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.     

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.     

Convergence between US GAAP and IFRS: Acceptance of IFRS by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Abstract

The world's capital markets stand to benefit significantly from widespread acceptance and use of global accounting standards that are high quality, comprehensive and rigorously applied. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced in April 2007 a series of actions it intends to take relating to the acceptance of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). To implement this, the SEC proposed in July 2007 amendments to Form 20-F and conforming changes to SEC Regulation S-X to accept financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS without reconciliation to US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) when contained in the filings of foreign private issuers with the SEC. This paper analyses the forces driving convergence between US GAAP and IFRS and discusses the most recent activities by the SEC in relation to IFRS and international cooperation, including the SEC vote as of 15 November 2007, to allow foreign private issuers to prepare their financial statements using IFRS as issued by the IASB without reconciling to US GAAP.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

IFRS in the United States – Developments and Current Status

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are now required or permitted for use by companies in more than 100 countries, including the majority of the G20 members. However, domestic public companies domiciled in the United States (US) continue to be required to file financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in accordance with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP), and are prohibited from preparing them based on IFRS. This article describes the developments of IFRS‐related activities and initiatives in the US over the period 2007–2012, and provides an overview of the current status regarding potentially incorporating IFRS into the US financial reporting system based on recently issued reports by the SEC.     

The Political Economy of Convergence: The Case of IFRS for SMEs

This paper contributes to the discussion on the International Financial Reporting Standard for Small and Medium‐sized Enterprises (IFRS for SMEs) in the academic literature by examining the political economy of convergence, and illuminating the processes used by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to achieve convergence and participation by developing economies. The IFRS for SMEs was developed to facilitate implementation of a two‐tier reporting regime in the developing economies. Since 2000, progress towards issuance of the IFRS for SMEs has been hindered by a lack of active engagement by SMEs and academics from developing economies. It is found that (1) a lack of grounded studies and empirical knowledge on SME users’ needs impeded the development of the IFRS for SMEs; (2) the capital market assumption adopted for the IFRS is clearly inappropriate; and (3) the under‐representation of developing economies in international standard setting remains an issue. It is recommended that the IASB ascertains the users of SME reports and their needs and then develops a coherent conceptual framework for SMEs (particularly those from developing economies). The IASB needs to take into consideration the needs, culture and regulatory infrastructures of the developing economies, the political agendas of the standard‐setting stakeholders, and barriers to implementation.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The academic community’s participation in global accounting standard-setting

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are now used in more than 100 countries. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering a “Work Plan” to allow or require US corporations to use IFRS. Considering the rising importance of IFRS, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the SEC, the European Union (EU), and others have called for broader stakeholder participation in the global accounting standard-setting process. Academicians are seen as one group that has the potential to have a strong positive influence in the shaping of accounting standards.This study investigates the academic community’s participation in the IASB’s standard-setting process through the submission of comment letters for 79 issues. For 55 IASB issues, 90 academics and academic organizations (5.8% of all respondents) provided 153 responses (2.7% of total responses). For 24 Draft Interpretations issued by the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), just 17 academics and academic organizations (4.9% of respondents) provided 20 responses (1.9%).Overall, Anglo country writers dominated, with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States together providing a majority of writers and responses. Non-Anglo EU countries provided about a quarter of the writers and responses. While academic interest increased for a few issues, usually discussion papers and substantive issues, the overall response rate remained low. Possible reasons for low participation rates are discussed, as well as some changes that may increase academic engagement with the IASB’s standard-setting process.     

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.     

Financial Reporting in Europe: Future Challenges

Abstract

A roundtable at the 11th workshop of the European Financial Reporting Research Group (EUFIN) on Friday 4 September 2015 in Paris brought together leading participants in the development and enforcement of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the use of IFRS financial statements to debate the future challenges in European financial reporting. The panellists were Philippe Danjou, a board member of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), Roxana Damianov, team leader for corporate reporting at the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and Jacques de Greling, senior equity analyst at Natixis, vice-chairman of the European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies (EFFAS) financial accounting commission, member of the IASB's capital markets advisory group and member of the user panel of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). The panel was chaired by David Cairns. None of the panellists presented formal papers but instead spoke and debated freely about a range of current and future challenges. Not surprisingly, they focussed on the challenges arising from the use of IFRS in the consolidated financial statements by EU companies listed on EU regulated markets rather than the challenges that might arise from the use of EU or national requirements in non-IFRS financial statements.

This paper provides a synthesis of the panel discussions in the context of the European Commission's evaluation of the International Accounting Standards (IAS) Regulation, the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation's (IFRSF) review of its own and the IASB's structure and effectiveness, and the ongoing work of the IASB and ESMA.     

IFRS FOR SMEs: THE IASB'S DUE PROCESS

This study explores the role of the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) due process in developing its International Financial Reporting Standards for Small and Medium‐sized Entities (IFRS or SMEs) standard. There were tensions between the IASB's desire to minimise divergence from full IFRS and preserve recognition and measurement principles, and the primary reasons for undertaking the project – to meet the needs of users of financial statements of SMEs and to reduce the financial reporting burden on SMEs. Examination of events during the development of the project reveals much that was not apparent from material in the public domain. Most significantly, the IASB recognised that the final title of the standard, IFRS for SMEs, does not necessarily describe the scope of the standard. This paper also shows that the due process followed in the case of the IFRS for SMEs project barely reflected the ‘will of people’ but was more inclined towards acting as a communicative function for the IASB without any commitment to change its stance on the SME standard.     

The IASB and FASB convergence process and the need for ‘concept-based’ accounting teaching

The increasing globalization of the U.S. economy drives interest in international accounting standards. In this respect, the convergence process between the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) targets the completion of several major projects by 2011. The importance of the projects under consideration as well as the lack of conclusive theoretical solutions around them suggests that the target of a “common set” of accounting standards will be replaced in the short-medium term by a de facto situation of a “slightly different set” of accounting standards. In this paper, we draw on best available practices to make a specific proposal for the introduction of IFRS into the curriculum of institutions of higher learning in the U.S. Our proposal is driven by the idea that accounting education should move from teaching ever temporary rules to emphasize the economic and strategic underpinnings of accounting transactions.     

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.