Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components

The underlying question raised in this article is: why is the accounting profession's conceptual framework (CF) so authoritative when it is conceptually incoherent? A supplementary question is how can ‘conceptually robust’ accounting standards be derived from an incoherent framework? This article draws on Page and Spira's (1999) contrasting framework metaphors to suggest that the appearance of conceptual robustness is more important than the reality, and illustrates the point with the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB’s) progress report on its reporting performance project. Some inherent weaknesses in the move towards internationally enforceable financial regulations have been acknowledged, but this article suggests the IASB's project demonstrates two additional weaknesses: internal incoherence, and the potential for political ends to drive supposedly technical regulations.     

The First Quarter Century of the GASB (1984–2009): A Perspective on Standard Setting (Part One)

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (hereafter GASB or Board) was established in April 1984 as the authoritative accounting standard‐setting body for United States state and local governmental entities. There are over 87,000 state and local entities in the country, and for the most part these entities are required to comply with the generally accepted accounting principles established by the GASB; hence, the work of the GASB is significant. On 30 June 2009, the GASB completed its twenty‐fifth year of standard setting. Because of the Board's influence and the importance of its mission, an increased understanding of the GASB and its accomplishments during its first 25 years of existence is important. This is the first of two papers which together provide a complete sequential treatment of the GASB's operational history through the end of its first quarter century. This first paper begins with an historical perspective about municipal accounting issues from colonial times to 1934. The origin of professional self‐determining standards is the feature of the next section, identifying standard‐setting bodies that contributed to municipal accounting from 1934 to 1984. The early activities of the Board are then reviewed. Two appendices are provided to detail the composition of the Board during its first quarter century, along with biographical information about the early Board members and later Chair and Vice Chair personnel. This segment concludes with a review of the relationship of other governmental standard setting bodies at the federal level and the international level.     

The First Quarter Century of the GASB (1984–2009): A Perspective on Standard Setting (Part Two)

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (hereafter GASB or Board) was established in April 1984 as the authoritative accounting standard‐setting body for state and local governmental entities in the United States. There are over 87,000 state and local entities in the country and for the most part these entities are required to comply with the generally accepted accounting principles established by the GASB; hence, the standards promulgated by the GASB are significant. On 30 June 2009, the GASB completed its twenty‐fifth year of standard setting. Because of the Board's influence and the importance of its mission, an increased understanding of the GASB and its accomplishments during its first 25 years of existence is important. This is the second of two papers which together provide a complete sequential treatment of the GASB's operational history through the end of its first quarter century. The first part provided an historical perspective about municipal accounting issues from colonial times to 2009 and included appendix materials identifying the composition of the Board and biographical material on key personnel. The first paper concluded with a review of the relationship of other governmental standard setting bodies at the Federal and the International level. This paper provides an overview of the future challenges faced by the Board and supplies a digest of the standards including appendix and a synoptic summary of the standards the Board has promulgated by topic and by standard number.     

Agenda Entrance Complexity in International Accounting Standard Setting: The Case of IFRS for SMEs

Features of rational decision making (such as agenda entrance criteria and statement of jurisdiction) barely conceal the complexity of international accounting standard setting. In 2003, when the International Financial Reporting Standard for Small and Medium‐sized Entities (IFRS for SMEs) project achieved agenda entrance, the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) jurisdiction was to develop, ‘a single set of … accounting standards … to help participants in the world's capital markets’. Drawing on interviewees' recollections and other material, this study of how the project achieved agenda entrance finds within‐IASB opposition to the project, arguing it was outside the IASB's jurisdiction that dissolved with the realisation that the IASB's jurisdiction would be changed to encompass the project.     

Business-model (intent)-based accounting

We discuss how basing financial reporting on an entity's business model is, in effect, basing financial reporting on management's intent with respect to the use, transfer or other disposition of an asset or liability. We provide several examples of existing International Financial Reporting Standards and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that permit or require intent-based accounting. We describe the meaning and consequences of basing the accounting for financial assets on management's intentions for realising value from those assets. We analyse the positive and negative features of intent-based accounting in the context of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's and International Accounting Standards Board's conceptual frameworks, specifically, the qualitative characteristics relevance and comparability and the objective of financial reporting, and apply that analysis to existing and proposed guidance for measuring financial assets. We also discuss evidence from academic research on the measurement of financial assets.     

Assessing Conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Using Expert Accounting Witness Evidence and the Conceptual Framework

To enhance understanding of the status of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, we analyse important rules of evidence in United States (US) courts regarding the presentation of expert accounting witness testimony. We draw on this analysis to recommend the relocation of the Conceptual Framework in the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) hierarchy. For empirical support, we explore how rules of evidence in the criminal trial in 2006 of Enron's two most senior executives affected assessment of whether Enron's financial reports conformed with the FASB's GAAP. We recommend that the FASB's Conceptual Framework should be included in authoritative literature as the uppermost authority, and that it be grounded closely in user needs and the ethical principles associated with meeting those needs. Further, we recommend that accounting expert witnesses adopt an overriding concern for objectivity and impartiality in assisting courts to understand complex accounting matters within the Conceptual Framework.     

The ASB's Exposure Draft Statement of Principles: A Comment

This paper is based on a shorter comment sent to the Accounting Standards Board in response to the request for comments on the exposure draft, Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting. It is intended to be a comprehensive dissent from that ED, and also to suggest an alternative course of action for the ASB. In the first place, the ASB's position, according to which the provision of more fair value accounting (FVA)-based information is a central plank among its principles, is contested on the grounds of both (a) market incompleteness (entailing limited availability of reliable FVA-based information) and (b) lack of evidence of demand on the part of financial statement users for FVA-based information. In the second place, the ASB's approach to issues of recognition is subjected to critical analysis and found to be inadequate. Finally, the ASB's decision that the essential function of its Statement of Principles should be to advocate a set of recognition rules and measurement bases (including some that are controversial) is contested. Instead, it is proposed that the Statement of Principles should incorporate a larger framework, including a set of procedural principles, according to which the Board would reach conclusions on the various issues with which it has to deal, so that its conclusions would be seen to be authoritative because they had been reached by a process of rigorous enquiry in accordance with appropriate procedures. These principles would incorporate Rawls' (1971) notions of reflective equilibrium and procedural justice.     

If Only We Had Listened to Ross Skinner!*

Ross Skinner built his intimate knowledge of the intricacies of the art of accounting through a very long and rich career as an “accounting philosopher". This allowed him to both observe, and be part of, the formalization of today's GAAP. The duration and timing of Skinner's career also allowed him to experience directly the gradual evolution of our accounting model from an approach based largely on principles to one based increasingly on rules. The objective of this paper is to look behind accounting figures, which are the product of varying combinations of rules and judgment, and to discuss some recent events that have rocked the auditing and accounting profession. Our comments are presented in the context of views expressed by Skinner in his 1995 “Judgment in Jeopardy” article. Skinner had a keen interest in accounting history. Therefore, we begin our paper by referring to Paciol's notion of “venture accounting". We use this notion to introduce our discussion of financial reporting, which has become an important instrument of resource allocation and a challenge for professional judgment. This leads us to describe some of the ideas Skinner presented in his article on accounting judgment as “visionary". Had we listened to him, perhaps we could have avoided some of the costly changes and additions recently imposed on our governance system, such as the creation of the Canadian Public Accountability Board and the tightening of several laws and regulations.     

A Reconsideration of Consolidation Accounting Requirements and Pre‐acquisition Dividends

This article considers the consolidation accounting consequences of the International Accounting Standards Board's decision to replace the cost method of accounting for investments in subsidiaries with a new model that requires the recognition of dividend revenue for distributions received or receivable from pre‐acquisition profits. The article shows that the recognition of pre‐acquisition dividends as revenue with a potential indication of impairment causes problems to consolidation accounting procedures and may reduce the information content of consolidated financial statements. The highlighted problems relate to the elimination of the investment asset against the equity of the subsidiary and the definition and measurement of non‐controlling interest. A review of the due process relevant to the replacement of the cost method indicates that the standard setter may have paid insufficient regard to accounting concepts and principles.     

Rethinking Accounting,Accountability, and Accounting Regulation: Concerns about the Proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board*

This paper expands on a letter recently submitted by a group of Canadian business academics to the Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada (IRCSSC) in response to the committee's proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board. We highlight sections of the IRCSSC's Consultation Paper that we find problematic and draw on accounting and other research to explain why it fails to live up to its potential. Chief among the problems we identify is that the IRCSSC appears to be wedded to the same narrow, investor-based focus promoted by the International Sustainability Standard Board. We also draw attention to the rushed nature of the process, its exclusion of lay experts, the IRCSSC's ambiguous use of the term public interest, and its inattention to alternative understandings of value and the environment (including the people within it). Finally, we problematize the IRCSSC's sidestepping of the issues of power, culture, and conflict; its neglect of monitoring and enforcement; and its surprising disregard of the Global Reporting Initiative. Along with a number of suggestions for improving the process and its outcome, this paper also contributes to ongoing debates on standard setting and the question of whether accounting is currently equipped to provide the necessary tools for sustainability reporting.     

Further Evidence on Accounting Choices: The South of Scotland Electricity Board, 1978–1988

This study augments Mclnnes (1990) by investigating the effects of a small number of accounting procedures which were chosen by the management of a state-owned enterprise. It focuses on those accounting choices in the South of Scotland Electricity Board's (SSEB) set of accounting choices which were subject to criticism in a Price Commission report published in 1978. In spite of this criticism SSEB management continued to use these accounting procedures in their main set of financial statements, although in recent years some of these procedures have been changed. Estimates are provided of the multi-period and cumulative decreasing effects of the accounting procedures criticised by the Commission on the net income reported by the SSEB. The possible incentives that SSEB management may have had for continuing to use these accounting procedures in their main set of financial statements after they had been subject to criticism are identified and explored.     

Understanding accounting through conceptual metaphor: ACCOUNTING IS AN INSTRUMENT?

This paper extends the conversation about metaphors in accounting that were presented in this journal by McGoun et al. [McGoun EG, Bettner MS, Coyne MP. Pedagogic metaphors and the nature of accounting signification. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2007a;18:213–30; McGoun EG, Bettner MS, Coyne MP. Money n’ motion—born to be wild. Critical Perspectives on Accounting;2007b;18:343–61.]. Our aim is to promote further critical conversations about how metaphor is implicated in accounting. We assemble and review some of the empirical evidence we have gathered from close readings of discourse about accounting over the past decade. Based on this empirical grounding, we propose that the fundamental conceptual metaphor, ACCOUNTING IS AN INSTRUMENT, has been deployed commonly to describe the essence of accounting. We contend that such deployment has insidious, distortive and confounding outcomes because it encourages belief that accounting is incapable of reporting other than with representational faithfulness; and that it confounds the (alleged) primary qualitative characteristics of accounting information (relevance and reliability) outlined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board's SFAC 2 Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting.     

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.     

ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATES: BACK TO BASICS

Public accountants have had a hard time deciding how to account for derivatives that are used to hedge risks, which in turn has given derivatives users and others a hard time. For about six years, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has struggled with several, often diametrically opposed procedures, ranging from showing all derivatives at “fair” values to deferring realized losses or gains on derivatives until related gains or losses on the hedged transactions have been realized (a practice known as “hedge accounting”). What is behind the FASB's inability to come up with a decisive and authoritative ruling? Although the politics of self-interest has fueled much of the debate, there is more to the problem than politics. The author argues that the underlying cause of the FASB's inability to reach a satisfactory and acceptable solution is not politics, but rather a flawed basic concept of how financial accounting should be done. In this article, the author recommends a procedure for derivatives accounting that was endorsed by the Financial Economists Roundtable in its 1995 “Statement on Accounting Disclosure about Financial Derivative Instruments.” The proposal, in brief, is this: Provided a company can satisfy its auditors that it is using derivatives primarily to hedge an offsetting price exposure, the firm should be given the option to use hedge accounting for that part of its derivatives position that is functioning as a hedge. All other investment or speculative uses of derivatives should be treated like other financial instruments and marked to market or fair value. Such a procedure, the author argues, is far more consistent than the FASB's recent proposals with fundamental principles of accounting that have been developed by accounting practitioners and scholars over several centuries.     

(No) Limits to Anglo-American accounting? Reconstructing the history of the International Accounting Standards Committee: A review article

The development of the current International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from the earlier International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) provides insight into many issues of international financial reporting, among them the characteristics of international accounting standards themselves. This article reviews Camfferman and Zeff’s [Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets. A history of the international accounting standards committee 1973–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press] volume on the organizational development of the IASC and contextualizes it in the broader literature of cross-border standardization in accounting. While having produced a seminal piece, the authors take a clear Anglo-American perspective. The downsides are insufficiencies regarding a simplistic understanding of experts and expertise, a neglect of the role of auditing firms, and only an imbalanced integration of different stakeholders.     

The Nature and Rationale of a Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting by Islamic Banks

Islamic banks have to abide by the revealed doctrines in Islam in conducting their business and financial transactions. They employ in-house religious advisers—often referred to as Shari'a Supervisory Board (SSB)—who issue a special report to inform users of financial statements whether or not the bank has adhered to the Islamic principles. Recently, a private standard-setting body—the Financial Accounting Organization for Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions (FAOIBFI)—has been set up to externally regulate the financial reporting by Islamic banks. The FAOIBFI has published two statements on the objectives and concepts of financial reporting to act as a framework in setting accounting standards for Islamic banks. This paper examines the FAOIBFI's approach for developing objectives and concepts of financial accounting and investigates its need for such a theoretical framework. It is argued that the FAOIBFI's objectives and concepts would not be useful in mandating accounting standards on issues that are affected by religious ruling. This does not necessarily mean that such a framework may not be useful in legitimating the FAOIBFI's role and in setting accounting standards for issues that are not governed by revealed moral doctrines although it will be subject to similar limitations to those found by other standard-setting bodies in utilising and applying their framework. However, it implies that the more the FAOIBFI sets accounting standards that incorporate religious ruling, the less it would tend to find its own objectives and concepts useful. The ambiguities that may arise from different interpretations of the religious rules will require resolutions primarily by reference to religious rather than accounting authority.     

A Statistical Model of International Accounting Harmonization

This article shows how the difference between the observed frequencies of accounting policy choice and the outcome of a random policy choice, where each available method has an equal chance of being selected, may be fully explained with a statistical model. The process of harmonization is described in a way that identifies departures from equiprobable accounting policy choice as either: (a) the systematic effects of harmonization, or (b) the effects of systematic divergence from international harmony where the frequency of adoption of differing accounting methods varies across countries, or (c) the effects of company-specific accounting policy choices. The understanding of harmony that underlies previous attempts to measure harmonization is such that, with respect to a particular financial statement item, a situation of maximum harmony is reached when all companies in all countries use the same accounting method. From the standpoint of modelling the harmonization process. however, a different concept of harmony may be more useful. In this article, therefore, we posit a state of distributional harnzony in which, other things being equal, the expected distribution of accounting policy choices is the same in each country. In this theoretical state. the odds of selecting a given accounting method from those available for a particular financial statement item are identical for each country. A major advantage of this benchmark is that it provides a basis for distinguishing between two possibly conflicting components of the international harmonization process: between-country harmonization and within-country standardization. A hierarchy of nested statistical models is then used to describe accounting policy choices made by companies with an international shareholding and registered in Europe, where the European Union has been involved in a program of accounting harmonization. The accounting policies analysed in depth in this article comprise the treatment of goodwill and accounting for deferred taxation. The results are compared with the comparability index method used previously in harmonization research studies.     

Forces Leading to the Adoption of Accrual Accounting by the Canadian Federal Government: An Institutional Perspective*/ LES FORCES AYANT MENÉ L'ADMINISTRATION FÉDÉRALE CANADIENNE À ADOPTER LA COMPTABILITÉ D'EXERCICE: UNE PERSPECTIVE INSTITUTIONNELLE

In 1995, the federal government of Canada announced that it would adopt full accrual accounting. The change was fully implemented at the department level in 2001 and for government‐wide financial reporting in 2003. Using the perspective of institutional theory, we examine several factors that had the potential to influence the federal government's decision to adopt full accrual accounting, including two royal commissions, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, credit markets, and the practices of other national governments. We find that the decision to change to accrual accounting can be largely attributed to coercive and normative influences of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (supported by the normative influence of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Public Sector Accounting Board) and mimetic isomorphism with other members of the federal government's organizational field.     

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.