观评价,以期对我国财务会计概念框架的构建有所裨益。     

FASB/IASB联合概念框架相关性与可靠性质量特征的逻辑关系——基于经济学视角的分析

FASB和IASB联合概念框架于2010年9月对基本质量特征的逻辑关系做出了新的界定。从经济学视角,通过建立会计信息使用者的效用函数和预算约束方程,以既定支出下的效用最大化为目标,从理论上分析了相关性与可靠性的逻辑关系。研究结果表明,联合概念框架所界定的相关性与可靠性的逻辑关系可能导致财务报告边界无限扩张、会计信息质量下降。     

中美基本会计准则浅析

美国FASB的财务会计概念框架和中国的企业会计准则均是用来规范会计活动的高层次指南。2002年10月,FASB和IASB正式同意共同致力于会计准则的趋同。FASB的财务会计概念框架一直处于更新的状态当中,2010年9月颁布了财务会计概念框架第八号公告,代替了第一号和第二号概念公告。FASB的财务会计概念框架是各国制定财务会计准则的重要范本,把它同我国财政部2006年公布的企业会计准则相比较将会擦出理论的火花。     

借鉴IASB概念框架,完善我国企业会计基本准则

我国基本准则虽然在地位、结构、内容上与IASB概念框架有所区别,但是,二者都要为具体准则的制定和理解提供依据,基于我国企业会计准则与国际准则实质性趋同的方向,我们有必要借鉴IASB概念框架文件,完善我国基本准则。本文介绍并简要评论2018版概念框架的主要内容及其特点;进而对其做出总体评价;在此基础上,借鉴IASB概念框架,在整体上及其各章具体内容上如何完善基本准则,分别提出建议。     

构建我国会计信息质量特征体系的探讨

会计信息的质量非常重要,这是因为信息使用者只有通过有用的信息才能做出明智的决策。美国会计准则委员会(FASB)与国际会计准则委员会(ISAB)于2010年9月联合发布了第八号财务会计概念公告(SFACNo.8)。通过论述联合概念框架的会计信息质量特征的最新进展,对与它们之前的概念框架进行对比、分析,并结合我国经济状况对我国会计准则基本准则提出了建议。     

试评IASB/FASB联合概念框架的某些改进——截至2008年10月16日的进展

本文试图讨论IASB与FASB联合概念框架项目若干改进(截至2008年10月16日的进展)。现在,两个理事会已经颁发了三份讨论稿(初步观点),一是关于《财务报告的目标与财务报告对决策有用的信息质量特征》,二是关于《报告主体》,三是关于《财务报表列报》。还有《财务报告目标与决策有用信息质量特征》的一份征求意见稿(ED),此外还有一些两个理事会工作人员关于财务报表要素如资产及其定义、计量的基础等新闻公告。虽然上述文献是不完整且是初步的,但我们已能发现若干新的观点,例如在两个基本的质量特征中,"可靠性"已被"如实反映"所取代,理事会的工作人员还给出新的资产定义,而且在现有的概念框架中,第一次提出有关《报告主体》的讨论稿(初步观点)。本文主要介绍上述文稿的基本观点,同时也试图提出若干意见。     

财务报告概念框架的新篇章——评美国FASB第8号概念公告(2010年9月)

本文试图介绍并评论FASB第8号概念公告,这份公告包括两章来自IASB/FASB联合项目的成果。本文肯定了该概念公告的优点和特点,并得出结论,这份概念公告是高质量概念框架的一部分,是财务报告概念框架的新篇章。     

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.     

Articulation,Profit or Loss and OCI in the IASB Conceptual Framework: Different Shades of Clean (or Dirty) Surplus

Abstract

The 2015 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015 IASB CF ED) proposes a mixed valuation and transactions approach to income determination. Nevertheless, it does not clearly choose between single or dual concepts of profit, which renders the 2015 IASB CF ED’s financial accounting model somewhat incoherent. The 2015 IASB CF ED proposes a rebuttable presumption that profit or loss should be all-inclusive. Only the IASB can rebut this presumption, but the 2015 IASB CF ED provides no clear conceptual basis on which to rebut this presumption. In spite of considering dual measurement, the IASB believes that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to distinguish between profit or loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) on a conceptual basis. This paper suggests that the 2015 IASB CF ED’s approach to measurement can be improved by introducing a deprival value measurement rule in cases where fair value and historical cost are not appropriate. Furthermore, it argues that under dual measurement it is both necessary and possible to make a conceptual distinction between the realised items of income and expense in profit or loss and those recognised by accretion in OCI.     

A Note on the Proprietary and Entity Perspectives in Financial Statements: The Implications for two Current Controversial Issues

Financial statements can portray the financial position and performance of an entity from different perspectives. Two dominant perspectives are the proprietary and entity perspectives. These perspectives also feature in recent discussions by the IASB and the FASB in relation to their conceptual framework project. The adopted perspective will yield different presentations for a number of issues. This paper illustrates the implications for two controversial issues currently under discussion by the IASB and the FASB: accounting for changes in a reporting entity’s own credit risk when liabilities are measured at fair value, and the classification of certain obligations as either equity or liabilities. The paper explains why the adoption and consistent application of one perspective are important for standard setting and financial reporting to ensure the consistent presentation of an entity’s performance and financial position that can be correctly interpreted by users of financial statements against the background of the chosen perspective.     

Revisiting the Concepts: Time to Challenge the Asset-Liability View

The IASB and the FASB are in a joint project to update, complete and converge their conceptual frameworks. The two standard-setters have not identified the merits of the asset-liability view as a cross-cutting issue. This paper suggests that the relationship between the objective of financial reporting and the asset-liability view is not substantiated, and that there is little evidence that the frameworks and the asset and liability definitions have been useful in establishing objective recognition criteria. Hence, there are reasons for the FASB and the IASB to challenge the asset-liability view.     

回顾与评介——AICPA关于财务会计概念的研究

财务会计与报告的概念框架项目是在1976年由美国会计准则委员会开始的,但此前15年,其前任美国注册会计师协会曾进行了数次的尝试,包括ARS No1、No3,APB Statements No4、Trueblood报告等。美国注册会计师协会的努力既有成功经验,也有失败的教训,可供美国会计准则委员会及各国会计准则制定机构参考。     

Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework

The ongoing neoliberalisation of global economies has been well documented. Neoliberalism requires a commitment to a broad set of ideas about how political economies should operate, and these ideas underpin the transformations of practice in the process of neoliberalisation—both at a technical and conceptual level. Transactions within a neoliberal economy need to be accounted for in a way that accords with this broader set of ideas. Specifically, the growth of accumulation through financial markets has seen a concurrent growth in accounts that both reflects and reproduces finance at its centre. These accounts are more than just reports; they condition our expectations and support the production of further accounts, which in turn reinforce the dominant political economy. Despite the connection between neoliberalism, financialisation and the practice of accounting, the role of accounting in the process of neoliberalisation has received only limited attention. In order to contribute to a deeper understanding of these processes and to the role that accounting plays within them, this paper re-examines the Conceptual Framework (CF) to show how it forms an important part of the architecture of neoliberalism, providing coherence and legitimacy to its key ideas. The current CF project was jointly conducted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and is positioned within the broader literature on neoliberalism and financialisation. This paper shows how changes in terminology, shifts in notions of income and the popularity of market valuations (fair value accounting) work to normalise the speculative characteristics of financial markets. Through this newly configured globalised CF, the regulatory architecture of accounting may work to sustain the centrality of finance in a post-GFC economy, despite its many deficiencies.     

Expected-loss-based Accounting for Impairment of Financial Instruments: The FASB and IASB Proposals 2009–2016

The financial and banking crisis of the late 2000s prompted claims that the incurred-loss method for the recognition of credit losses had caused undesirable delay in the recognition of credit-loss impairment. In the wake of the crisis, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) worked towards the development of expected-loss-based methods of accounting for credit-loss impairment. Their work included an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to develop a converged FASB/IASB standard on credit-loss impairment. The FASB and IASB eventually developed their own separate expected-loss models to be included, respectively, in a 2016 FASB standard and in the IASB’s 2014 final version of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The failure to achieve convergence on an issue of such high profile and materiality has generated some controversy, and it is claimed that it will impose significant costs on the preparers and users of the financial statements of banks. This paper examines the various sets of expected-loss-based proposals issued separately or jointly since 2009 by the FASB and the IASB. It describes and compares key features of the different approaches eventually developed by the two standard setters, referring to issues that arose in arriving at practically workable solutions and to issues that may have impeded FASB/IASB convergence. It also provides information indicative of the possible effect of differences between the two approaches.     

On the Attributes of an Asset

Definition of the elements of financial accounting has been a much discussed topic since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) began work on their Conceptual Framework Project. Defining assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and other elements has been attempted by many knowledgeable accountants but, to date, no single, generally accepted set of definitions exists. This paper will focus upon the definition of assets and will, through an examination of FASB Statements, attempt to derive an implicit definition of assets from the pronouncements of the FASB.