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

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

Why is there inconsistency in accounting for liabilities in IFRS? An analysis of recognition,measurement, estimation and conservatism

We report that International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are inconsistent with respect to the recognition and measurement of liabilities, both in the conceptual framework for financial reporting and in accounting standards themselves. We demonstrate that this arises in part because the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) does not make a conceptual distinction between the process of measurement, which requires a currently observable measurement attribute, and the process of estimation, which is inherently subjective. The IASB employs only the logic and language of measurement, while actually requiring entities to report both measurements and estimates in financial statements. Our contribution is to identify and interpret this conceptual conflict, to demonstrate that this has particular relevance to accounting for liabilities, and to draw implications for accounting research and policy with respect to recognition, measurement and conservatism.     

Examining dual accounting systems in Europe

After adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for consolidated financial statements by European-listed companies, a number of European countries still require the use of local standards in the preparation of legal entity financial statements. This study investigates whether this requirement can be explained by a low demand for high-quality financial reporting and an orientation of accounting toward the fulfilment of regulatory needs in these countries. Specifically, using accounting quality as an indicator of the focus of accounting on capital providers' needs, we compare accounting quality between countries permitting and prohibiting the use of IFRS in individual financial statements. Consistent with our expectations, we find that countries requiring the use of local standards in the preparation of legal entity financial statements exhibit a significantly lower level of accounting quality, both prior to and after IFRS adoption. We interpret these results as evidence that these countries have local standards more oriented toward the satisfaction of regulatory needs, rather than investors' needs. Furthermore, since differences in accounting quality persist after the implementation of IFRS, results suggest that firms in these countries face a lower demand for high-quality financial reporting.     

国际公共部门会计准则的回顾、基本框架及其启示

本文通过回顾国际公共部门会计准则 (IPSASs) 的发展史, 从公共部门财务报告的目标、会计核算基础、会计要素的分类、定义、确认和计量, 以及财务报表的列报等方面, 简要地介绍了国际公共部门会计准则的基本框架及其对我国开展公共部门会计改革和会计标准制定的启示。     

Understanding participation in accounting standard-setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework

This paper explores the motives of participants in the standard-setting process, based on the premise that standard-setters strive for standards that are useful for decision-making by a wide range of financial statement users. Our setting is the development of a contentious but contained Australian accounting standard, Reduced Disclosure Requirements. A consultative process initiated by the Australian Accounting Standards Board to create a specific Australian accounting standard for differential reporting provided an opportunity for interested parties to participate. We analyse the motives of participants through semi-structured interviews with members of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and comment letter writers who responded to the relevant exposure draft. Our findings identify participants’ economic and political motivations and question the ability of the current standard-setting process to extract decision-making requirements from a wide range of users of financial statements and to reflect these in financial reporting standards. We find that the perspectives gathered are homogenised and that the process privileges the voices of powerful elites.     

User Requirements for Not-For-Profit Entity Financial Reporting: An International Comparison

This study investigates the not-for-profit (NFP) external financial reporting regulatory environments of the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand and compares them with that of Australia. It finds a lack of clarity in the definition of a NFP entity under Australian accounting standards. The study also identifies various types of information that earlier research and the guidance in other countries suggest are useful to the users of NFP entities' financial statements. This information is not currently required under Australian accounting standards.     

User Requirements for Not-For-Profit Entity Financial Reporting: An International Comparison

This study investigates the not-for-profit (NFP) external financial reporting regulatory environments of the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand and compares them with that of Australia. It finds a lack of clarity in the definition of a NFP entity under Australian accounting standards. The study also identifies various types of information that earlier research and the guidance in other countries suggest are useful to the users of NFP entities' financial statements. This information is not currently required under Australian accounting standards.     

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

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

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.     

Accounting Policies in the Extractive Industry: A Global and a Turkish Perspective

This paper investigates the influence of accounting standards on financial reporting for companies in the extractive industry. In Turkey, listed firms have prepared their financial reports according to the International Accounting Standards and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IAS/IFRS) since 2005, as has the European Union. The aim of this study is to determine the degree of compliance with IFRS 6, comparing global and Turkish extractive entities. We find that the entities reporting in accordance with IFRS 6 in Turkey are more likely to fail to declare their accounting policies, whereas global companies are more likely to be compliant with IFRS 6.     

Derivative accounting and financial reporting quality: A review of the literature

The financial crisis of 2008 increased the call for standard setters and financial regulators to review the effectiveness of derivative regulation in improving financial reporting quality. Prior literature defines financial reporting quality as the extent to which financial statements provide information that is useful to investors and creditors in their investment decisions (Schipper, 2003; Schipper & Vincent, 2003). This review summarizes the empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of derivative regulation in achieving its stated objective. Extant literature shows that although derivative regulations have improved information provided to investors, there is still room for improvement. Recommendations from this stream of literature suggest that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) require managers to provide more complete, transparent, and forward-looking disclosures surrounding their derivative positions (Campbell, 2015; Franco-Wong, 2000). This review may be useful to standard setters, practitioners, and accounting academics by providing a synthesis of extant academic literature on the effectiveness of current derivative regulation. As the FASB and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) continue to expand derivative accounting rules, this review may also be useful in identifying areas for future academic research.     

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

Abstract

Dutch law (B2T9) is positive towards IFRS. IFRS may be used by all entities, there is a specific option for entities using IFRS in the consolidated financial statements to apply an IFRS-friendly version of B2T9 in its separate financial statements, and IFRS for SMEs can be used by non-listed and non-regulated companies in combination with B2T9. In the process of adoption of the 2013 EU Accounting Directive only limited references have been made to IFRS. This is not an indication of a reduced interest in IFRS, but is a result of limiting the changes of B2T9 to those that are necessary as a result of changes at the EU level. The Dutch Accounting Standards Board, issuing Dutch Accounting Standards (DAS), considers IFRS when developing and changing its standards. In addition to the IFRS option DAS often include one or more additional optional treatments that are considered suitable for non-listed companies. The Dutch regulatory authority AFM is also positive towards IFRS and even advocates elimination of non-IFRS options from Dutch GAAP as much as possible. The number of major differences between Dutch GAAP and IFRS is relatively limited, with only a few differences that cannot be avoided by an entity when preparing financial statements under Dutch GAAP.     

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.     

Advances in the Financial Reporting of Mexican Banks: An Evaluation of Post-Devaluation Reporting Practices

In 1994, Mexico underwent a severe peso devaluation. Thereafter, the country’s financial system experienced severe financial stress as loan defaults forced the government to undertake a program to rescue the country’s banks and obtain international financial assistance. One of the measures involved the reformulation of the financial reporting principles used by the country’s banks. The standards, which are contained in the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission’s Circular 1343 (1997), were designed to provide Mexican banks with a comprehensive set of financial reporting standards and to bring the financial reporting practices of Mexican financial institutions closer to international standards. However, while the standards contain several improvements in the fundamental aspects of financial reporting for Mexican banks, they lack some important measurement and disclosure provisions contained in international standards. Given this tendency, this paper examines the post-devaluation (1998) financial reporting practices of Mexican banks. Emphasis is placed on comparing the reporting practices contained in the banks’ 1998 financial statements with the requirements of Circular 1343, the standards published by the Mexican Institute of Public Accountants (MIPA), International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) standards, and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules.     

Assessing financial reporting comparability across institutional settings: The case of pension accounting

The drive for comparability of financial information is to enable users to distinguish similarities and differences in economic activities for an entity over time and between entities so that their resource allocation decisions are facilitated. With the increased globalisation of economic activities, the enhanced international comparability of financial statements is often used as an argument to advance the convergence of local accounting standards to international financial reporting standards (IFRS). Differences in the underlying economic substance of transactions between jurisdictions plus accounting standards allowing alternative treatments may render this expectation of increased comparability unrealistic. Motivated by observations that, as a construct, comparability is under-researched and not well understood, we develop a comparability framework that distinguishes between four types of comparability. In applying this comparability framework to pension accounting in the Australian and USA contexts, we highlight a dilemma: while regulators seek to increase the likelihood that similar events are accounted for similarly, an unintended consequence may be that preparers are forced to apply similar accounting treatment to events that are, in substance, different.     

Commentary: An International Comparison and Evaluation of Financial Accounting Concepts Statements*

Standard setters in several jurisdictions have adopted statements of financial accounting concepts. Given that concepts statements influence accounting standards, similarities and differences of concepts across jurisdictions will affect the ability of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and other accounting bodies to secure standards convergence. This paper analyzes the concepts statements of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the IASB. Although these statements seem similar at a “broad brush” level, a closer look reveals substantial differences. The main purpose of this paper is to evaluate these differences and the extent to which they may impair standards convergence. The paper also proposes broadening the scope of the concepts structure to include normative agency‐theoretic considerations, which would bring the legitimate interests of management into the concepts structure, with the potential to move some of the trade‐offs necessary to secure managers' acceptance of accounting standards into the structure itself.     

IASB Standards for Australia by 2005: Catapult or Trojan Horse?

The Financial Reporting Council has announced a plan to adopt from January 2005 standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. The announcement foreshadows the wholesale replacement of Australia's financial reporting protocol. Unless others make a similar decision, Australia will be the only western country in 2005 to have adopted entirely the IASB's accounting standards for both group and single company reporting. We suggest that the cost, apart from changeover expenses, could be a reduction in the quality of financial reports. We believe that attempts by government agencies to downplay problems in international standard-setting mask a set of political decisions which emphasise expediency, favour larger corporate interests over smaller, and make questionable assumptions about future risks to corporate governance.     

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.     

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective

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

Direct or Indirect Cash Flow Statements?

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the Financial Reporting Standards Board (FRSB) have issued a joint proposal that will allow reporting entities to choose between the direct and indirect method of reporting cash flow statements. This evidence presented in this paper indicates that the direct cash flow reporting format, relative to the indirect method, leads to better prediction of future firm performance and has a stronger association with share prices. The AASB and the FRSB have to decide whether to support high quality reporting or harmonisation.