IASB与FASB《通用目的财务报告的目标》述评

IASB与FASB2010年9月发布的《通用目的财务报告的目标》,指出了通用目的财务报告的目标、用途,分析了其局限性,并对其所披露的具体内容即主体的经济资源、要求权及其变动信息进行了概略性阐释,对财务业绩确认、现金流量信息进行了说明。这个新的财务报告概念框架,在目标上强调提供"通用"财务信息、在使用者定位上强调针对主要使用者、在报告内容上通过逻辑推导强调提供经济资源、要求权及其变动信息、在计价上坚持现行市价基础、在收益确定方面坚持资产负债观,相对于旧概念框架发生了一些变化与创新;但仍然存在形式目标与实质目标背离、否认现代会计是价值计量、过度强调提供信息这个外在形式而忽略信息的实质内容等诸多问题与弊端。从总体上看,这个概念框架沿袭了旧概念框架的基本观点,依然是对旧概念框架的修修补补,难以走出旧概念框架的窠臼,不会是成功的。     

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.     

Revenue Recognition under IFRS Revisited: Conceptual Models,Current Proposals and Practical Consequences

Since 2002, the FASB and the IASB have been undertaking a joint project on the revision and convergence of US GAAP and IFRS revenue recognition. Even though the outcome of the project is still open, the project's course as well as trends in recently published IFRS and other current IASB projects suggest that existing earnings-based and realisation-based IFRS revenue recognition criteria are likely to be replaced by a radically new approach. This paper demonstrates the inconsistencies in current IFRS revenue recognition that have triggered the project and then presents and discusses three conceptually different revenue recognition models that are internationally debated at present. The paper concludes that a major revision of existing IFRS revenue recognition as proposed by the FASB and the IASB is not required. It is argued that the perceived deficiencies should rather be solved on the basis of current transaction-based IFRS revenue criteria.     

FASB与IASB联合趋同框架(初步意见)的评介

首先,本文对FASB与IASB于2006年7月6日发布的联合趋同框架(关于目标和信息质量特征的初步意见)的制定背景、主要内容(包括财务报告的目标和信息质量特征的相关内容)进行了简要的介绍和评价,着重强调了联合框架与FASB概念框架和IASB概念框架的区别。其次,本文对联合框架提出了两点整体性看法:一是是否应该由IASB和FASB联合制定联合框架;二是是否应该将受托责任观隶属于决策有用性。最后,本文分析了联合趋同框架对我国新会计准则《基本准则》的影响。     

国际会计准则的实施对收入确认的影响(英文)

国际会计准则委员会和美国会计准则委员会正商讨于2011年底将关键准则定稿。去年,两委员会决定优先处理4个项目,以实现于2011年中期会计准则国际趋同的目标。国际会计准则委员会计划就租赁、收入确认、保险合同和衍生金融工具制定新的会计准则。本文将针对国际会计准则和美国会计准则对收入确认的不同规定进行深入探讨,以阐明国际会计准则就收入确认的准则更改对欧洲企业的影响。     

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.     

Rules, principles and judgments in accounting standards

The distinction between rules-based and principles-based standards is not well defined and is subject to a variety of interpretations ( SEC, 2003 , p. 5). Yet there is a commonly held view that the FASB's standards are rules-based and the IASB's standards are principles-based. This article identifies the basis of this distinction. For research and development, the article compares the FASB standard with two principles-based standards. For each standard we identify and classify rules and judgments, and observe the level of justifications for the rules and assistance to support the judgments. The three standards have rules, are based on principles, and require the exercise of professional judgment; the less conservative standard requires more judgments and, unexpectedly, more rules. The results suggest that the rules-based versus principles-based distinction is not meaningful, except in relative terms. We conclude that a relatively more principles-based standards regime requires professional judgment at both the transaction level (substance over form) and at the financial statement level ('true and fair view' override). Furthermore, it is suggested that any FASB and IASB convergence will require agreement on the weightings given to the qualitative characteristics.     

证券市场“应计异象”研究：回顾与展望

国际会计准则理事会以及美国财务会计准则委员会都以决策有用性作为会计的首要目标,而会计则是通过权责发生制下的会计应计采实现这一目标的。那么投资者对会计应计的理解就应该成为准则制定的参考因素之一。自从Sloan(1996)在美国市场上发现了投资者高估会计应计的持续性之后,大量的文献时这一现象进行了探讨。本文系统地回顾了这些文献,并对其进行了展望,以便为中国资本市场的应计异象研究以及中国会计准则的制定提供参考。     

Changing the Concepts to Justify the Standards*

In this paper, I discuss the current project to converge the IASB and FASB conceptual frameworks, specifically efforts to purge the converged framework of concepts that hinder the promotion of balance sheet valuation using fair values. I discuss why I believe these efforts to be misguided, based on how investors who analyze financial statements employ accounting information. I focus on stewardship, reliability, and earnings — terms either demoted in importance or at risk of being eliminated in the framework convergence project. I explain their salience to financial statement users and argue against their deletion or demotion.     

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.     

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.     

关于在财务会计中采用公允价值的探讨

近年来,美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)大力倡导会计计量运用面向现在和未来的、以市场为基础的公允价值。本文着重研究并比较IASB和FASB给出的公允价值定义和相关的基本概念,认为公允价值是面向市场、以假想交易为对象的一种估计价格,可以有三级估计,最佳的估计是(相同)资产或负债主市场或最有利市场的价格,指出了它带来的缺陷。文章认为,公允价值计量乃是财务会计发展的大势所趋;如果公允价值得以全面应用,则财务会计将有可能反映企业的价值(或其近似值)。     

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

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

Does writing down goodwill imperil a CEO’s job?

We find that accounting charges for goodwill impairment, which imply a deterioration in the capabilities of acquired assets to generate expected cash flows, provide useful indicators of CEO underperformance. The results show that the size and presence of a goodwill impairment charge are positively associated with forced, but not voluntary, CEO turnovers. This implies that goodwill impairment provides information before CEO changes occur. We also find that goodwill impairment has incremental power to predict forced turnover when it is unexpected based on book value relative to market value of equity and when it runs counter to overall firm performance. The association between goodwill impairment and forced CEO turnover varies with audit quality, consistent with the importance of the perceived reliability of accounting information for its effect on CEO retention decisions. Given that the FASB recently considered eliminating annual goodwill impairment testing (FASB, 2022) whereas the IASB not only prefers impairment testing but is considering requiring additional related disclosures (IASB, 2020), our evidence on the informativeness of goodwill impairment charges is timely.     

财务报告概念框架的新篇章——评美国FASB第8号概念公告(2010年9月)

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

The Return of Stewardship,Reliability and Prudence – A Commentary on the IASB’s New Conceptual Framework

Abstract

In March 2018, the IASB published its revised conceptual framework including notable changes to the chapters on the objective of financial reporting and on qualitative characteristics. The IASB put more emphasis on stewardship as part of the decision usefulness objective, reintroduced prudence as an aspect of neutrality and introduced a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty (as a successor to reliability) as part of faithful representation. The present paper discusses the substance of and reasons for these changes in light of the history of the IASB’s work on conceptual frameworks. The paper also explores the possible impact of these changes on the IASB’s future standard-setting by looking at the other chapters of the IASB’s new framework. This paper finds that the more pronounced role of stewardship and the reintroduction of prudence do not seem to entail a revised conceptual thinking of the IASB in the other chapters, while the introduction of a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty provides the IASB with a conceptual tool with the potential to substantially affect future standard-setting debates. However, its positioning as part of faithful representation is questioned and an alternative arrangement of qualitative characteristics suggested.     

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.     

Over-Complexity in Accounting Standards and the Emerging Duopoly of US GAAP AND IFRS

US accounting regulation has been criticised for maintaining an over-complex "rules-based" approach, cited as the partial cause of significant failures in corporate governance. US regulators state that they are now on a pathway to a more "principles-based" approach, but the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) claims superiority in this approach already. The recent efforts of the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and IASB are examined to see if either claim is clearly supportable. As these authorities appear to be in the process of creating a world accounting standard-setting duopoly, unresolved problems involving over-complexity are likely to be transported to other countries, including Australia.     

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.     

Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View

This paper analyses various controversial issues arising from the current project of the IASB and FASB to develop a joint conceptual framework for financial reporting standards. It discusses their possible implications for measurement and, in particular, for the use of fair value as the preferred measurement basis. Two competing world views are identified as underlying the debate: a Fair Value View, implicit in the IASB's public pronouncements, and an Alternative View implicit in publicly expressed criticisms of the IASB's pronouncements. The Fair Value View assumes that markets are relatively perfect and complete and that, in such a setting, financial reports should meet the needs of passive investors and creditors by reporting fair values derived from current market prices. The Alternative View assumes that markets are relatively imperfect and incomplete and that, in such a market setting, financial reports should also meet the monitoring requirements of current shareholders (stewardship) by reporting past transactions and events using entity-specific measurements that reflect the opportunities actually available to the reporting entity. The different implications of the two views are illustrated by reference to specific issues in recent accounting standards. Finally, the theoretical support for the two views is discussed. It is concluded that, in a realistic market setting, the search for a universal measurement method may be fruitless and a more appropriate approach to the measurement problem might be to define a clear measurement objective and to select the measurement method that best meets that objective in the particular circumstances that exist in relation to each item in the accounts. An example of such an approach is deprival value, which is not, at present, under consideration by the IASB.