Does implementation guidance affect opportunistic reporting and value relevance of earnings?

In recent years, both the SEC (2003) and the FASB (2004) [Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003. Study Pursuant to Section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC; the Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2004. On the road to an objectives-oriented accounting system. Financial Accounting Series: The FASB Report (August 31), 1–5.] have indicated a need for accounting standards where principles are balanced by implementation guidance (i.e., a framework for exercising professional judgment). In this study, we take advantage of a jurisdictional split during 1996–2001 whereby the same economic event (i.e., an impairment in oil and gas assets) in the extractive petroleum industry was accounted for by “full cost” firms under a SEC standard (Regulation SX 4-10) which provides extensive implementation guidance, and by “successful efforts” firms under a FASB standard (SFAS No. 121) that provided relatively little guidance for implementing the standard.     

Have SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 improved the financial reporting for securitizations?

Critics have alleged that securitization accounting prior to 2010 was among the causes of the recent financial crisis. In response to this criticism, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) implemented two new accounting standards, SFAS 166 and SFAS 167, to improve the financial reporting for securitizations. Bank regulators have stated their belief that SFAS 166/167 will result in a consolidated balance sheet (and risk-based capital ratios based thereupon) that better reflects a bank's exposure to risk related to securitized assets. We document that, by ceding retained power or influence through the servicing/special servicing functions to third parties, SFAS 166/167 resulted in real effects to the extent that banks (particularly those that were weakly capitalized) achieved their accounting objectives in the post-SFAS 166/167 period through legitimate transaction structuring in line with the intent of the new rules. Further, we use capital market participants’ assessments of risk retention by sponsoring banks as a benchmark, and provide evidence consistent with bank regulators’ beliefs. In particular, following SFAS 166/167, equity investors of sponsoring banks do not consider (consider) as risk relevant securitized assets that receive off-balance sheet (on-balance sheet) treatment. Securitized assets that are consolidated under SFAS 166/167 exhibit the same risk relevance as assets that are not securitized, despite contractual provisions that would seem to imply substantial risk transfer.     

The effect of SFAS 142 on the ability of goodwill to predict future cash flows

This study examines the effect of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 (SFAS 142) on the ability of goodwill to predict future cash flows. SFAS 142 allows substantial managerial discretion and leads to a significant magnitude of economic impact on financial statements, resulting in critical debates over the consequence of its adoption. I find that the ability of goodwill to predict future cash flows has improved since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) adopted SFAS 142. Furthermore, sub-sample analyses fail to reveal compelling evidence that reporting discretion induced by SFAS 142 is used opportunistically or informatively, contrasting with the pervasive view based on the opportunistic reporting hypothesis. Overall, contrary to the position of critics of SFAS 142, the results support the view taken by the FASB and proponents of SFAS 142: eliminating systematic amortization and adopting fair value estimates improve representational faithfulness of goodwill reporting.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating Constructive Lease Capitalization and Off‐Balance‐Sheet Financing: An Instructional Case with FedEx and UPS

This case illustrates the effects of the proposed new lease standard by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board on existing outstanding operating leases. Specifically, the case examines the effects of the proposal that all firms report existing operating leases as capital leases upon the initial adoption of the proposed standard. By applying a constructive capitalization model to two firms who rely on operating leases for financing, FedEx and UPS, we found that both companies would have to record billions of dollars of liabilities that had only appeared in the footnotes of their financial statements under the current lease standards. In addition, the firms would experience a decline in retained earnings and key financial ratios, such as the debt‐to‐equity, return‐on‐assets, and interest coverage ratios, by reporting operating leases as capital leases under the new proposed standard. Furthermore, the magnitude of the lease capitalization impact is much smaller for UPS than for FedEx.     

On the Attributes of an Asset

Definition of the elements of financial accounting has been a much discussed topic since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) began work on their Conceptual Framework Project. Defining assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and other elements has been attempted by many knowledgeable accountants but, to date, no single, generally accepted set of definitions exists. This paper will focus upon the definition of assets and will, through an examination of FASB Statements, attempt to derive an implicit definition of assets from the pronouncements of the FASB.     

The impact of GAAP guidance on asset retirement obligations

In this study, we assess issues faced by accountants in implementing Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations (AROs) and Financial Interpretation Number (FIN) 47, which was issued to clarify accounting for conditional AROs. The assessments were made by accountants of companies belonging to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) since the EEI originally initiated the Financial Accounting Standards Boards’ (FASB’s) ARO agenda item. The findings suggest that SFAS 143 and FIN 47 have provided accountants with increased clarity for ARO identification and have resulted in more meaningful recognition. In addition, more liabilities are reported even though it can be argued that ceteris paribus management will choose the method that minimizes the amount of the liability. Overall, the findings suggest that the FASB’s guidance on asset retirement obligations improved the reporting model and their implementation guidance improved companies’ application of the rules.     

Canadian Evidence on the Constructive Capitalization of Operating Leases*

One type of relevant ex ante research supporting the accounting standard‐setting process is the study of a proposed standard's impact on reported figures. The International Accounting Standards Board recently decided to review the lease accounting standard, which will naturally involve consideration of the G4 + 1 recommendation to capitalize all noncancellable lease contracts, including operating leases. National evidence of the impact of the G4 + 1 proposals provides feedback for the international standard‐setter. This study developed and used a refined constructive capitalization method, in which company‐specific assumptions — interest rate, total/expired/remaining lives of leased assets, and tax rate — were used to compute the impact of operating‐lease capitalization on key financial indicators for a sample of Canadian public companies. The results indicate that capitalizing operating leases would lead to the recognition of important additional assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. It would therefore significantly increase the debt‐to‐asset ratio and significantly decrease the current ratio. These results were noted across all industry segments in the sample. Income statement effects were generally less material. Significant impacts on return on assets, return on equity, and / or earnings per share were noted in only three industry segments: merchandising and lodging, oil and gas, and financial services. Intercompany comparability would not be affected overall nor within industries, because of similar rankings for each financial indicator before and after operating‐lease capitalization.     

Valuing employee stock options under SFAS 123R using the Black–Scholes–Merton and lattice model approaches

In 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payments (SFAS 123R), requiring all entities to recognize as expense the fair value of stock options issued to employees for services provided. Because employee stock options cannot be traded publicly, their fair value must be estimated using a model, with the Black–Scholes–Merton (BSM) and lattice models being the most appropriate alternatives.This teaching note provides an overview of employee stock options, followed by a discussion of the BSM and lattice valuation models, including their application and limitations. A project which has been used in financial accounting courses is also presented. The conceptual discussion coupled with illustrated examples will help students enhance their understanding of fair value estimation of and accounting for employee stock options under the recently adopted SFAS 123R.     

On the value relevance of SFAS No. 158

After considerable discussion and some controversy, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158 entitled, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans” was implemented in 2006. An important goal of these standards was to enhance financial reporting transparency for defined benefit pension plans (FASB, 2006). This study evaluates how well SFAS No. 158 achieved its objective. In particular, we compare the respective pre and post-SFAS 158 incremental value relevance of the balance sheet and income statement for firms with defined benefit pension plans (DBPP). Results suggest that the value relevance of book value (net income) increased (decreased) for DBPP firms after the implementation of SFAS No. 158.     

THE SEC OVERRULING OF SFAS 19 AND THE BEHAVIOR OF SECURITY RETURNS

In August 1978, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced its intention to employ Reserve Recognition Accounting, and also issued Accounting Series Release No. 253 which in substance overruled Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 19 (SFAS 19), "Financial Accounting and Reporting by Oil and Gas Producing Companies." There are relatively few cases where accounting promulgations have been reversed, and these cases merit careful analysis. Accordingly, this research employs an identical methodology and sample of an earlier study (Benjamin and McEnroe, 1981) in order to ascertain the security market effect of the SEC's overruling of SFAS 19. The a priori expectation would be that the SEC intervention should cause a reversal of any security market effects found in the prior study.     

A theory of the corporate decision to resist FASB standards: An organization theory perspective

This paper develops a theoretical framework that specifies the conditions under which corporations are likely to resist financial reporting standards proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Determinants of corporate resistance to FASB standards are identified at three levels of analysis: the standard, the corporation, and the corporation’s industry. Propositions are formulated summarizing the effects of the determinants at these three levels, and guidelines are suggested for testing the propositions. Implications for the theory and the practice of accounting regulation are also discussed. The overall goal of the paper is to enhance our understanding of the drivers of corporate resistance to FASB standards, so that accounting regulators can manage the implementation of accounting standards more effectively.     

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.     

An Investigation into the Potential Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in the United States: Implications and Implementation

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have been adopted by most of the G20 countries. Given the broad worldwide acceptance of IFRS and significance of attaining comparability to facilitate free flow of capital, the US standard setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) made a commitment to jointly work with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to explore the possibilities of convergence of US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with IFRS. In 2007, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) eliminated the requirement that foreign companies listed on the US stock exchanges reconcile their IFRS‐based financial statements with the US GAAP. In the same year the US SEC issued a concept release to the public requesting comments on a proposal to allow US issuers to prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS. Following these initiatives by the FASB and SEC, the aim of the present study is to investigate the implications of a potential full adoption of IFRS by the US. The present study details the challenges and benefits of adoption and outlines the steps required for a successful outcome of this process.     

The mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting: implications for market pricing

In this study, we examine the pricing of cash flow hedge adjustments reported in other comprehensive income (OCICF), under the mixed attribute model in SFAS 133 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Our OCICF pricing investigation integrates empirical research on the derivatives use that gives rise to such mark-to-market adjustments with the accounting information pricing literature. Based on this integration, we generalize mispricing theory for the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model and predict both the direction and magnitude of OCICF pricing. Screening on U.S. multinationals with ex ante exposure to currency risk, we provide evidence of OCICF mispricing in the expected direction, consistent with the notion that SFAS 133 cash flow hedge accounting results in a mixed attribute problem (Gigler et al. in J Account Res 45:257–287, 2007). Moreover, we find that both OCICF gains and losses are inversely related to future cash flows and of the expected magnitude, consistent with our predictions based on valuation theory (for example, Ohlson in Rev Account Stud 4:145–162, 1999). Our results support the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s concern that the SFAS 133 mixed attribute model does not provide the information necessary for investors to understand the net economic effects of derivatives use (FASB in Accounting for financial instruments and revisions to the accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. FASB, Norwalk, 2010).     

Corporate Disclosure of Material Information: The Evolution—and the Need to Evolve Again

This article by the former chairman of the FASB and the founder and executive director of the new Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) presents the rationale for and mission of the SASB. As the authors point out, both the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was created in 1934, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, set up in 1973, emerged during times of low investor confidence to restore trust in the capital markets. And the institutional changes brought about by the creation of both the SEC and the FASB succeeded in eliciting new information for investors and in raising the standards by which such information was reported. But as the authors go on to argue, we now live in a different world, one in which the management of environmental, social, and governance issues is increasingly viewed as critical to the long‐run value creation of companies. And because today's corporate reporting fails to account in a systematic way for material non‐financial issues, it's time once again for the capital markets to evolve. The SASB aims to meet this need by creating sustainability accounting standards for use by public companies in disclosing a minimum set of material sustainability impacts for companies in over 80 different industries. As part of a natural evolution in disclosure, the SASB aims to achieve the same goal the SEC and FASB started with: to protect investors and the public.     

The Conceptual Framework as a Coherent System for the Development of Accounting Standards

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) visualized a conceptual accounting framework as a 'coherent system of interrelated objectives and fundamentals that can lead to consistent standards that prescribes the nature, function, and limits of financial accounting and financial statements' (FASB, 1976). To Australian standard setters, the primary purpose of the conceptual framework (CF) was only to be used as a 'guide' in developing and reviewing accounting standards (AASB, 1995, para. 5). The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) diminished the role of a conceptual framework even further by openly acknowledging that some standards are inconsistent with the guidelines offered by the framework (IASC, 1989 para. 12). Even though the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) supposedly pursues a policy of harmonization of conceptual frameworks and accounting standards, there are also acknowledged inconsistencies in the conceptual frameworks of the IASC.
The aim of this article is to assess the coherence of the Australian (and IASC) conceptual framework. This analysis identifies confusion in drafting or construction of the conceptual framework, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistency with the legal framework within which business entities operate. Accordingly it is suggested that the adoption of a conceptual framework will not lead to consistent accounting standards, and inevitably the conceptual framework will lack credibility so long as it is inconsistent with legislation.