应收账款管理及其信息披露

本文主要借助FASB第7号财务会计概念公告的相关内容论述与公司现金流量密切相关的应收账款及其坏账准备的会计核算、管理及其信息披露。FASB第7号财务会计概念公告指出：在会计计量中使用现值技术，公允价值是唯一的计量属性。2000年2月，在FASB第6号财务会计概念公告发表的15年后，FASB终于打破沉默，经过十年的酝酿和反复讨论后推出了第7号财务会计概念公告—《在会计计量中使用现金流量信息和现值》，为企业初始计量、新起点计量及后续的摊配计量时使用现金流量和现值作为会计计量基础提供一个比较完整的指导框架。该公告的颁布，…     

中美基本会计准则浅析

美国FASB的财务会计概念框架和中国的企业会计准则均是用来规范会计活动的高层次指南。2002年10月,FASB和IASB正式同意共同致力于会计准则的趋同。FASB的财务会计概念框架一直处于更新的状态当中,2010年9月颁布了财务会计概念框架第八号公告,代替了第一号和第二号概念公告。FASB的财务会计概念框架是各国制定财务会计准则的重要范本,把它同我国财政部2006年公布的企业会计准则相比较将会擦出理论的火花。     

实质重于形式 欲速则不达——分两步走制定中国的财务会计概念框架

本文以美国财务会计概念公告为样板,探讨财务会计与报告概念框架的意义、性质和作用,阐述财务会计目标和其他基本概念的各自作用,提出分两步走制定中国的财务会计概念框架的设想和具体建议。     

浅析FASB第八号财务会计概念公告中的会计信息质量特征

美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)于2010年9月颁布了财务会计概念框架第八号公告,代替了第一号和第二号概念公告,第八号概念公告在会计信息质量方面发生了显著变化。文章拟将第八号概念公告中的会计信息质量特征与第二号概念公告进行对比并试做探析。     

浅谈全面收益表及其应用

美国财务会计准则委员会在财务会计概念公告第3号《企业财务报表要素》中首次提出了一个不同于传统收益概念的新概念——“全面收益”概念,并将其定义为:企业在报告期内除去业主投资和派给业主款以外的交易、事项和情况所产生的一切变动的权益(净资产)。一、全面收益表与传统收     

关于会计计量的新属性——公允价值

美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)于2000年2月颁布了第7号财务会计概念公告《在会计计量中应用现金流量信息与现值》，着重推荐了在缺乏市场价格的条件下应用未来现金流量的现值来确定公允价值；并且补充和更正了第5号财务会计概念公告《企业财务报表的确认和计量》第67段关于“未来现金流量(或贴现值)”中不够充分、不够确切的部分。第5号财务会计概念公告曾称未来现金流量的现值(presentvalue)或折现值(discountvalue)是计量属性之一，第7号财务会计概念公告则认为未来现金流量的现值只是一种资产或负债的摊销方法，因为按照前者的举例，现…     

财务会计概念框架研究的比较与综评

本文在对目前主要的财务会计概念框架进行比较的基础上 ,着力阐述和综评了美国财务会计概念公告、国际会计准则委员会编报财务报表的框架、英国会计准则委员会的财务报告原则公告的各自优缺点。     

美国财务会计概念框架构建及其启示

美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)于1978年至1985年期间陆续颁布了6辑财务会计概念公告(SFAC),形成了较为完整的财务会计概念框架体系(conceptualframework,以下简称CF),在国内外引起了很大的反响。一些国家和国际组织纷纷效仿。构建界定严密、内在一致的概念框架作为会计准则制定的理论基础,已成为共识。我国目前正在加强会计准则体系建设,准备构建我国的财务会计概念框架。本文将对美国CF构建的背景、过程,CF的积极作用和不足之处做一简单介绍分析,希望能对我国CF的研究和构建有所借鉴和启示。一、美国CF的构建背景1. 抵御政府对会计…     

会计确认标准的比较及展望

确认标准成为会计确认理论的一个正式概念始于美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）1984年发布的第五号财务会计概念公告《企业财务报表的确认和计量》。我国财政部2006年2月颁布的新《企业会计准则》将确认标准称为确认条件。关于它所要解决的问题,各国准则制定机构和会计学者们的回答不尽相同,本文比较他们对确认标准的阐释,并结合国际经济环境的发展变化,展望这一领域的发展方向和可能的创新。     

公允价值计量问题的国际进展及其在中国应用的思考

本文通过阐述美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)2006年9月发布的《财务会计准则公告第157号》(FASB第157号公告)中关于公允价值定义、确定公允价值的级次等方面的规定,以及国际财务报告准则(IF-RS)中有关公允价值计量的规定和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)对第157号公告主要规定的看法,结合中国兼具新兴市场经济和转型经济国家的经济环境,提出国际上公允价值计量的新发展在中国应用可能存在的问题及建议。     

The recognition and measurement guidelines of FASB concepts no. 5

In making recognition and measurement decisions, accountants often encounter complex and controversial issues. They must decide what events to record, when to record the events, and how to properly measure the financial effects. A framework that could provide guidance for those difficult decisions would be helpful.In 1984 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5 (SFAC No. 5) titled “Recognition and Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises” to meet this need for guidance. The document bears special significance because it may be the “end of the line,” representing the culmination of the efforts of the FASB to develop a theoretical basis for accounting [Kirk, 1984, p. 20]. In this article we review the recognition criteria established in SFAC No. 5 and present a flowchart that may be helpful to accounting educators as a portrayal of those criteria. The article also may be useful in classroom discussions of theory formulation since it indicates that the adoption of SFAC No. 5 took into consideration the diverse views of accountants, statement users, and reporting firms.     

回顾与评介——AICPA关于财务会计概念的研究

财务会计与报告的概念框架项目是在1976年由美国会计准则委员会开始的,但此前15年,其前任美国注册会计师协会曾进行了数次的尝试,包括ARS No1、No3,APB Statements No4、Trueblood报告等。美国注册会计师协会的努力既有成功经验,也有失败的教训,可供美国会计准则委员会及各国会计准则制定机构参考。     

'Fair Value' for Financial Instruments: How Erasing Theory is Leading to Unworkable Global Accounting Standards for Performance Reporting

The LASC is pursuing proposals for accounting for financial instruments that are conceptually flawed and unworkable in practice. "Fair value" has been elevated to a catch-all concept to resolve measurement issues objectively. Adoption of fair value, as cuwently interpreted by standard-setters (eg, by the FASB in Concepts Statement No. 7, issued in February 2000), threatens to drive out a long-understood, theory-based approach to the rationales for cuwent value accounting — founded on "deprival value" — that has recently been comprehensively restated in Accounting Theory Monograph 10, issued by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation in 1998, and reaffirmed in the UK Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Principles for Financial Repovting, issued in December 1999.     

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.     

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.     

Expected-loss-based Accounting for Impairment of Financial Instruments: The FASB and IASB Proposals 2009–2016

The financial and banking crisis of the late 2000s prompted claims that the incurred-loss method for the recognition of credit losses had caused undesirable delay in the recognition of credit-loss impairment. In the wake of the crisis, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) worked towards the development of expected-loss-based methods of accounting for credit-loss impairment. Their work included an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to develop a converged FASB/IASB standard on credit-loss impairment. The FASB and IASB eventually developed their own separate expected-loss models to be included, respectively, in a 2016 FASB standard and in the IASB’s 2014 final version of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The failure to achieve convergence on an issue of such high profile and materiality has generated some controversy, and it is claimed that it will impose significant costs on the preparers and users of the financial statements of banks. This paper examines the various sets of expected-loss-based proposals issued separately or jointly since 2009 by the FASB and the IASB. It describes and compares key features of the different approaches eventually developed by the two standard setters, referring to issues that arose in arriving at practically workable solutions and to issues that may have impeded FASB/IASB convergence. It also provides information indicative of the possible effect of differences between the two approaches.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.