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.     

Bewertung der Fair Value-Bilanzierung von Versicherungsverträgen anhand der IASB-Zielsetzungen

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) published the Exposure Draft ?Insurance Contracts“ in July 2010. This standard draft is the basis for the final IFRS for accounting of insurance contracts and will replace the currently valid interim standard IFRS 4. In its Discussion Paper from May 2007 the IASB proposed the valuation of insurance liabilities based on a Current Exit Value. However, in the Exposure Draft the board changed his opinion (not at least due to the visible consequences of the last financial crisis) and follows an approach based on so called fulfillment cash flows. This new approach is different in many details and aims at creating a greater objectivity. Goal of this article is firstly to introduce the target valuation model and to judge it based on criteria developed in the paper. Furthermore, alternatives that could be applied in a final standard shall be shown.     

Does the Control-based Approach to Consolidated Statements Better Reflect Market Value than the Ownership-based Approach?

Motivated by the recent Discussion Paper (DP) issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on how to define reporting entities, this study investigates the value relevance of consolidated statements under the ownership-based approach of U.S. Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51 (ARB 51) and the control-based approach of International Accounting Standard No. 27 (IAS 27). The results show that consolidated financial statements based on a broader definition of control provide more useful accounting information than those based only on majority-ownership control. We also address one concern raised in the DP, namely, whether a reporting entity should use the common control model to include entities that are under common control of an individual investor or family. The results suggest that accounting standard boards should include the common control model in defining the group reporting entity for firms with complex ownership structures.     

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.     

A Conceptual Framework for Accounting for Public-Benefit Entities

There is a renewed impetus in the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) to develop a conceptual framework for financial reporting for both private sector and public-benefit entities. This article takes stock of some of the key issues related to this endeavour with particular emphasis on what the objectives should be and whether it is possible to have one conceptual framework for all entities.     

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).     

Accounting Harmonization and Compliance in Applying IASB Standards: An Empirical Survey about the First Time Adoption of IAS 7 by Italian Listed Groups

This paper deals with the First Time Adoption (FTA) of International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) standards by Italian entities, focusing on the cash flow statement (CFS) whose rules are stated by International Accounting Standards 7 (IAS 7). The purpose of this paper is to investigate both the degree of harmonization and compliance in applying IAS 7. To achieve this purpose, the research has been developed by analyzing a sample of 101 financial statements of Italian listed groups issued with reference to 2005. The results of this research show a high degree of heterogeneity in applying IASB standards and a high degree of noncompliance with IAS 7 by Italian groups. The high degree of heterogeneity could impair the comparability of financial statements across entities, requiring further efforts by IASB to reduce options permitted in its standards. The high degree of noncompliance creates the risk of misleading users who read audited financial statements thinking they are prepared according to IASB standards.     

IFRS in the United States: If,When and How

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

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective

The release of CLERP 9 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002) requires the Financial Reporting Council and the Australian Accounting Standards Board to adopt International Accounting Standards (IAS) en bloc as domestic reporting standards by 1 January 2005. This article considers the current and future role and direction of the conceptual framework (CF) under the CLERP proposals and a potential IAS reporting environment after January 2005. It is argued that Australia, which has been a major innovator on CF issues, may suffer a major setback if the International Accounting Standards Board's CF is adopted in January 2005. Furthermore, while the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has been aggressively pursuing a set of global accounting standards, it remains unclear whether the IASB will, or can, develop an internationally relevant and generally accepted CF which can guide the development of a globally compatible set of accounting standards.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Extractive industries accounting and economic consequences: Past,present and future

Accounting for the extractive industries has been a contested issue for decades as a result of a choice of different methods of costing available and the economic impacts of these methods on companies’ financial results. When the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) embarked on its extractive industries project in 1998, it attempted to create uniform accounting practices. An archival study of constituent responses to the IASB's Issues Paper revealed that the economic consequences argument was relied upon again to argue for retaining choice. The IASB's international accounting standard, IFRS 6, issued in 2004, once again permitted choice between methods, illustrating the effectiveness of the economic consequences argument in perpetuating past practice.     

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

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

Emission rights: From costless activity to market operations

This paper examines the issues surrounding the aborted attempt by the International Accounting Standards Board in early 2005 to regulate the accounting for the European Union’s new Emissions Trading Scheme under the Kyoto Protocol. The paper argues that the features that made the trading scheme attractive to governments were precisely the ones that created difficulties for accountants to capture under existing standards. After showing why the challenge has to be faced, the paper suggests a possible way forward that the IASB might consider when it revisits the subject, as it is expected to do in the near future.     

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.     

关于高质量会计准则的几个问题

本文回顾了五年前在美国讨论的高质量会计准则。我发现有两个主要问题需要进一步加以阐述 :第一 ,高质量会计准则与高质量财务报告的联系与区别 ;第二 ,涉及高质量会计准则制定、解释、应用和基础条件的较好步骤。本文认为 ,许多会计信息质量特征如相对性、可靠性、可比性、中立性 (公允性 )、充分披露和透明等仅仅是财务报告的质量特征而不是会计准则的质量。     

保险合同会计:国际动态与对策研究

保险合同会计因保险合同的特殊性而成为当代财务会计的一个难点热点问题,对其进行规范也是近年来各国家会计准则制定机构努力的目标。国际会计准则理事会(IASB)作为国际财务报告准则的制定机构,近年来为了统一全球保险合同会计实务,对保险合同相关会计问题作了大量的研究、探讨和规范工作,取得了显著进展。本文系统介绍并总结了IASB在保险合同会计项目上的研究历程、最新进展,以及目前正在研究和探索的核心会计问题,进而对完善我国保险合同相关会计准则提出了若干对策。     

国际财务报告准则关于金融工具分类变化预期对我国企业的影响分析

2009年7月,国际会计准则理事会发布征求意见稿<金融工具:分类和计量>,旨在降低金融工具确认和计量原则的复杂性,避免会计准则内在的不一致.并在此基础上修订<国际会计准则第39号--金融工具:确认和计量>(IAS39)中关于分类和计量的有关要求.本文通过手工搜集13家上市银行(剔除中小板上市的宁波银行)2006年至2009年的年报和半年报数据,并按照新倡导的两分类方法进行数据调整,进而比较了不同分类下预期对企业财务信息的影响及两分类下所提供会计信息的质量问题,并根据前文的理论分析和实证结果对金融工具两分类及两分类后的相关问题提出了建议.