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.     

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.     

(No) Limits to Anglo-American accounting? Reconstructing the history of the International Accounting Standards Committee: A review article

The development of the current International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from the earlier International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) provides insight into many issues of international financial reporting, among them the characteristics of international accounting standards themselves. This article reviews Camfferman and Zeff’s [Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets. A history of the international accounting standards committee 1973–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press] volume on the organizational development of the IASC and contextualizes it in the broader literature of cross-border standardization in accounting. While having produced a seminal piece, the authors take a clear Anglo-American perspective. The downsides are insufficiencies regarding a simplistic understanding of experts and expertise, a neglect of the role of auditing firms, and only an imbalanced integration of different stakeholders.     

GFC or KFC?: How Standard Setters Were Battered and Fried

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has exposed the fragility of both the alleged independence of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and their agreement to work together on major projects such as accounting for financial instruments. This paper outlines the events that have dogged the IASB and FASB in their attempts to respond to the GFC and explores the implications of the recent political pressures on accounting standard setting for the likelihood of ultimately achieving one global set of accounting standards.     

Implications for the Conceptual Framework Arising From Accounting for Financial Instruments

This article describes some of the issues faced by standard setters in developing guidance on accounting for financial instruments and the implications these issues have for the conceptual framework (CF). The objective is to outline issues, not necessarily to resolve them, and to consider the implications they have for further developing the conceptual framework.
Given the current trend of harmonization and convergence of accounting practice towards international standards, it seems reasonable to assume that any policy implications will be most relevant to the CF inherited by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). ¹ Unless otherwise stated, references will be made to International Accounting Standards (IAS).     

Extractive Industries Reporting: A Review of Accounting Challenges and the Research Literature

While the extractive industries (EI) are of major significance economically, the reporting of their activities has been the subject of contentious debate posing dilemmas for regulators and standard setters over many decades. In order to ensure alignment with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) research project on EI, we first identify some important economic characteristics of EI and associated accounting challenges together with an overview of how current accounting standards deal with these challenges using International Financial Reporting Standards as the focus. Second, we conduct a review of extant research on EI reporting analyzed around the key areas of: (a) international diversity of accounting practices and the challenges facing information users; (b) standard-setting processes and lobbying behaviour that deals with why the IASB (and other standard setters) have not succeeded in developing rigorous standards for extractive activities; (c) the reporting of oil, gas, and mineral reserves, given that large proportions of the assets of EI firms (the reserves) are off-balance sheet; (d) environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting dealing with how EI firms have increased their reporting of ESG information in response to regulatory demands and pressure for voluntary disclosures; and (e) other EI related topics such as earnings management, risk disclosures, and voluntary disclosure behaviour. Finally, we present some conclusions together with suggestions relating to key areas for future research on EI reporting.     

Monopoly versus Competition in Setting Accounting Standards

Financial accounting standards are set by organizations granted a significant degree of monopoly power by various governments. While there has been considerable debate on the merits of national (e.g., US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)) versus international (International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)) monopolies, little attention has been paid to the merits of using competing standard‐setting organizations (SSOs) for setting accounting standards. We compare the standard‐setting processes of the FASB/IASB to the processes of four technology‐oriented SSOs to assess the role of competition. We also provide a case study of monopoly and competitive standards in telephony. Both telephony and accounting yield some gains from coordination, and similar arguments are used (under the labels of comparability and consistency of accounting) in debates about granting a monopoly to their respective SSOs. Our results show that a group of volunteers competing with the government‐sanctioned monopoly of International Telecommunications Union transformed the telephone industry. Thanks to this standards competition, we enjoy free video internet calling and massive cost savings. Implications for accounting standard setting are discussed.     

Corporate Lobbying in Private Accounting Standard Setting: Does the IASB have to Reckon with National Differences?

This paper explores whether the attitude of preparers towards lobbying to a private accounting standard setter is different depending on the regulatory background of the preparers' home country. Prior literature examined the preparers' incentives and characteristics as drivers to participate in the due process of international accounting standard setting, but it did not investigate the impact of the preparers' national regulatory background on participation. As a result of the acceptance of the International Financial Reporting Standards promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in different countries, preparers who are traditionally accustomed with an accounting standard setting process initiated by governments with few opportunities for formal participation, are now able to participate in a private accounting standard setting process characterised by several possibilities for participation. Comparing survey evidence of Belgian preparers with existing survey evidence of UK preparers, we notice that the participation methods used, the perception on the effectiveness of the participation methods and the reasons for non-participation differ across both groups of preparers. This finding suggests that the national regulatory background of the preparers may affect the behaviour of preparers in their decision to participate in private accounting standard setting.     

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.     

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.     

Relevance of Academic Research and Researchers' Role in the IASB's Financial Reporting Standard Setting

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) faces a vast number of standard‐setting issues at all levels of financial reporting. The purpose of this article is to explore the relevance of academic research for financial reporting standard setting and the role of academic researchers in the standard‐setting process. We contribute to the current debate surrounding International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by drawing inferences from prior findings regarding the role of research in the IASB's standard‐setting efforts. After defining three broad categories of standard‐setting questions, we explore how the international heterogeneity of its constituency imposes constraints on the IASB's work. Then, whether and how academic research can inform policy makers is investigated from an epistemological perspective. Based on a review of extant literature, the general criteria which a piece of research should fulfil in order to be perceived as relevant and useful by standard setters are discussed. This discussion is followed by more detailed considerations regarding the suitability of different research approaches for each of the three categories of standard‐setting questions. We also touch on the subject of inferential problems inherent in most academic accounting research. Since the main objective is to contribute insights relevant to the IASB's efforts, we analyse academics' career systems and their incentives to engage in research intermediation, before discussing possible ways in which interested researchers can channel their insights into the IASB's standard‐setting process. Overall, the international dimension of IASB standard setting and its implications for relevant research are emphasized.     

Post-Implementation Reviews for IASB and FASB Standards: A Comparison of the Process and Findings for the Operating Segments Standards

Abstract

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) have recently completed post-implementation reviews (PIRs) for their converged standards on operating segments IFRS 8 and SFAS 131. The two accounting bodies use PIRs as an additional standard assessment mechanism. This paper (1) provides an overview of the main differences and similarities between the two PIR processes and (2) compares the findings of the PIRs on the operating segment standards supplemented with insights from a survey of the segment information notes of a sample of STOXX Europe 600 companies. The IASB and the FAF set the specific PIR objectives and conduct the information gathering phase differently. For the IFRS 8 and SFAS 131 PIRs, these differences meant that the FAF focused more narrowly on how SFAS 131 performs compared to the previous standard, while the IASB is aimed to more broadly assess constituents' views on whether IFRS 8 works well in practice. Comparing the PIR findings for the operating segments standards is warranted given that the standards are converged and that the standard setters re-expressed their commitment to keep them substantially converged. Uniform PIR processes could have eased the cooperation in maintaining convergence. Given the different scope of the reviews, standard setters will need to find a common ground on how to proceed and which issues to address further.     

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.     

Derivative accounting and financial reporting quality: A review of the literature

The financial crisis of 2008 increased the call for standard setters and financial regulators to review the effectiveness of derivative regulation in improving financial reporting quality. Prior literature defines financial reporting quality as the extent to which financial statements provide information that is useful to investors and creditors in their investment decisions (Schipper, 2003; Schipper & Vincent, 2003). This review summarizes the empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of derivative regulation in achieving its stated objective. Extant literature shows that although derivative regulations have improved information provided to investors, there is still room for improvement. Recommendations from this stream of literature suggest that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) require managers to provide more complete, transparent, and forward-looking disclosures surrounding their derivative positions (Campbell, 2015; Franco-Wong, 2000). This review may be useful to standard setters, practitioners, and accounting academics by providing a synthesis of extant academic literature on the effectiveness of current derivative regulation. As the FASB and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) continue to expand derivative accounting rules, this review may also be useful in identifying areas for future academic research.     

Agenda Entrance Complexity in International Accounting Standard Setting: The Case of IFRS for SMEs

Features of rational decision making (such as agenda entrance criteria and statement of jurisdiction) barely conceal the complexity of international accounting standard setting. In 2003, when the International Financial Reporting Standard for Small and Medium‐sized Entities (IFRS for SMEs) project achieved agenda entrance, the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) jurisdiction was to develop, ‘a single set of … accounting standards … to help participants in the world's capital markets’. Drawing on interviewees' recollections and other material, this study of how the project achieved agenda entrance finds within‐IASB opposition to the project, arguing it was outside the IASB's jurisdiction that dissolved with the realisation that the IASB's jurisdiction would be changed to encompass the project.     

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.     

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.     

On the ‘Disclosure Initiative – Principles of Disclosure’: The EAA Financial Reporting Standards Committee’s View

Abstract

This paper summarises the contents of a comment letter produced by a working group of 12 academics in response to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Discussion Paper on principles of disclosure. The comment letter was submitted by the Financial Reporting Standards Committee (FRSC) of the European Accounting Association (EAA). The work includes reviews of relevant academic literature of areas related to the various questions posed by the IASB in the Discussion Paper, including the ‘disclosure problem’ and the objective of the project, the suggested principles of effective communication, the roles of the primary financial statements and notes, the location of information and the use of performance measures. The paper also discusses the disclosure of accounting policies, the objectives of centralised disclosure, and the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board staff’s approach to disclosure.     

Does greater user representation lead to more user focused standards? An empirical investigation of IASB’s approach to standard setting

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has faced calls to act in the interest of users of financial statements given the perception of the greater influence exerted by preparers and professional accounting firm stakeholders. In response, the IASB has, over more than a decade, sought to increase user centricity, adapting its people and processes to more fully engage the views of users. We report on our empirical analysis from the standard setter’s perspective of user engagement which is a research objective not documented in the prior literature. Our results draw on interviews conducted with 31 IASB representatives, comprised of 26 staff and 5 Board members representing approximately 60% of IASB’s non-support staff as well as publically available archival data. We deploy the Griffiths (1960) citizenship participation framework in reporting on the procedural rigor directed at user utility, to assess IASB’s attempt to enhance its perceived relevance (existential enhancement) as a standard setting body. We explain how a “clash” between new user centric practices and the extant practices led to challenges for the IASB in factoring the views of, and acting in the interest of users, as demanded by regulatory authorities. We discuss some of the tensions this has made evident in IASB’s objective to function as an effective standard setter. Conceptually, our paper clarifies how more embedded representation modes per Griffith (1960) elicited greater user feedback, but that tensions arose in relation to the IASB’s broader objectives to more directly serve users’ interests. Functionally, we offer a more nuanced appreciation for why the IASB might not unilaterally seek to be “user-focused” in the interests of both users and other stakeholders, and in doing so, serve the longer term objectives of accounting standard setting.