The Financial Accounting Standards Board: Profiles of seven leaders

Since its inception over four decades ago, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been led by seven individuals who have served as Board Chair. This paper includes a biographical sketch of the individuals, their terms of service, standards topics and some points of commonality and difference in their prior experience and Board service. This study provides a synoptic review to assist those interested in learning more about the Board Chairs, and to inform as to the role and style of each individual in contrast to the others. The paper provides a foundation for future research of these individuals, their activities and actions through other historical research such as oral histories, collections of writings and speeches and similar catalogues of activity.     

Why haven’t U.S. GAAP and IFRS on insurance contracts converged? Evidence from an unsuccessful joint project

This study examines the FASB’s and IASB’s unsuccessful joint project on accounting for insurance contracts. It highlights the divergent views the Boards may hold on certain fundamental accounting issues. Further, this study examines how the costs and benefits of accounting standard convergence can vary within an industry, conditional on factors such as prior accounting standards and firms’ global operations. Empirically, U.S. insurers’ negative market reactions to the joint insurance project suggest U.S. investors perceived net costs would outweigh net benefits. This study also finds that market reactions of U.S. insurers were more negative than those of European insurers. The results of cross-sectional analyses indicate that U.S. life insurers perceived higher net costs associated with the joint project, while European insurers with more global revenue perceived higher net benefits. This work illuminates some of the challenges facing standard setters when attempting to develop a globally acceptable set of financial reporting standards.     

Policy implications of research on non-GAAP reporting

Over the past two decades, the regulatory landscape for non-GAAP reporting has evolved significantly. Despite a temporary decline in the frequency of non-GAAP reporting following Regulation G, the incidence of non-GAAP disclosure has continued to increase steadily, leading to a current all-time high in reporting activity. This proliferation of non-GAAP disclosure has captured the attention of standard setters and regulators in recent years. This paper provides an academic perspective on policy implications for both regulation and standard setting. We contend that current Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) of the SEC staff may perhaps have gone too far in restricting certain types of non-GAAP disclosures. As a result, we advocate a slight relaxation of the current enforcement of Regulation G. We agree with FASB proposals for greater disaggregation in the income statement to allow for more transparency in non-GAAP reporting. Finally, we believe the PCAOB should consider requiring auditors to take a more direct role with respect to non-GAAP disclosures.     

Accounting and prudential regulation: from uncomfortable bedfellows to perfect partners?

Recent initiatives to improve the public information about individual firms have brought to the fore significant differences in perspective between accountants and prudential regulators. We examine the reasons for these differences and propose ways in which they could be reconciled within a broader framework aimed at identifying the type of information conducive to the proper functioning and stability of the financial system. We argue that such information should concern three characteristics: estimates of current financial condition; estimates of risk profile; and measures of the uncertainty surrounding those estimates. So far, efforts have mainly focused on the first characteristic, with the second having drawn attention only recently and the third having been largely neglected. We propose a strategy to reconcile different perspectives based on two principles: first, in the long-term, the “decoupling” of the objective of accurate financial reporting by the firm from that of instilling the desired degree of prudence in its behaviour; second, a “parallel transition” process towards that objective so that at all points the prudential measures can neutralise any undesirable implications of changes in financial reporting standards on financial stability.     

Why Consistency of Accounting Standards Matters: A Contribution to the Rules-Versus-Principles Debate in Financial Reporting

A cross-firm consistent application of accounting standards is sought in all major accounting regimes. Since many transactions and events are only vaguely or not explicitly addressed in the standards managers must often use judgment when applying accounting standards to particular transactions or events. This analysis concludes that a consistent application of accounting standards can only be ensured if the accounting standards themselves are internally consistent. By contrast, inconsistent standards—in the absence of clear guidance—permit managers to (more or less arbitrarily) choose between different accounting methods. Moreover, it is found that a consistent application presupposes the existence of specific guidance ('rules') in order to frame management's judgment. It is argued that the reliance on principles only—as requested by many in the accounting literature—fails to ensure a consistent application because it allows management to exert judgment differently in identical cases. The assessment includes arguments and propositions from the international discussion in the accounting literature and also refers to other related fields of research, such as legal theory.     

Politics of Financial Reporting and the Consequences for the Public Sector

This article examines the political processes surrounding public sector accounting standard setting, in particular, the Australian decision to adopt sector-neutral International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It contends that the history of private and public sector involvement in the accounting standard setting process to date, and recourse to regulatory theory, assist in understanding these contemporary developments. The article reveals that private sector interests have dominated accounting standard setters at all important stages of standard setting in Australia. It concludes by arguing that, given this continued neglect by standard setters, if public sector financial reporting standards are to remain relevant to the public sector, then it may be necessary for public sector regulators to set their own standards.     

Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards

The perspective of public interest and interest group theories of regulation is adopted to consider the future of Australian accounting standards following major reforms proposed by the Australian Commonwealth government as part of its 1997 Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP). Interest groups in the Australian environment are identified. Their lobbying had influenced the initial proposals; and their reactions when the CLERP proposals were published resulted in substantial modifications to the CLERP proposals, which had initially recommendedthat International Accounting Standards (IASs) be adopted as national standards from 1 January 1999.
The role of accounting standards and the structure of standard setting are explored. The political nature of standard setting is illustrated through a review of the CLERP proposals, submissions of various interest groups and the government's responses to them. The central arguments are that key assumptions underlying the CLERP proposals are flawed, and that the CLERP proposals could not achieve the outcomes desired of them.
It seems inevitable, however, that international standards eventually will supplant domestic standards. In the longer term, Australian standard setters seem destined to have a diminished role in the international standard setting arena.     

Not-for-profit accounting in a changing world of standard setting: What professors and students need to know

Generally, accounting standard setting in the 21st Century promises to be an interesting and increasingly diverse endeavor. This paper discusses the formation of the FASB’s Not-for-Profit Advisory Committee in 2010 and its work to date. I identify the various changes that will likely impact accounting and auditing for not-for-profit entities. Specifically, prospects for changes to current not-for-profit standards are discussed with emphasis on how future changes might follow the patterns outlined for private companies or small and medium-sized entities. New possibilities and implications for educators and curriculum design are introduced.     

企业环境绩效评价国内外研究综述及展望

随着环境问题日趋严重,企业环境责任呼声高涨,建立企业环境绩效评价体系是企业发展的必然选择。文章对国外组织关于环境绩效评价标准的研究,国内学者关于环境绩效评价体系建立的研究进行了综述,并在此基础上对环境绩效评级体系的发展进行了展望,提出了建立生态伦理这一新视角下企业环境绩效评价体系。     

A review of research on regulation changes in the Asia‐Pacific region

In this study, we review the financial research on regulation in the Asia‐Pacific region. We do this by analysing six leading regional accounting and finance journals – Abacus, Accounting & Finance, Australian Accounting Review, Australian Journal of Management, International Review of Finance and the Pacific‐Basin Finance Journal. We identify five main themes of regulation research relating to: (i) banking and financial institutions, (ii) markets and trading, (iii) corporate governance, (iv) disclosure and (v) accounting standard setting. Our paper synthesises the regional literature in these areas and provide some suggestions for future directions.     

IFRS adoption and analysts’ earnings forecasts: Australian evidence

We study 145 large listed Australian firms to explore the impact of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) adoption on the properties of analysts’ forecasts and the role of firm disclosure about IFRS impact. We find that analyst forecast accuracy improves, and there is no significant change in dispersion in the adoption year, suggesting that analysts coped effectively with transition to IFRS. However, we do not observe the expected relationship between firms’ IFRS impact disclosures in their financial statements issued at the end of the transition year with forecast error and dispersion in the adoption year. The results question the timeliness and usefulness of financial statement disclosure, even in a setting where disclosure was mandated by accounting standards (AASB 1047 and AASB 1) and firms had strong incentives to provide information to analysts.