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.     

Repoliticalization of accounting standard setting—The IASB,the EU and the global financial crisis

Since its inception, the IASB has been able to set standards with relatively little political influence in its governance or standard setting process. But this changed with the outbreak of the global financial crisis. Political bodies began to view accounting standards as a contributing factor that amplified the consequences of the crisis on banks, financial markets and the overall economy. Regaining control over accounting standard setting was seen as imperative. In this article, we investigate how the EU sought to gain control over the IASB and how the global standard setter responded to limit political influence. Our findings show that a re-balancing of power in favor of political interests has occurred between the stakeholders of international accounting standard setting. Further research in this area looks promising. We suspect that the heightened influence of political actors may lead to further power struggles and efforts to cope with on-going changes in the institutional environment.     

Interpreting the European Union’s IFRS Endorsement Criteria: The Case of IFRS 9

EU Regulation requires that any international accounting standards (International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS) and interpretations (IFRIC) pronounced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) meet three sets of criteria before they become binding for EU-based companies: a ‘true and fair view’ criterion, a list of qualitative criteria, and a ‘European public good’ criterion. During the endorsement process, EU institutions evaluate each standard or interpretation’s compliance with these three criteria. Nevertheless, despite plenty of past endorsement decisions, there is still disagreement about a unanimous interpretation of the criteria in the literature. In this study, we interpret all three criteria against the background of European accounting law and academic accounting research. Then, the paper illustrates for the case of the new IFRS 9 standard on accounting for financial instruments how these criteria can be applied in the endorsement practice. We conclude that the standard cannot reasonably be rejected on grounds of the IAS Regulation. We also explain that the vagueness of the endorsement criteria and the inherent discretion in the eventual endorsement decision help maintain the EU’s political influence on the IASB’s standard-setting ex ante.     

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.     

Control over accounting standards within the European Union: The political controversy surrounding the adoption of IFRS 8

This paper presents an analysis of the struggle for power within the international accounting arena by examining a highly politicised debate surrounding the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8, Operating Segments, which saw the European Union (EU) attempting to contest the authority of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Informed by a broadly institutional approach, the paper reports the results of interviews with preparers, legislators, regulators, auditors and users about the introduction of IFRS 8 and focuses on how the European Parliament (EP) required the European Commission (EC) to initiate its own consultation procedures as part of a new endorsement process. Findings from this study highlight how the debate over the adoption of IFRS 8 led to the EU implementing a structure that is arguably more aligned to the European tradition of State involvement in the regulatory process. In this sense, while the EU's position vis-à-vis the IASB remains relatively weak, they have, however, initiated a forum whereby the pronouncements of the IASB can be contested.     

On Researching into the Use of IFRS by Private Entities in Europe

There were three important regulatory developments in 2009 for accounting by private entities in Europe, including a new IASB standard designed mainly for private entities. This research note considers the EU regulatory context and other issues relevant to research into voluntary adoption of international standards by private entities in Europe. These are applied as a critical case study of a previously published paper.     

International financial reporting standards — credible and reliable? An overview

The study discusses how IFRS's objective of the harmonization of accounting standards and improvement of quality of financial reporting may have been negatively affected due to public authorities' influences in the European Union (EU), the U.S., the U.K. and China. In addition, we discuss issues related to the inconsistent interpretations and implementations of IFRS as principle-based accounting standards. Moreover, we discuss how the funding system of the IASB may (or may not) have affected its independence. The review of relevant literature and discussion is critical to IFRS adoption/convergence efforts in the U.S.     

会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析

本文从会计准则的经济后果出发 ,讨论了会计准则制定的政治化问题 ,并以此为基础对会计准则国际发展的利益关系进行了探讨。文章探讨了国际会计准则委员会改组后的准则立项所涉及的利益关系 ,分析了欧盟、美国和澳大利亚等国采纳国际会计准则的利益所在 ,论证了会计准则的国际发展过程的政治化程序的必然性 ,指出了建设中的国际会计准则体系将主要是发达国家利益争斗的结果。本文对我国的会计准则发展战略、分析和利用国际层面的会计信息将有所裨益。     

The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users

The interests of users of financial statements are, in theory, paramount to accounting standard-setters. However, there is a dearth of research into users' participation in, and influence on, the process of setting accounting standards. The enhanced status now accorded to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) offers the opportunity to examine these issues in a new regulatory context. This study reports the results of a questionnaire survey of the perceptions of, and participation in, the IASB process of a sample of UK investment management firms. The findings suggest that these firms' participation is not as low as is often inferred from the public record of comment letters. In particular, a considerable number of firms participate through representative report user organisations such as the Investment Management Association. Other findings suggest that the major factor inhibiting investment firms from participating is the cost of lobbying, not complacency that the IASB is ‘on their side’ and will naturally safeguard their interests. Moreover, the respondents consider the accounting profession and the European and US accounting standard-setters to be the dominant interest groups in the IASB standard-setting process.     

Individual investors’ attitudes towards listing requirements for foreign entities on U.S. stock exchanges and the promulgation of international accounting standards

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) currently requires foreign issuers of securities listed on U.S. securities exchanges to either employ U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) or include a statement of reconciliation to U.S. GAAP if they use their home country's accounting standards. With some exceptions, they are also required to comply with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOA). John Thain, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, states that these requirements hamper U.S. investments, economic growth, and employment opportunities. The Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), Sir David Tweedie, echoed Thain's comments. An important stakeholder who is affected significantly by the U.S. listing requirements is the U.S. individual investor. Accordingly this study examines their attitudes involving the extant rules for foreign listings on U.S. exchanges and other aspects of the issue. The study also examines their perceptions regarding accounting standard promulgation authority and the use of a global set of accounting principles. The results indicate that although U.S. investors are very much in favor of the listing of foreign companies on U.S. exchanges, they also endorse the current rule requiring either employment of U.S. GAAP or reconciliation to it as well as mandatory adherence to the SOA. In the area of accounting standards, although a large majority believed that the U.S. should control the accounting standards for U.S. listings, a smaller majority also believed that there should be a universal set of accounting principles for all stock exchanges.     

On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project

As an expertise-based private standard-setter, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) needs to work continuously to maintain its position as the uncontested rule-making authority of financial reporting in the international regulatory arena. The present paper analyses how the IASB constructs legitimacy in interaction with its constituents. We focus on the specific case of the IASB’s agenda consultation in 2011/2012 as this project was explicitly introduced by the IASB to promote its legitimacy. We carry out a comprehensive study of the agenda consultation that takes into account all board meetings, comment letters and public board activities. We show that the consultation activities in this project were used by the IASB to pronounce its user (investor) orientation, which, however, might be formal rather than substantial, and to integrate a loyal circle of constituents further. It is also shown that the IASB increasingly tried to portray agenda-setting (and standard-setting) as an objective and evidence-based procedure that resonates with constituents’ demands, although it might in fact enlarge the discretionary leeway of IASB (and staff) members.     

A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis

Accounting rules affect fundamental areas of social interaction encompassing groups that have diverse and conflicting interests regarding financial reporting. In the absence of a coherent social choice theory, concepts of legitimacy can be used to assess the acceptance of accounting standard-setting processes and their resulting norms. In this paper, we analyze the standard-setting process in Europe. Accounting rules in Europe are developed in a two-stage process involving both private standard-setting and public rule-making. From a structural perspective, the European Union (EU) is well positioned to develop legitimate accounting procedures. However, the original purpose and the ensuing legitimacy of its control mechanism are jeopardized when EU structures are used and sometimes abused for policy formation and the creation of EU-IFRS.     

The Role and Current Status of IFRS in the Completion of National Accounting Rules – Evidence from Ireland

Abstract

We examine the extent to which International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) are used as a reference point and as a basis for the development of accounting standards in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). In particular, the focus is on accounting standards applicable to entities other than those listed on a regulated EU market. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the direct and indirect effect of IFRS on accounting standards applicable predominantly to private companies limited by shares in ROI. We illustrate how the historical links between the UK and ROI continue to influence accounting standards applicable in ROI. The enactment of the Companies (Accounting) Bill 2016 into ROI law will maintain the traditional alignment of UK and ROI accounting regulation, whilst simultaneously bringing into force the remaining aspects of the EU Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU, not currently applicable in ROI.     

预期损失模型缺陷与会计监管独立性问题研究——基于对IASB《金融工具:摊余成本和减值》征求意见稿的分析

IASB2009年11月发布的金融工具减值征求意见稿,建议以预期损失模型取代现有IAS39的已发生损失模型。通过对二者及相关减值模型的对比分析发现,IASB建议模型体现了金融监管的要求,并脱离了立足于"发生"观的会计确认传统、转向未来预期的观念基础。但预期损失模型的理论缺陷和作用局限决定了其难以被普遍接受。更重要的是,采用预期损失模型蕴含着会计准则对外部压力妥协的潜在倾向和独立性被破坏的隐忧。而会计准则和会计监管的相对独立既是会计固有理论属性的产物,也是保证会计监管效率和会计信息质量的重要前提。因此,需要从改进财务会计概念框架、加强国际参与和协调、强化会计管理体制和完善会计监管体系等方面入手,保持会计监管的独立性并提高其专业性、权威性。     

LARGE ACCOUNTING FIRMS’ SURVEY REVEALS EMERGENCE OF “TWO STANDARD” SYSTEM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is receiving great attention. In 2005, all listed companies domiciled in the European Union (EU) will be required to prepare consolidated accounts based on IFRS. Individual EU member states are, however, permitted to decide whether IFRS will be required or allowed for non-listed companies or for listed companies’ individual accounts. Based primarily on data collected by the six largest international accounting firms during their most recent convergence survey, this paper examines each of the 15 EU member states’ convergence plans and their perceived barriers to convergence.The findings indicate that most EU members do not plan to converge national GAAP with IFRS, thereby highlighting the great significance of the large firms’ concerns regarding emergence of a “two-standard” system in the EU. The survey indicates the majority of EU countries will continue to require or allow national GAAP for individual accounts. While Belgium is considering requiring IFRS for all consolidated accounts, other EU countries have decided to allow or are considering allowing non-listed companies to prepare IFRS consolidated accounts.In most EU countries, the link between financial accounting and tax accounting represents a major barrier to convergence. Other frequently cited barriers include disagreement with certain IFRS and the complicated nature of certain IFRS. International requirements for financial instruments are viewed as particularly problematic.     

Is private social, ethical and environmental reporting mythicizing or demythologizing reality?

There is some evidence that private social, ethical and environmental reporting (SEER) between companies and their core institutional investors has started to evolve over recent years. However, there is little research exploring the private SEER process in detail. This paper seeks to address this evolving area of corporate communication using interviews. The evidence reveals a series of mutual benefits to companies and institutional investors arising from the private SEER process. Companies are gaining from SEE engagement and dialogue, as they are using the process to inform public SEE disclosure. They are using private SEE disclosure to preempt investor surprises. Institutional investors are benefiting from the supplementary SEE information gained in private communications with investee companies. They are also using information on managers’ SEE performance gained from private dialogue, as a proxy for management quality. The private SEE disclosure process appears to be nurturing mutual understanding between companies and their core institutional investors. Drawing from a pedagogic perspective, applied previously to SER and stakeholder engagement, as well as to accounting education, we show that ‘good’ private SEE disclosure should take on the characteristics of a dialogic, problem-posing, educative process. We consider four potential outcomes. Such a process may demythologize SEE issues. However, there is also the possibility that a recreated joint myth may emerge from collaborative dialogue between two such powerful groups. Other possible outcomes are that companies may capture the process in order to perpetuate their own SEE myth or that private SEE disclosure may dwindle as public SEE disclosure improves.     

Editorial

IAS 19: Employee Benefits (2004) enables a choice between three accounting methods of recognising actuarial gains and losses: profit or loss, equity and corridor methods. The objective of this paper is to identify the accounting method of actuarial gains and losses followed by companies after the mandatory adoption of International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) standards. Information was collected about that accounting method adopted by 523 European companies, in the first year of mandatory IASB standards adoption. It was found that most of European companies included in the sample adopted the corridor method or the equity recognition method. The results also show that the equity recognition method is more used in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland and the corridor method is more used by financial companies.     

解读国际会计协调化

国际会计协调化是一个富有弹性的动态概念。本文结合历史发展进程和国际环境因素的变化,阐明国际会计协调化这一概念是随同“会计国际化”与“会计国家化”之争而在国际论坛上亮相的。在“会计协调化”的各家定义中,最基本的共同点是:协调是指限制、缩小和减少会计差异的过程。在20世纪80年代,会计协调化被认为是与“标准化”“统一性”和“可比性”不同但相关的概念。作者援用IASC开发国际会计准则的历史,说明在不同的历史阶段协调化的不同内涵,在世纪之交IASC完成全面重组后,已经创立了可行的机制.使协调化体现为准则化(标准化),表现为高度可比甚至趋向统一的趋同化。当前,国际财务报告的趋同化已成为国际资本市场和货币市场的现实需求,是正在实现的近期目标;国家准则与国际准则的趋同化尚在启动阶段.可以说还只是远期目标,我们对IASB和各国准则机构的协作行动和成果寄予厚望。     

Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Beaufsichtigung und Rechnungslegung von Versicherungsunternehmen: IFRS und Solvency II

Accounting and supervision are closely related, especially via the determination of regulatory capital. As a precondition for the harmonisation of solvency rules within Europe, as discussed in the context of Solvency II, there is a need for harmonised accounting rules regarding the recognition and measurement of assets and liabilities. The International Financial Reporting Standards resp. International Accounting Standards (IFRS resp. IAS) are used as a starting point. Insurance contracts are accounted for under IFRS 4, published in March 2004, which is only established as an interim standard allowing insurance companies to continue their existing accounting policy without major changes in their accounting systems. The IASB has just begun working on a final standard (Phase II). The IASB’s work on the final standard should be taken into account for the determination of regulatory capital as well. The third pillar of Solvency II is an additional connection between international accounting standards and the Solvency II project: extensive disclosure requirements companies shall provide disciplinary transparency with regard to their risk management systems and risk profiles.     

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.