The temporal nature of legitimation: the case of IFRS8

Legitimation can operate on an episodic or continual basis [Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610]. We examine the temporal legitimation of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s actions during the adoption and review of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8 ‘Operating Segments’. We conceptualise the controversy surrounding IFRS8 as an episode when the IASB sought segmental reporting convergence with the US standard, Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 131. Interpreting evidence from 15 (20) semi-structured interviews undertaken in 2009 (2011), before (after) entities reported under IFRS8, reveals its adoption precipitated an episodic legitimacy threat from selected audiences to the actions of the IASB. We discuss the IASB's attempt to influence legitimation for this episode through commitment to a post-implementation review [IFRS Foundation. (2011). Post implementation reviews: Plan for developing the framework for conducting post-implementation reviews. IASB Board meeting February 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://www.ifrs.org/NR/rdonlyres/3E1502E4-F1E8-4907-838B-FFB20C7268ED/0/PIR02111st2ndb04obs.pdf] of IFRS8. Interpreting legitimacy concerns across diverse audiences about specific actions of the IASB (the introduction of IFRS8) enables us to draw conclusions about the resilience of the IASB as a standard setting organisation, in itself.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of the Management Approach on Segment Reporting

Accounting standard setters have increasingly attempted to align external segment reporting disclosures to a firm's internal reporting structure. We study how this move to the management approach for segment reporting impacted the number of reported segments and the extent of line item disclosures when Australia adopted IAS 14 (revised) and IFRS 8. We find that both standards led to firms disclosing a greater number of segments. An examination of the motives behind the non‐disclosure of segments suggests that segment information was withheld for agency cost reasons. We find only limited support for the proprietary cost motive for non‐reporting of segments. We also document that IFRS 8 led to a reduction in the amount of line item disclosure. Consistent with a proprietary cost explanation, the decrease in disclosure is greatest for firms with a higher number of profitable segments. Our results indicate that the change to the management approach to segment identification is not associated with the properties of analyst forecasts, nor did it lead to increased analyst following.     

Using Academic Research for the Post‐Implementation Review of Accounting Standards: A Note

The IASB and the FASB discuss formal processes for a post‐implementation review (PIR). This note contributes to this discussion in three ways. First, we argue that academics can, and should, play a significant role in a PIR. Second, we suggest a framework for empirical studies that are useful in a PIR, which enhances understandability of accounting research by standard setters. And third, we propose a process by which standard setters can take advantage of and embed academic research in a PIR.     

IFRS Developments in the USA and EU,and Some Implications for Australia

There have been several developments recently, both in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), which will have consequences in Australia. The two major developments in the US are the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to drop the reconciliation requirement for foreign registrants that adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the serious consideration that the SEC is currently giving to allow US publicly traded companies to adopt IFRS. The developments in the EU involve its ever‐lengthening endorsement process and the increasing pressure being brought on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its oversight body, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) trustees, to alter their composition and the character of their operations. At the same time, there has been the FASB's appeal to the EU to accept IFRS without any endorsement process. The developments in the US have been lauded by the IASB and in Europe. They represent an impressive vote of confidence in the IASB and in the efforts being made by national standard setters and securities market regulators around the world. The US has already taken a long stride towards joining the more than 110 countries and other jurisdictions that have committed themselves to allow or require the use of IFRS for some or all reporting entities.     

The Impact of SFAS No. 131 on Information and Monitoring

We investigate the effect of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) new segment reporting standard on the information and monitoring environment. We compare hand‐collected, restated SFAS 131 segment data for the final SFAS 14 fiscal year with the historical SFAS 14 data. We find that SFAS 131 increased the number of reported segments and provided more disaggregated information. Analysts and the market had access to a portion of the new segment information before it was made public, but analyst and market expectations were still altered by the mandated release of the new data. By increasing information disaggregation, the new standard induced firms to reveal previously “hidden” information about their diversification strategies. The newly revealed information affected market valuations and lead to changes in firm behavior consistent with improved monitoring following adoption of SFAS 131.     

Security Market Effects Associated with SFAS No. 131: Reported Business Segments

In this study we examine the economic impact of the expected shift from the FASB's segment reporting requirements found in SFAS No. 14 to those found in SFAS No. 131. SFAS No. 131 was the joint effort of the United States' FASB and Canada's Accounting Standards Board (AcSB). It requires firms to report segments based on the firm's internal reporting and management arrangements (the management method) rather than on SFAS No. 14's line-of-business method. One alleged deficiency with the line-of-business method is its flexibility that allowed companies to combine segments. Analysts complained that companies abused this flexibility to conceal information. The management method allegedly is less flexible because companies must report segments externally the same way that they manage them internally. We examine the economic impact of the reporting standard shift by first developing company variables related to the alleged concealment of information under SFAS No. 14. These variables help us to explore why companies combine business segments under the line-of-business method and what costs companies are expected to incur when they are forced to implement the management method. Next we identify a series of dates that chronicle when the market received information about the content of SFAS No. 131. Results of the stock return tests suggest that SFAS No. 131 had a significant impact on firms that previously had the greatest incentives to conceal segment information, consistent with the conjecture that the standard imposed unanticipated costs on affected firms.     

Convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards: The Case of Indonesia

Accounting professional bodies and governments in over 70 countries have supported the efforts made through the Indian Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in setting global accounting standards by adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for local financial reporting purposes. However, this has not happened in over 30 other countries due to various reasons. The US standard setters, for example, have decided to eliminate the differences between IFRSs and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) first as part of their convergence project with the IASB. Also, some emerging nations have not supported IFRSs due to other reasons. In Indonesia, for example, IFRSs are not permitted for domestic listed companies. The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the possible reasons for non-adoption of IFRSs in Indonesia by highlighting some of the important factors that are likely to influence the accounting environment in that country, taking an ecological perspective.     

Have ‘European’ and US GAAP measures of income and equity converged under IFRS? Evidence from European companies listed in the US

The EU's adoption of IFRS, combined with the SEC's removal of the US GAAP reconciliation requirement for non‐US registrants reporting under IFRS, signifies a major shift towards the acceptance of global standards. Based on 20‐F reconciliations provided by the population of US listed European companies filing IFRS‐based statements with the SEC in 2005, we examine whether ‘European’ and US GAAP measures of income and equity converged under IFRS. We find that during the period immediately preceding IFRS, for our sample companies, European and US GAAP measures are generally comparable in respect of income and equity. However, as an exception to the latter, we find that UK GAAP yielded significantly lower measures of equity than US GAAP For companies adopting IFRS for the first time in 2005, we find a significant gap between IFRS and US GAAP measures of income, thereby, signifying de facto divergence from US GAAP in regard to income determination. Furthermore, we find that, following IFRS adoption, significant differences with US GAAP equity persisted for companies that previously reported using UK GAAP. Our findings, thus, support critics’ claims that standard‐setters, most notably the IASB and FASB, have more work to do to achieve a sufficient degree of convergence between IFRS and US GAAP that will convince the SEC to require US companies to use IFRS.     

IFRS in the United States: If,When and How

This paper provides an overview of the convergence efforts of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It begins with their 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and traces developments up to the December 2011 announcement by the IASB Chair that convergence has come to a close, and it is now time to incorporate IFRS into the US financial reporting system. The paper then assesses approaches being considered by the SEC for incorporating IFRS into the US financial reporting model. The conclusion calls on the SEC to ‘make a decision’ and set a date for US adoption of IFRS. Otherwise, the SEC effectively will have abandoned its goal of a single set of high quality global accounting standards.     

An Investigation into the Potential Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in the United States: Implications and Implementation

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have been adopted by most of the G20 countries. Given the broad worldwide acceptance of IFRS and significance of attaining comparability to facilitate free flow of capital, the US standard setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) made a commitment to jointly work with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to explore the possibilities of convergence of US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with IFRS. In 2007, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) eliminated the requirement that foreign companies listed on the US stock exchanges reconcile their IFRS‐based financial statements with the US GAAP. In the same year the US SEC issued a concept release to the public requesting comments on a proposal to allow US issuers to prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS. Following these initiatives by the FASB and SEC, the aim of the present study is to investigate the implications of a potential full adoption of IFRS by the US. The present study details the challenges and benefits of adoption and outlines the steps required for a successful outcome of this process.     

新会计准则研究:分析框架与综述

本文构建了一个新会计准则研究的分析框架,在此基础上,对已有的新准则研究文献进行了系统的回顾与评论。结合分析框架和对已有文献的评述,我们进一步提出了未来尚需探索和拓展的方向。     

Has the IASB Been Successful in Making Accounting Earnings More Useful for Prediction and Valuation? UK Evidence

When producing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), one of the main goals of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was to create a set of standards which were more useful to investors as a predictive tool. We assess the success of the IASB in achieving this goal by investigating the effects of the introduction of IFRS on the relative information content of reported earnings and forecasted earnings under UK generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) and IFRS. Results indicate that the value relevance of forecasted earnings is significantly lower under IFRS while the value relevance of reported earnings is significantly larger. These findings suggest that IFRS substitutes price‐relevant information previously provided to the market in the form of analyst forecasts with information encoded by companies in their reported earnings. This implies that the IASB was indeed successful in its stated goal and points towards IFRS forecasts being more accurate and less dispersed than UK GAAP forecasts. This, in turn, implies that analysts are able to provide more informative forecasts under IFRS than under pre‐IFRS regimes and that the aforementioned substitution effect is not a consequence of any decrease in the quality of forecasts under the new regime.     

The Political and Unstable Nature of the IASB's 'Stable Platform': Post-Convergence Australian Experience

On 31 March 2004, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) established the 'stable platform' of new and revised standards applicable from 1 January 2005. We review the major changes made by the IASB to its stable platform of standards to illustrate how politics and lobbying influence the standard-setting process. Furthermore, Australian experience since International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption is used to illustrate the impact and extent of these and other changes within the local environment. Continuous changes to IFRS undoubtedly complicate the convergence process, particularly when they are largely indicative of political considerations rather than conceptual underpinnings.     

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.     

A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) establishes accounting standards now used in some form in over 100 countries. Diverse geographical participation in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) standard-setting is seen as desirable as it may improve the consistency of IFRS applications, reduce criticism of regional over-influence, and promote the legitimacy of the IASB. This study investigates country participation and the regional and institutional factors that influence the geographic diversity of comment letters (CLs) in the IASB's standard-setting process. Using CLs regarding 57 IASB issues from 2001 through 2008, we find that countries with EU membership, G4+1 membership, donations to the IASB, and larger equity market development are associated with larger numbers of CLs and CL writers. Analysis of a subsample of more developed countries finds some evidence that countries with more historic divergence in accounting standards from IFRS also have more CL writers. In most countries, one of several major stakeholder interest groups, such as professional accountancy bodies, accounting standard-setters, and public accounting firms, send at least half of the CLs. While response levels for most countries vary greatly depending upon the nature or topic of an IASB issue, overall response levels remain low at just over 100 responses per issue and did not increase over time. While geographic diversity and response rates are greater than its predecessor the International Accounting Standards Committee, they are lower than those of many national standard-setters, possibly raising due process and legitimacy issues for the IASB.     

Pirate Wireless: Revenue Recognition in the Telecommunications Industry

Pirate Wireless is a telecommunications company with stores and offices all over the globe. Jim Bayley is an extremely busy professional who enters into a contract with Pirate Wireless for the ultimate purchase of a smartphone with one‐year warranty, voice and data services, Cryptonite encryption software, and an extended warranty. The case requires students to act as Assistant Controller of Pirate Wireless Corporate and determine the appropriate revenue recognition for Pirate Wireless's contract with Jim Bayley. This mandates a thorough review of the five steps of revenue recognition set forth in Revenue from Contracts with Customers, the jointly converged standard issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in May 2014. The FASB's Accounting Standards Codification 606 is effective for all U.S. public entities for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2017. The IASB's International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 15 applies to an entity's first annual IFRS financial statements for a period beginning on or after January 1, 2018. This case is appropriate for an undergraduate or graduate level Intermediate Accounting course.     

The G4's role in the evolution of the international accounting standard setting process and partnership with the IASB

Between 1992 and 2001, representatives of the G4 national accounting standard setting bodies and the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) participated in a working group known as the G4+1. Immediately following the formation of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the G4 announced that the working group would no longer meet. Alternatively, the G4 national standard setters would form a partnership with the IASB via liaison representatives.This paper focuses on the objectives and mission of the G4+1, the G4's relationship with the IASC, the impact of the G4 on the restructuring of the IASC to establish a quality independent global accounting standard setter, former G4 participants’ perceptions of the IASB, and the significance of the IASB's current partnership with the G4 national accounting standard setters. The paper additionally discusses recent changes to the IASC Foundation Constitution and considers now modifications to the liaison structure may impact the IASB's partnership with its G4 national standard setting partners.Portions of a monograph published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales entitled Inside G4+1: The Working Group's Role in the Evolution of the International Accounting Standard Setting Process provide the background for the paper.