A Note on the Proprietary and Entity Perspectives in Financial Statements: The Implications for two Current Controversial Issues

Financial statements can portray the financial position and performance of an entity from different perspectives. Two dominant perspectives are the proprietary and entity perspectives. These perspectives also feature in recent discussions by the IASB and the FASB in relation to their conceptual framework project. The adopted perspective will yield different presentations for a number of issues. This paper illustrates the implications for two controversial issues currently under discussion by the IASB and the FASB: accounting for changes in a reporting entity’s own credit risk when liabilities are measured at fair value, and the classification of certain obligations as either equity or liabilities. The paper explains why the adoption and consistent application of one perspective are important for standard setting and financial reporting to ensure the consistent presentation of an entity’s performance and financial position that can be correctly interpreted by users of financial statements against the background of the chosen perspective.     

Disharmony in international accounting standards setting: The Chinese approach to accounting for business combinations

The paper addresses two distinct aspects of disharmony in international accounting standards setting. The first aspect relates to the political economic context of financial accounting standards. This is illustrated by the Chinese standards setters’ decision to allow the pooling of interests method of accounting for business combinations despite the prohibition of this method by both the FASB and the IASB. This decision by the Chinese standards setters appears to have been based on political economic factors related to the need for industrial reorganization in China rather than a desire to serve the needs of global capital markets. The second aspect of disharmony relates to the role played by differential understandings of the fundamental objectives of financial reporting in an international context. The IASB's goal of producing one set of global accounting standards to serve the needs of global capital markets has led to a reduction in the number of permissible accounting methods and a move towards the fair value accounting model. In particular, the IASB concluded that the acquisition method of accounting for business combinations should be the only method allowed for business combinations. In contrast, the Chinese standards setters have recognized the existence of both mergers and acquisitions, and in response they created two different methods of accounting for business combinations. Effectively, the Chinese standards setters developed an alternative approach to accounting for business combinations which challenges the IASB's goal of achieving international accounting convergence through the fair value model.     

Hicksian Income in the Conceptual Framework

In seeking to replace accounting conventions by concepts in the pursuit of principles‐based standards, the FASB/IASB joint project on the conceptual framework has grounded its approach on a well‐known definition of income by Hicks. We welcome the use of theories by accounting standard setters and practitioners, if theories are considered in their entirety. Cherry‐picking parts of a theory to serve the immediate aims of standard setters risks distortion. Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the selected elements of a theory increase the distortion even more. We argue that the Boards have selectively picked from, misquoted, misunderstood and misapplied Hicksian concepts of income. We explore some alternative approaches to income suggested by Hicks and by other writers, and their relevance to current debates over the Boards' conceptual framework and standards. Our conclusions about how accounting concepts and conventions should be related differ from those of the Boards. Executive stock options (ESOs) provide an illustrative case study.     

Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View

This paper analyses various controversial issues arising from the current project of the IASB and FASB to develop a joint conceptual framework for financial reporting standards. It discusses their possible implications for measurement and, in particular, for the use of fair value as the preferred measurement basis. Two competing world views are identified as underlying the debate: a Fair Value View, implicit in the IASB's public pronouncements, and an Alternative View implicit in publicly expressed criticisms of the IASB's pronouncements. The Fair Value View assumes that markets are relatively perfect and complete and that, in such a setting, financial reports should meet the needs of passive investors and creditors by reporting fair values derived from current market prices. The Alternative View assumes that markets are relatively imperfect and incomplete and that, in such a market setting, financial reports should also meet the monitoring requirements of current shareholders (stewardship) by reporting past transactions and events using entity-specific measurements that reflect the opportunities actually available to the reporting entity. The different implications of the two views are illustrated by reference to specific issues in recent accounting standards. Finally, the theoretical support for the two views is discussed. It is concluded that, in a realistic market setting, the search for a universal measurement method may be fruitless and a more appropriate approach to the measurement problem might be to define a clear measurement objective and to select the measurement method that best meets that objective in the particular circumstances that exist in relation to each item in the accounts. An example of such an approach is deprival value, which is not, at present, under consideration by the IASB.     

On the IASB comprehensive income project: an analysis of the case for dual income display

The IASB is presently involved in a project on reporting comprehensive income. Since the IASB accounting model mixes two income determination systems, namely, historical cost accounting and fair value accounting, an interesting question pertains to whether the display of comprehensive income should reflect the existence of these two paradigms. This article scrutinizes, from both the points of view of accounting theory and a valuation perspective, the typical arguments made by proponents of historical cost net income and comprehensive fair value income. It finds that claims for exclusive reliance on a single concept of income are untenable. The analysis provides arguments in defence of an income display that explicitly features both income concepts. Such a dual income display would correspond to a categorization of comprehensive income that is currently investigated in the IASB performance reporting project. However, given the importance of summarization in financial analysis, as is most extremely reflected in the focus on the earnings per share (EPS) number, the case for a dual income display should also be considered at the highest level of summarization of financial performance reporting. In other words, mandatory publication of two EPS numbers, one for net income, and one for comprehensive income, should be considered. Possible effects on perception and actual use of financial reports that should enter such a consideration are suggested as topics for experimental research.     

From compromise to concept? – a review of ‘other comprehensive income’

This paper reviews how ‘other comprehensive income’ (OCI) entered financial reporting by tracing major Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) projects that required direct entries to equity and describing recent efforts to make sense of the practice. It was the fixation on net income that brought about departures from all-inclusive income, which were repeatedly made over the years without decidedly devoting attention to developing a conceptual basis. OCI was used as a compromise to incorporate current values in the balance sheet, while retaining historical cost principles in the income statement. When the practice was labeled as OCI, it became institutionalized without a clear meaning. A sense-making of the practice then replaced the debates on the adequacy of using OCI and standard setters have realized that additional layers of theory became necessary to explain, for example, reclassification adjustments. Yet, the IASB has made clear in its recent Exposure Draft of a revised conceptual framework that it does not intend to pursue a fresh start in performance reporting that appears to be needed conceptually. Instead, practical considerations, primarily on International Financial Reporting Standards adoption in Japan, seem to lead to another ex-post rationalization of OCI, this time around a conceptually vacuous use of the relevance characteristic.     

Articulation,Profit or Loss and OCI in the IASB Conceptual Framework: Different Shades of Clean (or Dirty) Surplus

Abstract

The 2015 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015 IASB CF ED) proposes a mixed valuation and transactions approach to income determination. Nevertheless, it does not clearly choose between single or dual concepts of profit, which renders the 2015 IASB CF ED’s financial accounting model somewhat incoherent. The 2015 IASB CF ED proposes a rebuttable presumption that profit or loss should be all-inclusive. Only the IASB can rebut this presumption, but the 2015 IASB CF ED provides no clear conceptual basis on which to rebut this presumption. In spite of considering dual measurement, the IASB believes that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to distinguish between profit or loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) on a conceptual basis. This paper suggests that the 2015 IASB CF ED’s approach to measurement can be improved by introducing a deprival value measurement rule in cases where fair value and historical cost are not appropriate. Furthermore, it argues that under dual measurement it is both necessary and possible to make a conceptual distinction between the realised items of income and expense in profit or loss and those recognised by accretion in OCI.     

Research Note: Revisiting Fair Value Accounting––Measuring Commercial Banks' Liabilities

IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IASB, 2000), requires assets to be marked to fair value if held-for-trading, available-for-sale purposes, or if they are derivatives; held-to-maturity securities, originated loans and originated securities are measured at amortized cost, providing they are not held-for-trading. Financial liabilities are measured at amortized cost except those that are held-for-trading or derivatives. A proposed amendment would accommodate improved fair value measurement of financial instruments. Commercial banks are greatly affected by any accounting standard concerning the recognition and measurement of financial instruments, whether related to assets or liabilities. This article demonstrates that the existing and proposed standards perpetuate the mismeasurement of interest rate risk for commercial banks. Under IAS 39 banks that have a balanced position, that is, no interest rate risk, counterfactually could show large changes in income through interest rate changes. An alternative accounting treatment, full fair value reporting of financial assets and liabilities, including all loans and deposits, is offered. Presently fair value data are mandated as footnote disclosure.     

The Relationship between Fair Value,Market Value,and Efficient Markets*

This paper proposes that an assumption of reasonable market efficiency is at the essence of the relevance of fair value for financial reporting purposes. The paper's examination of this proposal begins with a review of recent academic literature on market efficiency, and on evidence of inefficiencies and their implications for the ability of the efficient market hypothesis to explain what market prices represent. It concludes that there is wide acceptance in this literature that a reasonable level of efficiency can generally be presumed to exist in active, well‐regulated capital markets. The paper examines the essential attributes of a reasonably efficient market for fair value measurement purposes, and some basic implications for its reliable estimation. This is done in comparison with the provisions of the fair value measurement standard of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (Statement of Financial Accounting Standards [SFAS] No. 157). It is concluded that the concept of reasonable market efficiency could provide a sound conceptual framework for defining fair value that is founded in real, observable market prices. It is demonstrated that, in contrast, SFAS No. 157 does not provide a clear, unequivocal concept of fair value, and that it permits estimates of fair value that have no demonstrable basis in real, observable market prices. Nevertheless, it appears that arguments typically put forward by the International Accounting Standards Board and the FASB for the relevance of fair value for financial reporting purposes do imply a presumption of reasonably efficient markets.     

Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework

Abstract

The stated purpose of the IFRS Conceptual Framework is to assist the IASB to develop Standards that are based on consistent concepts, and also to assist preparers to develop consistent accounting policies when Standards either do not apply or allow a choice of accounting policy. Yet, the Framework actually does surprisingly little to help the IASB (or preparers) determine which assets, liabilities, income and expenses should be recognised, and how they should be measured. The Framework’s focus on assets and liabilities implies that the accounting can, and should, be determined from the balance sheet. Yet, many current financial reporting requirements focus initially on the income statement, and so they are not so much derived from the Framework as instead in need of being reconciled back to it. At its heart, the problem here is that, while the Framework states that accrual accounting provides a better basis for assessing past and future performance than cash-based information, it does not explain why. To do so would require a conceptualisation of how entities’ business models are employed to create value, and of the strengths and limitations of accounting data in enhancing investors’ understanding of that value-creation. The lack of explanation of the purpose and informational objectives of accruals, how they relate to business models and how they cause the income statement and the balance sheet to interact are gaps in the Framework. Filling those gaps would provide a more robust, and natural, way for the IASB to develop recognition and measurement requirements in its Standards.     

Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate

There is currently significant debate worldwide regarding business reporting. The concept of the ‘business model’ has entered into the discourse, as has the concept of ‘integrated reporting’, adding to the established debate regarding accounting for intangible assets and, more generally, intellectual capital (IC). Despite the tradition of extensive interdisciplinary borrowing in accounting, relevant literatures on business models and on modern managerial perspectives on competitive advantage have, to date, largely been ignored within the accounting literature. The main contribution of this conceptual paper is to identify and discuss the key features of these literature strands and their linkage to contemporary debates on narrative reporting. These conceptual linkages between IC, value creation and business models are illustrated by means of interview evidence from eleven company cases. It is concluded that the business model concept offers a powerful overarching concept within which to refocus the IC debate. The concept is holistic, multi-level, boundary-spanning and dynamic. The analysis supports the current calls for integrated disclosure around the central business model story. Suggestions for future research are offered.     

关于在财务会计中采用公允价值的探讨

近年来,美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)大力倡导会计计量运用面向现在和未来的、以市场为基础的公允价值。本文着重研究并比较IASB和FASB给出的公允价值定义和相关的基本概念,认为公允价值是面向市场、以假想交易为对象的一种估计价格,可以有三级估计,最佳的估计是(相同)资产或负债主市场或最有利市场的价格,指出了它带来的缺陷。文章认为,公允价值计量乃是财务会计发展的大势所趋;如果公允价值得以全面应用,则财务会计将有可能反映企业的价值(或其近似值)。     

Changing the Concepts to Justify the Standards*

In this paper, I discuss the current project to converge the IASB and FASB conceptual frameworks, specifically efforts to purge the converged framework of concepts that hinder the promotion of balance sheet valuation using fair values. I discuss why I believe these efforts to be misguided, based on how investors who analyze financial statements employ accounting information. I focus on stewardship, reliability, and earnings — terms either demoted in importance or at risk of being eliminated in the framework convergence project. I explain their salience to financial statement users and argue against their deletion or demotion.     

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.     

FASB与IASB联合趋同框架(初步意见)的评介

首先,本文对FASB与IASB于2006年7月6日发布的联合趋同框架(关于目标和信息质量特征的初步意见)的制定背景、主要内容(包括财务报告的目标和信息质量特征的相关内容)进行了简要的介绍和评价,着重强调了联合框架与FASB概念框架和IASB概念框架的区别。其次,本文对联合框架提出了两点整体性看法:一是是否应该由IASB和FASB联合制定联合框架;二是是否应该将受托责任观隶属于决策有用性。最后,本文分析了联合趋同框架对我国新会计准则《基本准则》的影响。     

The Effects of Uncertainty and Disclosure on Auditors' Fair Value Materiality Decisions

Financial accounting standards increasingly require fair value measurements. I experimentally examine how uncertainty affects auditors’ adjustment decisions when evaluating fair values. I manipulate two types of uncertainty, input subjectivity and outcome imprecision, and one reporting choice, supplemental disclosure. I find that auditors are most likely to require adjustments when fair values contain both more input subjectivity and more outcome imprecision, but that this likelihood diminishes when clients supplement recognized fair values with additional disclosure. Thus, consistent with moral licensing, I find that auditors tolerate greater potential misstatement in the financial statements when clients provide disclosure, suggesting that the SEC's preference for supplemental disclosure may have the unintended consequence of affecting fair values recognized in the body of the financial statements. I also provide evidence that auditors determine adjustment size by comparing recorded fair value to the nearest bound, rather than the midpoint, of the auditors’ own range estimate, consistent with strict application of auditing standards.     

Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework

The ongoing neoliberalisation of global economies has been well documented. Neoliberalism requires a commitment to a broad set of ideas about how political economies should operate, and these ideas underpin the transformations of practice in the process of neoliberalisation—both at a technical and conceptual level. Transactions within a neoliberal economy need to be accounted for in a way that accords with this broader set of ideas. Specifically, the growth of accumulation through financial markets has seen a concurrent growth in accounts that both reflects and reproduces finance at its centre. These accounts are more than just reports; they condition our expectations and support the production of further accounts, which in turn reinforce the dominant political economy. Despite the connection between neoliberalism, financialisation and the practice of accounting, the role of accounting in the process of neoliberalisation has received only limited attention. In order to contribute to a deeper understanding of these processes and to the role that accounting plays within them, this paper re-examines the Conceptual Framework (CF) to show how it forms an important part of the architecture of neoliberalism, providing coherence and legitimacy to its key ideas. The current CF project was jointly conducted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and is positioned within the broader literature on neoliberalism and financialisation. This paper shows how changes in terminology, shifts in notions of income and the popularity of market valuations (fair value accounting) work to normalise the speculative characteristics of financial markets. Through this newly configured globalised CF, the regulatory architecture of accounting may work to sustain the centrality of finance in a post-GFC economy, despite its many deficiencies.     

Changes in the measurement of fair value: Implications for accounting earnings

With the FASB's issue of staff position papers in 2009 and the relaxation of how fair value standards are applied, there has been a change in the practice of how fair value is measured. Since the FASB staff position papers in 2009, fair value measurement by financial institutions has increasingly relied on managerial assumptions. This study examines the impact of this change on the quality of earnings. Consistent with attribute substitution theory that emphasises reliability over relevance, we find that an apparent increase in managerial discretion in fair value measurement is associated with a higher probability of earnings management and lower earnings informativeness. The results indicate that allowing more managerial discretion in fair value measurement adversely affected the quality of financial reporting. Our study highlights the issue of reliable measurement in the debate among academics and practitioners of increasing the use of fair value accounting.     

Americanism and financial accounting theory – Part 3: Adam Smith,the rise and fall of socialism,and Irving Fisher's theory of accounting

A previous paper (Part 1) rejected the conventional wisdom that America was ‘born capitalist’ and the historians’ consensus that it had become capitalist by the early-19th century; another (Part 2) rejected Chandler's thesis that the ‘modern business enterprise’ brought a ‘new form of capitalism’ to America from the 1840s. The accounting evidence suggests that America began to make the transition to capitalism around 1900 in a period of intense conflict between ‘capital and labour’ generated by ‘big business’ from the 1880s, a process not completed until the 1920s. This paper (Part 3) examines the consequences for America's political ideology and financial accounting theory. America's exceptional transition, it argues, explains the history of its political ideology, and this history explains Irving Fisher's theory of accounting. Section A argues that America lagged behind Britain because it started from a society of simple commodity producers and semi-capitalists, which created an exceptional ideological problem for its ruling elite. Big business generated hostility from workers, farmers and small employers – expressed in labour movements, ‘populism’, socialism, and ‘progressivism’ – and created an ideological problem by contradicting the ‘independent producer’ ideology of workers and farmers, and the ‘individual liberalism’ of small manufacturers and merchants, both underwritten by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The paper argues that Smith's theory of price articulates as semi-capitalist accounting, which explains his popularity in America until the appearance of big business in the 1880s. Socialism and progressivism became political forces in America from 1900 to around 1920. Progressivism produced ‘corporate liberalism’, the ideological counter to socialism that corporations could be made ‘socially responsible’ by government regulation and ‘publicity’ to ensure they earned only ‘fair’ returns, but this left two problems. First, socialists argued that no profit was ‘fair’, and second, fear of the ‘labour danger’ made American financial reports secretive and conservative. Section B argues that Irving Fisher responded to these problems with a theory of accounting, which he developed as a refutation of Marx and the American brand of socialism advocated by Eugene Debs, the threateningly successful presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America. An important but neglected reason for socialism's abrupt collapse around 1920, it argues, was that the socialists lost the intellectual argument with the middle classes, and that Fisher's theory played an important role in this defeat. Fisher was a vigorous self-publicist, strongly influenced the teaching of economics and accounting in the universities and, the paper argues, changed the language of American accounting. Fisher claimed that accounting practice supported his theory of ‘capital’ and ‘income’, but the paper shows he did not understand double-entry bookkeeping or the accountants’ ‘cost theory of value’, and therefore divorced accounting from the reality of business transactions. As his theory underlies the FASB's framework, the paper concludes that Fisher's legacy to the world is a pathological theory of financial accounting.     

To Fair Value or Not to Fair Value: A Broader Perspective

Fair value is considered here with respect to the two primary objectives of financial statements proposed in the joint conceptual framework that is under development by the FASB and the IASB, namely (a) informativeness—to assist providers of capital in predicting, evaluating, and comparing the amounts, timing and uncertainty of future cash flows, and (b) stewardship—to assist in evaluating how efficient and effective managers have been in enhancing shareholders' value. More specifically, a comprehensive set of accounting measures and a set of corporate governance reforms intended to align corporate insiders' and auditors' behaviour and decisions with the interests of investors is outlined. Suggested reforms show how to present a mix of effectively historical quantifications, exit values, and the discounted values of future cash flows expected from the particularized use of combinations of assets within the firm. Additionally, the article describes how markets can be reformed in order to align the interests of the officers who prepare such accounts, and the auditors who certify them, with those of investors. These market-based reforms would require auditors to insure misrepresentations, and managers to take equity to induce truthful reporting. Also included is a radical extension to earlier proposals by the author, requiring an officer of the company to make the market in shares in a way that would place limits upon the value of the insider's private information.