Institutional legitimacy and the FASB

A spectre, Demski's Impossibility Theorem, has stalked the classrooms and seminars of accounting academia for over a decade. After noting the reasons that make Demski's Impossibility Theorem largely irrelevant to assessment of the legitimacy of a real world institutional process like the FASB, this paper assesses the legitimacy of the FASB in terms of “individualistic constitutional calculus,” an approach that has recently evolved in the economics/political science literature. In line with this “individualistic constitutional calculus,” the paper next suggests three conditions of criteria that are sufficient to establish the legitimacy of an institution like the FASB. Finally, the FASB's ability to satisfy those conditions is evaluated by examining the nature of the standard-setting process and the economic and political environment in which it operates. Although the complexity of the empirical domain being considered necessitates reliance upon evidence that is largely anecdotal, the authors find support for the assertion that the FASB possesses institutional legitimacy.     

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.     

如何评价美国FASB的财务会计概念框架?

总体上来看, 美国财务会计准则委员会的财务会计概念框架的内容是详细、充实和严谨的, 基本上能自成一个完整的体系并符合佩顿和利特尔顿提出的连贯、协调、内在一致的理论体系的要求。本文肯定FASBCon cepts具有许多独创性, 值得借鉴学习。例如, 第 1号概念公告提出用财务报告代替财务报表, 发展了财务会计;第 5号概念公告提出四项确认的基本标准等等。但FASBConcepts仍有弱点和不足之处。因此, 本文提出若干建议, 试图说明它的不足和如何加以改进。     

Real Options: Meeting the Georgetown Challange

In response to the demand for a single, generally accepted real options methodology, this article proposes a four‐step process leading to a practical solution to most applications of real option analysis. The first step is familiar: calculate the standard net present value of the project assuming no managerial flexibility, which results in a value estimate (and a “branch” of a decision tree) for each year of the project's life. The second step estimates the volatility of the value of the project and produces a value tree designed to capture the main sources of uncertainty. Note that the authors focus on the uncertainty about overall project value, which is driven by uncertainty in revenue growth, operating margins, operating leverage, input costs, and technology. The key point here is that, in contrast to many real options approaches, none of these variables taken alone is assumed to be a reliable surrogate for the uncertainty of the project itself. For example, in assessing the option value of a proven oil reserve, the relevant measure of volatility is the volatility not of oil prices, but of the value of the operating entity—that is, the project value without leverage. The third step attempts to capture managerial flexibility using a decision “tree” that illustrates the decisions to be made, their possible outcomes, and their corresponding probabilities. The article illustrate various kinds of applications, including a phased investment in a chemical plant (which is treated as a compound option) and an investment in a peak‐load power plant (a switching option with changing variance, which precludes the use of constant risk‐neutral probabilities as in standard decision tree analysis). The fourth and final step uses a “no‐arbitrage” approach to form a replicating portfolio with the same payouts as the real option. For most corporate investment projects, it is impossible to locate a “twin security” that trades in the market. In the absence of such a security, the conventional NPV of a project (again, without flexibility) is the best candidate for a perfectly correlated underlying asset because it represents management's best estimate of value based on the expected cash flows of the project.     

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.     

Regulatory and “economic” solvency standards for internationally active banks

One of the most important policy issues for financial authorities is to decide at what level average capital charges should be set. The decision may alternatively be expressed as the choice of an appropriate survival probability for representative banks over a horizon such as a year, often termed a “solvency standard”. This article sheds light on the solvency standards implied by current and possible future G10 bank regulation and on the “economic solvency standard” that banks choose themselves by their own capital setting decisions. In particular, we employ a credit risk model to show that the survival probability implied by the 1988 Basel Accord is between 99.0% and 99.9%. We then demonstrate that if a new Basel Accord were calibrated to such a standard, it would not represent a binding constraint on banks' current operations since most banks employ a solvency standard higher than 99.9%. To show this, we employ a statistical analysis of bank ratings adjusted for the impact of official or other support as well as credit risk model calculations. Lastly, we advance a possible explanation for the conservative capital choices made by banks by showing that swap volumes are highly correlated with credit quality for given bank size. This suggests that banks' access to important credit markets like the swaps markets may provide a significant discipline in the choice of solvency standard.     

ESG Investing in Graham & Doddsville

The author describes how and why the world's best “business value investors” have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into their investment decision‐making. As the main source of value in companies has increasingly shifted from tangible to intangible assets, many followers of Graham & Dodd have delivered exceptional investment results by taking an “earnings‐power” approach to identifying high‐quality businesses—businesses with enduring competitive advantages that are sustained through significant ongoing investment in their core capabilities and, increasingly, their important non‐investor “stakeholders.” While the ESG framework may be relatively new, it can be thought of as providing a lens through which to view the age‐old issue of “quality.” Graham & Dodd's 1934 classic guide to investing, Security Analysis, and Phil Fisher's 1958 bestseller, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, both identify a number of areas of analysis that would today be characterized as ESG. Regardless of whether they use the labels “E,” “S,” and “G,” investors who make judgments about earnings power and sustainable competitive advantage are routinely incorporating ESG considerations into their decision‐making. The challenge of assessing a company's sustainable competitive advantage requires analysis based on concepts such as customer franchise value, as well as intangibles like brands and intellectual property. For corporate managers communicating ESG priorities, and for investors analyzing ESG issues, the key is to focus on their relevance to the business. In this sense, corporate reporting on sustainability issues should be viewed as analogous to and an integral part of financial reporting, with a management focus on materiality and relevance (while avoiding a “promotional” approach) that is critical to credibility.     

The FASB exposure draft on accounting for business combinations and intangible assets: an instructional assignment

Accounting standards are constantly evolving to meet the needs of a rapidly changing business environment and changes in accounting theory. Accounting students need to be familiar with the content of Exposure Drafts, since these documents reflect the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) position on current financial reporting issues. Students are generally not well versed on the standard setting process and how contextual factors affect this process. The purpose of this instructional assignment is to enhance students' understanding of how contextual factors affect the standard setting process within the context of the Exposure Draft on “Business Combinations and Intangible Assets.” The assignment requires that students examine the Exposure Draft and answer questions designed to elicit responses as to why the FASB is considering a new standard and the impact the standard would have on current accounting procedures and financial statements.     

Stock Market Reactions to SFAS No. 96: Evidence from Early Bank Adopters

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 96, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in December 1987 changed accounting for income tax recognition and accrual. The original deadline for implementation of SFAS No. 96 was December 15, 1988, and earlier adoption was encouraged. This study examines empirically the stock price impact of four pertinent announcement dates regarding SFAS No. 96 for 19 banks that adopted the statement in late 1987 and early 1988. Our results suggest that these early bank adopters have different characteristics from other banks that cause them to benefit from the changes in accounting for deferred taxes and explain their voluntary adoption of the standard.     

On the Relationship of Stewardship and Valuation—An Analytical Viewpoint

Agency theoretical literature in accounting has frequently stressed possible difficulties in pursuing stewardship and valuation usefulness simultaneously. However, recent empirical evidence has revealed a significantly positive correlation between the two objectives. These empirical findings provide support for the IASB/FASB's decision to encompass stewardship in valuation usefulness in their revised conceptual framework. The objective of our paper is to identify factors influencing the stewardship/valuation relationship by using an analytical model. In a Linear Exponential Normal (LEN) setting we focus on the characteristics of an accounting system, in particular relevance, freedom from error and freedom from bias, the latter two according to IASB/FASB being components of representational faithfulness. We show that accounting quality, comprising relevance and freedom from error, has similar effects on valuation and stewardship usefulness. However, we identify conditions under which there is no perfect mapping from stewardship to valuation. Moreover, discretion in the accounting system has different consequences for both objectives as it does not affect valuation usefulness while it entails potentially negative effects on stewardship. Thus, we raise doubts in relation to the standard‐setters' view that stewardship is automatically met by a focus on valuation usefulness.     

ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATES: BACK TO BASICS

Public accountants have had a hard time deciding how to account for derivatives that are used to hedge risks, which in turn has given derivatives users and others a hard time. For about six years, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has struggled with several, often diametrically opposed procedures, ranging from showing all derivatives at “fair” values to deferring realized losses or gains on derivatives until related gains or losses on the hedged transactions have been realized (a practice known as “hedge accounting”). What is behind the FASB's inability to come up with a decisive and authoritative ruling? Although the politics of self-interest has fueled much of the debate, there is more to the problem than politics. The author argues that the underlying cause of the FASB's inability to reach a satisfactory and acceptable solution is not politics, but rather a flawed basic concept of how financial accounting should be done. In this article, the author recommends a procedure for derivatives accounting that was endorsed by the Financial Economists Roundtable in its 1995 “Statement on Accounting Disclosure about Financial Derivative Instruments.” The proposal, in brief, is this: Provided a company can satisfy its auditors that it is using derivatives primarily to hedge an offsetting price exposure, the firm should be given the option to use hedge accounting for that part of its derivatives position that is functioning as a hedge. All other investment or speculative uses of derivatives should be treated like other financial instruments and marked to market or fair value. Such a procedure, the author argues, is far more consistent than the FASB's recent proposals with fundamental principles of accounting that have been developed by accounting practitioners and scholars over several centuries.     

A Critical Look at SFAS 34: Capitalization of Interest Cost

In 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that an increasing number of companies were capitalizing interest costs, and that this practice was not being adequately disclosed (FASB, 1979, par. 26). In light of the alternative practices concerning the accounting for interest and lack of adequate disclosure by companies that were already capitalizing interest, the SEC recommended that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) consider the issue of accounting for interest cost. As a result of the SEC's initiative, in 1979 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards [SFAS] No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Cost, which mandated uniform interest capitalization rules in accounting for interest costs associated with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. The purpose of this article is to examine SFAS 34 in terms of its financial statement impact, the congruence of its assumptions with economic behaviour, its effect on subsequent standards related to interest capitalization, and its implications on financial accounting standard setting. To explore these issues we first illustrate the extent to which interest capitalization affects financial statements. We then empirically analyse the measure employed in SFAS 34 for the capitalization of interest cost in cases where debt is not directly linked with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. In addition, we critically examine the treatment accorded interest cost in subsequent FASB standards. Our research suggests that SFAS 34′s rationale for interest capitalization is incompatible with firm behaviour, and that the rules for interest capitalization as reflected in various accounting standards are inconsistent. These findings suggest that in the case of interest capitalization the benefits of comparability in financial reporting are not realized. A policy recommendation is then offered to alleviate some of these difficulties. The recommendation is to disallow the capitalization of interest cost in the absence of a direct link between the debt and the acquisition of qualifying assets.     

On the Stewardship and Valuation Implications of Accrual Accounting Systems

In this paper we explore the role of accruals in determining “earnings quality” from both a stewardship and a valuation perspective. We show that the valuation and stewardship qualities of accrual accounting are maximized by either an “aggressive” or a “conservative” accrual strategy. Furthermore, accrual strategy choices can be delegated to management as it does not benefit by implementing a strategy that is not in the best interests of the shareholders. We also investigate the implications of accrual strategies for standard empirical measures of “earnings quality”: regression coefficients and R²s from price‐earnings and market‐to‐book regressions. We show that such measures respond differently, and in some cases adversely, to the kind of strategies that make accounting constructs more correlated with the underlying economic activities of firms.     

Which approach to accounting for employee stock options best reflects market pricing?

We use a residual income valuation framework to compare equity valuation implications of four approaches to employee stock options (ESOs) accounting: APB 25 “recognize nothing”, SFAS 123 (revised) “recognize ESO expense”, FASB Exposure Draft “recognize and expense ESO asset” and “recognize ESO asset and liability”. Theoretical analysis shows only grant date recognition of an asset and liability, and subsequent marking-to-market of the liability, results in accounting numbers that capture the dilution effects of ESOs on current shareholder value. Out-of-sample equity market value prediction tests and in-sample comparisons of model explanatory power also support the “recognize ESO asset and liability” method.     

Sorting and comparing: Standard-setting and “ethical” categories

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) describes its public interest function as “…developing standards that result in accounting for similar transactions and circumstances in a like manner and different transactions and circumstances…in a different manner (Facts about FASB).” This statement implies that rule-makers possess an expertise that makes analogizing transactions or circumstances to other transactions or circumstances unproblematic. In this paper we utilize two instances of standard-setting, SFAS 123R and SFAS 143, to demonstrate from FASB's analogic reasoning in these cases that similarity and dissimilarity are not so easily ascertained. A judgment about similarity invariably involves ignoring some perspectives of similarity that would lead to substantially different conclusions about the appropriate accounting. We also illustrate via the two examples the inherent value judgments that underlie the conclusions reached by FASB and how these value judgments raise questions about the ethics of the current standard-setting process.     

Budget or target: the choice between input and output strategies

In many competitive environments, players need to commit either to a specific goal they will achieve (an output target) or to the resources they are willing to expend in pursuit of that goal (an input budget). We model this situation as a two‐stage game where players may compete either by setting input and letting their output follow from the environment (“leading input”), or by setting output and letting the input levels required to support the output targets follow (“leading output”). We show that when each player's output is increasing (decreasing) in his rival's input, leading input (output) dominates leading output (input).     

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.     

The Economics of Organizational Architecture

Drawing on the work of Michael Jensen and William Meckling, the co‐formulators of “agency cost theory,” the authors argue that there are two main challenges in designing the structure of organizations: (1) the “rights assignment” problem—that is, ensuring that decision‐making authority is vested in managers and employees with the “specific knowledge” necessary to make the best decisions; and (2) the “control” or “agency” problem—designing performance‐evaluation and reward systems that give decision‐makers strong incentives to exercise their decision rights in ways that increase the long‐run value of the organization. The authors provide a number of instructive applications and extensions of the Jensen‐Meckling organizational framework. Using a series of short case studies that range from the Barings Brothers' debacle in the early 1990s and the decade‐long restructuring of ITT to the cases of McDonald's and Century 21, the authors demonstrate the importance of designing performance‐measurement and reward systems that are consistent with the assignment of decision rights. In so doing, the authors also work to dispel the widespread notion, popular among advocates of Total Quality Management, that the widespread use of performance measures and incentives undermines efforts to promote teamwork within large organizations. A number of brief case histories of companies like Xerox and Mary Kay Cosmetics are used to show the critical role of performance measurement and individual rewards in reinforcing a quality‐centered corporate culture. As the authors conclude, “It is a mistake to think of the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ aspects of organizations as mutually exclusive or even as competing.”     

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.     

Sequential innovation,patents, and imitation

We argue that when innovation is “sequential” (so that each successive invention builds in an essential way on its predecessors) and “complementary” (so that each potential innovator takes a different research line), patent protection is not as useful for encouraging innovation as in a static setting. Indeed, society and even inventors themselves may be better off without such protection. Furthermore, an inventor's prospective profit may actually be enhanced by competition and imitation. Our sequential model of innovation appears to explain evidence from a natural experiment in the software industry.