Australian not‐for‐profit sector views on the conceptual framework,accounting standards and accounting information

In this paper, we examine the conceptual framework, accounting standards and accounting information relevant to the not‐for‐profit (NFP) sector. Based on the responses of 242 Australian NFP managers, we find support for the inclusion of accountability in the conceptual framework, and for a common set of accounting standards across NFP and for‐profit sectors with additional standards or paragraphs to recognise NFP specific issues. Respondents also rated information within general‐purpose financial reports to be useful for decision making within their organisations. We offer suggestions as to what our findings mean for the development of accounting standards for the NFP sector.     

Exploring attitudes to financial reporting in the Australian not‐for‐profit sector

The current level of satisfaction among different stakeholders about the current approaches and practises of financial reporting of not‐for‐profit (NFP) entities is underexplored ( Christensen and Mohr, 2003 ; Lee, 2004 ; Gray et al., 2006 ; Parker, 2007 ). This paper uses content analysis to examine submissions to the 2008 Australian Senate Economics Standing Committee for its inquiry into the disclosure regimes of charities and NFP organisations, which aimed to explore attitudes about financial reporting in the NFP sector. Financial reporting is viewed as an important part of accountability, but the sector identifies deficiencies in the current regime in terms of consistency, efficiency and transparency. Respondents to this inquiry believed that a sector‐specific accounting standard was important. Financial reporting standards, regulations and legal structures should be uniform across the entire sector, but with some variation allowed for smaller NFPs. The cost of complying with standards was a significant issue for smaller NFPs.     

THE SUBSTANCE OF ACCOUNTING FOR PUBLIC‐PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

This article evaluates Public‐Private Partnerships (PPP) accounting practice and the related financial accounting and reporting requirements. Governments across the world are seeking to access private finance to improve public infrastructure. Accounting for PPPs has encountered many difficulties, one of which is the practice by which PPPs are not accounted for as fixed assets on the balance sheet of either the public sector client or the private sector operator. Accounting for PPPs has grown in importance at a time of transition from national Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under UK GAAP, both client and operator accounting adopt the reasoning – familiar from leasing standards – of the allocation of risks and rewards between the parties to determine the party which should recognize the fixed asset on its balance sheet. The gap in IFRS with regard to operator accounting has been filled by the interpretation IFRIC 12 on service concession agreements: this moves the reasoning from risks and rewards to control, familiar from consolidation standards. The UK Treasury and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) have required/proposed the adoption of the mirror‐image treatment of IFRIC 12. In most, but not all, cases, control will be assessed to rest with the client, which will recognize property, plant and equipment, and not with the operator, which will recognize either a financial asset or an intangible asset on the basis of an assessment of which party bears the majority of risks and rewards. Under both UK GAAP and IFRS, accounting policy choices are strongly influenced by, for the client, governmental control frameworks, and for the operator, by the implications for the profile of distributable profits and for taxation. An important public policy issue is that the national accounts, which for European Union member states must comply with European System of Accounts 1995, will remain on a risks and rewards basis. It is these numbers that will be used in assessments of macro‐fiscal policy and fiscal risks, notwithstanding that the Eurostat version of risks and rewards is even more open to manipulation than were the national financial reporting standards.     

IPSAS or IFRS as the Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting? New Zealand Preparers’ Perspectives

The last 30 years have seen public sector accounting in many countries undergo considerable change. More recently, some governments adopted accrual accounting and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), some adopted modified International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) while others continued with cash‐based accounting. New Zealand (NZ) has, for more than two decades, followed a sector neutral approach to financial reporting and standard setting where the same accounting standards were applied to all entities in all sectors: for‐profit, not‐for‐profit and the public sector. This period included the adoption of IFRS by for‐profit entities with minor modifications for the public sector. The suitability of IFRS for the public sector has been questioned and, recently, standard setters in NZ decided to adopt a sector‐specific standard‐setting approach with multiple tiers for each sector. The for‐profit sector will continue to follow IFRS but reporting standards for the public sector will be based on IPSAS. In this period of change we sought the views of preparers of public sector financial reports regarding the users of such reports and their preferences for the public sector reporting framework. We also sought the views of the preparers regarding the usefulness of each financial statement for users, and whether the benefits of reporting by their organisations exceeds the costs. The findings indicate support for maintaining IFRS as a basis for reporting in the NZ public sector. However, IPSAS modified to NZ conditions is also perceived as an acceptable option by respondents in this study. The income statement is, in the opinion of the respondents in this study, the most useful statement while cash flows appear to hold little value. A high proportion of respondents believe that the benefits of reporting exceed the costs, which contradicts the view that such reports are mainly compliance documents that provide little value. This finding contributes to the continuing debate on costs versus benefits on the recent introduction of IPSAS as the reporting framework for the public sector and the perceived appropriateness of IPSAS in public sector reporting.     

Joined‐Up Government and the Challenges to Accounting and Accountability Researchers

Abstract: Collaborative working between public sector bodies in the UK, sometimes involving partnerships with private sector and not‐for‐profit organisations, was promoted heavily by the Labour Government (1997–2010) under what is sometimes labelled ‘Joined‐Up Government’. The Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, elected in 2010, appears likely to continue to promote such policies. The objective of this paper is to raise awareness of what may be seen as an important and developing agenda in public services in which accounting and accountability researchers are barely visible. The paper reviews the meanings and motivations of joined‐up government and its development in the UK. A number of challenges are presented, including the need to refocus research from an entity to a network perspective; to assess whether joined‐up government delivers value‐for‐money services; to join the debate on the development of related accounting techniques; to seek precision in specifying accountability mechanisms and to adapt our research methods.     

Politics of Financial Reporting and the Consequences for the Public Sector

This article examines the political processes surrounding public sector accounting standard setting, in particular, the Australian decision to adopt sector-neutral International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It contends that the history of private and public sector involvement in the accounting standard setting process to date, and recourse to regulatory theory, assist in understanding these contemporary developments. The article reveals that private sector interests have dominated accounting standard setters at all important stages of standard setting in Australia. It concludes by arguing that, given this continued neglect by standard setters, if public sector financial reporting standards are to remain relevant to the public sector, then it may be necessary for public sector regulators to set their own standards.     

Defining the Reporting Entity in the Not‐for‐profit Public Sector: Implementation Issues Associated with the Control Test

This paper reports the main findings of a research project carried out on behalf of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the New Zealand Financial Reporting Standards Board. The purpose of the research is to inform standard setters about implementation issues that had been encountered in the not‐for‐profit (NFP) public sector when applying the control concept in AASB 127, Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements. The intention is to use the findings to inform proposed implementation guidance for AASB 10, Consolidated Financial Statements. Data were collected via a literature review and meetings with various NFP public sector constituents. Identified issues were either conceptual in nature (for example, who are the relevant users of NFP public sector general purpose financial statements and what are their needs?) or related to implementation concerns (for example, is the power exerted by one NFP public sector entity over another of an ‘ownership’ or a ‘regulatory’ form?). The findings give rise to several suggested actions that standard setters could take in providing useful guidance to NFP public sector constituents.     

Meeting user information needs: The impact of major changes in FASB and GASB standards on financial reporting by colleges and universities

This longitudinal study reports the impact of changes in generally accepted accounting principles on financial statement disclosures for 100 public and private institutions of higher education. Disclosures from the period when all colleges and universities followed the same accounting standards are compared with disclosures in periods after major changes in accounting and reporting standards were made by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) for private institutions and by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) for public institutions. We find that an importance-weighted disclosure index shows that user needs are better met using the new reporting standards for public but not private institutions. An expanded unweighted index, however, shows improvement for both public and private colleges and universities. Using this disclosure index, the improvement for universities reporting under GASB standards exceeded the improvement for those reporting under FASB standards.     

IFRS within the Multi‐GAAP Canadian Reality: A Teaching and Learning Imperative for Intermediate Financial Accounting

Intermediate accounting instructors need to be engaged in the specific complexities and challenges of the new international financial reporting standards (IFRS) reality within the Canadian multi‐GAAP environment. Intermediate accounting courses are directly affected because they represent substantive coverage of the corporate reporting environment. In this article I make the case that these courses should primarily reflect IFRS standards in order to entrench IFRS competencies in students who wish to pursue a professional designation, to prepare students for the global environment, and to concentrate IFRS expertise issues in a robust instructor group. The competency maps of each of the three Canadian professional accounting bodies clearly reflect IFRS. Students can analyze the implications of major areas of policy differences between IFRS and private enterprise GAAP (PEGAAP) through specific targeted course coverage, but also through active learning elements, particularly research elements. This commentary reflects some of the active debate occurring regarding postsecondary curriculum as Canada adapts to IFRS and PEGAAP, and encourages action.     

Government Accounting: An Assessment of Theory, Purposes and Standards

Government accounting and financial reporting aims to protect and manage public money and discharge accountability. These purposes, and the nature of public goods and tax financing, give rise to differences with commercial accounting. This is not yet reflected either in government accounting standards in English–speaking developed nations or in international public sector accounting standards. All of these are heavily influenced by private sector practices, which favour the accrual basis and consolidated reporting. This article argues for a gradual symmetric approach to accruals and a combination of government–wide and fund reporting. The author also proposes some broad accounting principles to promote political and economic accountability.     

An Assessment of the Impact of IFRS Adoption on Public Sector Audit Fees and Audit Effort – Some Evidence of the Transition Costs on Changes in Reporting Regimes

While many countries have adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for private sector enterprises, New Zealand (NZ), Australia and the United Kingdom adopted IFRS for all sectors, including the public sector. This approach is consistent with the concept of sector‐neutral accounting standards that gained wide acceptance in NZ and Australia in the early 1990s. Although a number of studies have assessed the impact of IFRS adoption in the private sector, and the public sector has provided some evidence as to the effects of IFRS adoption on financial statements, the costs of adopting IFRS have not been examined. One measure of cost is the change in audit fees in an IFRS reporting environment. The authors examine the impact of IFRS adoption in the NZ public sector on audit fees and audit effort. They obtained data regarding audit fees and audit effort in the NZ public sector and compared the pre‐adoption year with the first year of adoption for all segments. Their results indicate a substantial increase in audit fees and audit effort in the first year of IFRS adoption for all segments, with some variation across the segments. Two sectors, local authorities and energy companies, have had significant increases in audit fees and audit effort. These findings provide some empirical evidence regarding the cost of transition to IFRS and are of interest to researchers and regulators in countries that are currently considering transitioning to IFRS or IFRS‐based International Public Sector Accounting Standards standards in reporting for the public sector.     

An Analysis of Concepts and Evidence on the Question of Whether IFRS Should be Conservative

Do international accounting standards require conservative accounting? The IASB's conceptual framework suggests that they should not, while the research literature is largely silent on the matter, typically presuming conservatism to be an outcome of private contracting rather than standardized, public, general purpose financial reporting. In this paper, we analyze the actual requirements of IFRS. We find multiple examples of recognition requirements that lead to unconditional conservatism, measurement requirements that lead to conditional conservatism, and also presentation/disclosure requirements that further support a conservative reporting environment. These findings complement, support and deepen existing evidence in the empirical literature that accounting is in practice conservative. We show, however, that the requirements for conservatism in IFRS conflict with, first, the IASB's stated position in its conceptual framework that accounting should not be conservative and, second, the private contracting explanation for conservatism that is generally accepted in the literature. What is missing, and lies behind both conflicts, is an acknowledgement and understanding of the role of an agency/contracting perspective in enhancing the decision‐usefulness of general purpose accounting standards, given the information/incentive asymmetry and uncertainty that characterizes the real‐world context in which those standards operate. From a policy perspective, such an understanding would reconcile the IASB's conceptual framework with the actual requirements of IFRS. From a research literature perspective, such an understanding would re‐position accounting standards as central to the practice of accounting conservatism, which would in turn require revision to the generally accepted theory of a private contracting explanation for the empirical evidence of conservative accounting practice.     

Private Equity,the Rise of Unicorns,and the Reincarnation of Control‐based Accounting

This article discusses the rise of intangibles‐intensive companies and private equity (PE) since the late 1970s, and the role of both in bringing about the creation of a streamlined, more flexible set of accounting rules that, since their approval by the IASB and FASB in 2009, have been used by private companies and their investors. The PE industry comprises both venture capital (VC) firms that fund high‐growth enterprises and leveraged buyout (LBO) firms that fund more traditional, cash‐generating operations. Mainly because of the greater risks associated with both VC‐backed firms and LBOs—risks that make them ill‐suited for most public investors—such companies tend to require the more direct and active oversight provided by PE investors. And as the author goes on to argue, the more direct and active ownership of PE investors, as compared to the governance provided by most public‐company boards, suggests that financial accounting and reporting play a fundamentally different role in private than in public companies. Whereas the primary role of public‐company GAAP has increasingly (since the creation of the SEC in 1933) been to provide information for outside investors when valuing companies, the most important function of accounting reports in private companies is internal control—more specifically, ensuring that the interests of the managers of their portfolio companies are aligned with those of all the providers of capital. And recognizing this difference in the role of accounting, both the IASB and FASB responded to the requests of various parties (including private companies) by approving in 2009 the use by private companies of a streamlined and more flexible set of accounting standards. To the extent that the workings of PE markets continue to reduce the numbers of U.S. public companies, the author predicts that the resulting increase in the use of private‐company GAAP will continue to shift the primary role of accounting away from valuation and back toward its traditional roots in internal control and corporate governance.     

Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships

Brennan and Solomon (2008) identify six new frontiers in accountability and corporate governance research to stimulate research. This paper contributes to such research by devising a reporting framework and research agenda that relates to Brennan and Solomon's fourth frontier, sectors and context, focusing on the regulated hybrid organisational forms of Public Private Partnerships, which operate at the interface of the public and private sectors.As the framework shows, these organisations are subject to multiple influences and demands. There is a need for more and different reporting than is the norm under the private sector's decision-useful reporting framework. Although the framework focuses on what Mulgan (2000) describes as the core of accountability, it is not only a financial reporting framework but it also seeks to make concrete Kamuf's (2007) argument that accountability might include accounting through narrative as well as the prevailing numeric evaluation.The paper stresses the need for information to be accessible to the public, and in particular argues that a stream of information between the public and private sector partners needs to be developed and disseminated to achieve accountability for public money that is increasingly spent in the private sector.     

A Trusteeship Theory of Accounting for Natural Capital Assets

One of the problems encountered in implementing accrual accounting in the government sector is that of accounting for natural capital assets provided freely to government and which are used as public goods. Professional accounting standards require that these assets be valued and included in the government's statement of assets and liabilities. The problem is not encountered in business accrual accounting because business neither acquires assets freely nor provides services to the public on a non-commercial basis.
Various issues surrounding accrual accounting for natural capital assets used as public goods are examined in this article. The nature and characteristics of such assets, and the distinctions between private goods and public goods markets, are first explained to set the context for examination of the issues. Then the issues as to whether natural capital assets should be treated as assets for accounting purposes and included in the government's statement of financial position are analysed according to FASB standards; it is concluded that they are not assets. Rather, it is proposed that these assets used for the provision of non-commercial services to the public should be treated in a separate category as public goods assets which are held in trust by the government on behalf of the nation, for the benefit of current and future generations and for the preservation of the natural ecology of the nation. Commercial valuations are not relevant for these assets and they need not be valued in financial terms for their good management.     

GAAP,GFS and AASB 1049: perceptions of public sector stakeholders

Efforts by Australian standard‐setters to harmonise public sector financial reporting resulted in AASB 1049, which sought to bridge the divide between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)‐based and government finance statistics (GFS)‐based financial statements. However, whether AASB 1049 has resulted in information that is considered appropriate for the public sector has not been examined. We explore this issue by comparing the requirements of AASB 1049 with the responses from a survey of public sector stakeholders on the appropriate accounting treatment and presentation of selected financial items. The analysis suggests consensus with AASB 1049 on presentation issues but less consensus on accounting treatments.     

Financial Reporting for Private Companies: The Canadian Experience*

The issue of whether small and/or private companies should be allowed to use simplified accounting standards in financial reports has concerned the accounting profession for decades. It has been argued that preparing financial reports in accordance with the large volume of promulgated standards contained in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), some of which are relatively complex, has put a significant strain on the resources of small/private business. Moreover, information produced and presented in accordance with at least some accounting standards within GAAP may not be relevant for the users of small/private companies' financial statements. In this paper we look at differential reporting in Canadian GAAP, which gives nonpublicly accountable enterprises the ability to opt out of certain CICA Handbook requirements with unanimous consent of the shareholders. We look at lobbying activity in response to the proposed differential reporting standard and at nonpublicly accountable company experience with the differential reporting opportunity in the period since the standard was promulgated.     

New development: The practical relevance of public sector accounting research; time to take a stand

ABSTRACT

This article discusses three major themes that challenge researchers to focus more on practice-relevant public sector accounting research: How to combine practice-oriented research with being an impartial scholar? Which types of research themes have practical relevance? How can research contribute to societally-relevant issues?     

Accountability and not‐for‐profit organisations: Implications for developing international financial reporting standards

This paper provides empirical evidence which informs contemporary debates on developing international financial reporting standards for not‐for‐profit organisations (NPOs). Drawing on a global survey with respondents showing experience of NPO reporting in 179 countries, we explore: practice and beliefs about NPO financial reporting internationally; perceptions of accountability between NPOs and stakeholders; and implications for developing international financial reporting standards. Interpreting our research in the context of accountability, we find considerable support for developing international financial reporting standards for NPOs, recognising broad stewardship accountability to all stakeholders as important, but prioritising accountability upwards to external funders and regulators.     

Costs and Benefits of Mandatory Auditing of For‐profit Private and Not‐for‐profit Companies in Australia

This paper addresses the paucity of research surrounding the mandatory auditing of for‐profit private and not‐for‐profit companies in Australia. We document the various mandatory auditing provisions under the Corporations Act and identify over 22 000 companies that lodge audited accounts with the regulator under federal law. In 2011, 6339 large proprietary companies, 186 small proprietary companies, 2797 foreign‐owned companies, 3985 unlisted public companies and 8404 public companies limited by guarantee had an obligation under the Corporations Act to lodge audited accounts. While large proprietary and foreign‐owned companies have an option to apply to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission for audit relief, we estimate that less than 10% are granted audit exemption. We document that since 1995 an additional 1500 large proprietary companies that should have lodged under the size provisions of the Corporations Act have been granted exemption from doing so (i.e., grandfathered), although these firms appear to be subject to an annual audit even though they do not lodge accounts. We estimate the costs and discuss the potential public interest and firm‐level benefits associated with the mandatory auditing of for‐profit private and not‐for‐profit companies in Australia.