Some Implications of IFRS Adoption for Accounting Education

This paper addresses challenges accounting educators face in their teaching following the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). We use Australia as an example of a developed nation and 2005 adopter of IFRS, the United States as a potential adopter, and Romania as an emerging economy with a history of harmonisation and adoption initiatives. Accounting educators globally need to strengthen their engagement with the principles‐based approach to teaching IFRS. Teaching resources, educational research and Continuing Professional Development activities related to a principles‐based approach to teaching IFRS are necessary for educators to enrich the learning experience of students given the move from a rules‐based to a principles‐based set of accounting standards.     

The Effect of Regulatory Harmonization on Cross‐Border Labor Migration: Evidence from the Accounting Profession

The paper examines whether international regulatory harmonization increases cross‐border labor migration. To study this question, we analyze European Union initiatives that harmonized accounting and auditing standards. Regulatory harmonization should reduce economic mobility barriers, essentially making it easier for accounting professionals to move across countries. Our research design compares the cross‐border migration of accounting professionals relative to tightly matched other professionals before and after regulatory harmonization. We find that international labor migration in the accounting profession increases significantly relative to other professions. We provide evidence that this effect is due to harmonization, rather than increases in the demand for accounting services during the implementation of the rule changes. The findings illustrate that diversity in rules constitutes an economic barrier to cross‐border labor mobility and, more specifically, that accounting harmonization can have a meaningful effect on cross‐border migration.     

The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic

There has been considerable discussion about the U.S. reporting standards becoming less rules based, similar to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). One proposed advantage of a change to IFRS is increased comparability across multinational and non-U.S. companies. Additionally, some believe that IFRS afford greater flexibility in its principles, thereby enabling firms’ accounting choices to better reflect the true economic nature of any given transaction (FASB, 2002; SEC, 2003). With fewer rules, both financial statement preparers and auditors would be expected to adjust to having more options with regards to financial reporting. However, some proposed changes leave the option open to implement IFRS (or other principles-based standards) in ways that still follow rules in U.S. GAAP. This paper investigates whether prior year accounting treatments influence the judgment for current year treatments when one way to implement the standard is to follow the prior year treatment. We find that some auditors fixate on prior year scenarios and judgments, even if the current year scenario and applicable accounting standards are different. We find that holding auditors accountable for their decision making process reduces the likelihood of sticking with the prior year treatment most notably when the prior year standards were U.S. GAAP.     

GAAP,GFS and AASB 1049: perceptions of public sector stakeholders

Efforts by Australian standard‐setters to harmonise public sector financial reporting resulted in AASB 1049, which sought to bridge the divide between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)‐based and government finance statistics (GFS)‐based financial statements. However, whether AASB 1049 has resulted in information that is considered appropriate for the public sector has not been examined. We explore this issue by comparing the requirements of AASB 1049 with the responses from a survey of public sector stakeholders on the appropriate accounting treatment and presentation of selected financial items. The analysis suggests consensus with AASB 1049 on presentation issues but less consensus on accounting treatments.     

Have SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 improved the financial reporting for securitizations?

Critics have alleged that securitization accounting prior to 2010 was among the causes of the recent financial crisis. In response to this criticism, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) implemented two new accounting standards, SFAS 166 and SFAS 167, to improve the financial reporting for securitizations. Bank regulators have stated their belief that SFAS 166/167 will result in a consolidated balance sheet (and risk-based capital ratios based thereupon) that better reflects a bank's exposure to risk related to securitized assets. We document that, by ceding retained power or influence through the servicing/special servicing functions to third parties, SFAS 166/167 resulted in real effects to the extent that banks (particularly those that were weakly capitalized) achieved their accounting objectives in the post-SFAS 166/167 period through legitimate transaction structuring in line with the intent of the new rules. Further, we use capital market participants’ assessments of risk retention by sponsoring banks as a benchmark, and provide evidence consistent with bank regulators’ beliefs. In particular, following SFAS 166/167, equity investors of sponsoring banks do not consider (consider) as risk relevant securitized assets that receive off-balance sheet (on-balance sheet) treatment. Securitized assets that are consolidated under SFAS 166/167 exhibit the same risk relevance as assets that are not securitized, despite contractual provisions that would seem to imply substantial risk transfer.     

Rules, principles and judgments in accounting standards

The distinction between rules-based and principles-based standards is not well defined and is subject to a variety of interpretations ( SEC, 2003 , p. 5). Yet there is a commonly held view that the FASB's standards are rules-based and the IASB's standards are principles-based. This article identifies the basis of this distinction. For research and development, the article compares the FASB standard with two principles-based standards. For each standard we identify and classify rules and judgments, and observe the level of justifications for the rules and assistance to support the judgments. The three standards have rules, are based on principles, and require the exercise of professional judgment; the less conservative standard requires more judgments and, unexpectedly, more rules. The results suggest that the rules-based versus principles-based distinction is not meaningful, except in relative terms. We conclude that a relatively more principles-based standards regime requires professional judgment at both the transaction level (substance over form) and at the financial statement level ('true and fair view' override). Furthermore, it is suggested that any FASB and IASB convergence will require agreement on the weightings given to the qualitative characteristics.     

Contractibility and Transparency of Financial Statement Information Prepared Under IFRS: Evidence from Debt Contracts Around IFRS Adoption

We outline several properties of IFRS that potentially affect the contractibility or the transparency of financial statement information, and hence the use of that information in debt contracts. Those properties include the increased choice among accounting rules IFRS gives to managers, enhanced rule‐making uncertainty, and increased emphasis on fair value accounting. Consistent with reduced contractibility of IFRS financial statement information, we find a significant reduction in accounting‐based debt covenants following mandatory IFRS adoption. The reduction in accounting covenant use is associated with measures of the difference between prior domestic standards and IFRS. Because IFRS adoption changed financial reporting in many ways simultaneously, it is difficult to trace the decline in accounting covenant use to individual IFRS properties, though we report larger declines in accounting covenant use in banks, which have a higher proportion of assets and liabilities that are fair‐valued. Our findings are better explained by reduced contractibility than by increased transparency, which would predict reduced nonaccounting covenant use as well, whereas we observe increases. Overall, we conclude that IFRS rules sacrifice debt contracting usefulness to achieve other objectives, such as provision of accounting information relevant to valuation.     

Transparency,Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence on When Transparency Matters Most

We examine the relation between firm‐level transparency, stock market liquidity, and valuation across countries, focusing on whether the relation varies with a firm's characteristics and economic environment. We document lower transaction costs and greater liquidity (as measured by lower bid‐ask spreads and fewer zero‐return days) for firms with greater transparency (as measured by less evidence of earnings management, better accounting standards, higher quality auditors, more analyst following, and more accurate analyst forecasts). The relation between transparency and liquidity is more pronounced in periods of high volatility, when investor protection, disclosure requirements, and media penetration are poor, and when ownership is more concentrated, suggesting that firm‐level transparency matters more when overall investor uncertainty is greater. Increased liquidity is associated with lower implied cost of capital and with higher valuation as measured by Tobin's Q. Finally, a mediation analysis suggests that liquidity is a significant channel through which transparency affects firm valuation and equity cost of capital.     

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.     

Do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? An Australian experiment

International accounting standards are deliberately designed to be principles‐based (i.e. ‘substance over form’). With Australia's recent adoption of international accounting standards, a relevant question is, do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? The present paper describes a study that analysed the consolidation judgements of senior accounting officials from Australian listed companies. Participants made consolidation judgements based on AASB 1024 Consolidated Accounts. Although AASB 1024 is not identical to IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements, there are many similarities and both follow a principles‐based approach. In aggregate, the present study finds that principles‐based accounting standards do not necessarily lead to biased financial reporting.     

The effect of more rules‐based guidance on expense disclosure under International Financial Reporting Standards

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are often described as principles‐based; however, we show that IFRS and Australian pre‐IFRS expense‐related standards are more rules‐based than pre‐IFRS expense disclosure in New Zealand. Thus, we examine expense disclosure in New Zealand and Australia around IFRS adoption to provide evidence on the effect of more or less rules‐based standards on voluntary disclosure. First, we add to the rules versus principles‐based standards debate by finding higher voluntary expense disclosure under more rules‐based standards (e.g. IFRS). This contrasts with expectations, as we would expect fewer voluntary disclosures under more rules‐based standards as there would be fewer possible voluntary disclosures. Second, we document that New Zealand firms have significantly less voluntary expense disclosure than size‐ and industry‐matched Australian firms in both the pre‐ and post‐IFRS period. However, all measures of expense disclosure significantly improved post‐IFRS for New Zealand, whilst little change occurred for Australian firms. Thus, there is greater financial statement comparability across these countries post‐IFRS, but not full harmonization. Third, we show that the relationship between most firm characteristics and expense disclosure is weaker post‐IFRS. In addition, cross‐listed firms and loss‐making firms have a higher level of expense disclosure, as contrasted with firms in the investment and property industry which have a lower percentage of unspecified expenses but also report fewer voluntary expenses.     

Hedging with Two Futures Contracts: Simplicity Pays

We propose to use two futures contracts in hedging an agricultural commodity commitment to solve either the standard delta hedge or the roll‐over issue. Most current literature on dual‐hedge strategies is based on a structured model to reduce roll‐over risk and is somehow difficult to apply for agricultural futures contracts. Instead, we propose to apply a regression based model and a naive rules of thumb for dual‐hedges which are applicable for agricultural commodities. The naive dual strategy stems from the fact that in a large sample of agricultural commodities, De Ville, Dhaene and Sercu (2008) find that GARCH‐based hedges do not perform as well as OLS‐based ones and that we can avoid estimation error with such a simple rule. Our semi‐naive hedge ratios are driven from two conditions: omitting exposure to spot price and minimising the variance of the unexpected basis effects on the portfolio values. We find that, generally, (i) rebalancing helps; (ii) the two‐contract hedging rules do better than the one‐contract counterparts, even for standard delta hedges without rolling‐over; (iii) simplicity pays: the naive rules are the best one–for corn and wheat within the two‐contract group, the semi‐naive rule systematically beats the others and GARCH performs worse than OLS for either one‐contract or two‐contract hedges and for soybeans the traditional naive rule performs nearly as well as OLS. These conclusions are based on the tests on unconditional variance ( Diebold and Mariano, 1995 ) and those on conditional risk ( Giacomini and White, 2006 ).     

A Real Effects Perspective to Accounting Measurement and Disclosure: Implications and Insights for Future Research

Accounting measurement and disclosure rules have a significant impact on the real decisions that firms make. In this essay, we provide an analytical framework to illustrate how such real effects arise. Using this framework, we examine three specific measurement issues that remain controversial: (1) How does the measurement of investments affect a firm's investment efficiency? (2) How does the measurement and disclosure of a firm's derivative transactions affect a firm's choice of intrinsic risk exposures, risk management strategy, and the incentive to speculate? (3) How could marking‐to‐market the asset portfolios of financial institutions generate procyclical real effects? We draw upon these real effects studies to generate sharper and novel insights that we believe are useful not only for the development of accounting standards, but also for guiding future empirical research.     

Complexity of financial reporting standards and accounting expertise

This study tests whether firms seek to mitigate the adverse effects of Financial Reporting Complexity (FRC) by investing in accounting expertise. We develop a measure of FRC based on the complexity of accounting standards that govern annual disclosures. We find that FRC is positively related to the accounting expertise on a firm’s board of directors and audit committee. We also find that accounting expertise mitigates the relation between FRC and negative reporting outcomes. Collectively, this study increases our understanding of the actions firms take to mitigate the negative consequences of FRC, and the role of accounting expertise in this setting.     

Research horizons for public and private not‐for‐profit sector reporting: moving the bar in the right direction

The examination of public and private not‐for‐profit sector financial reporting has been a topic of interest on a cyclical basis in Australia over the last 30 years. Traditional topics have included examinations of the intended and unintended consequences of specific standards, the accountability value of financial reports, transaction neutrality, compliance with the accounting standards, and more recently, the prospective implications of new, differently focused reporting standards considering such issues as income measurement and outcomes reporting. With increased recent attention from standard setters and regulators, and greater data availability, the opportunities for undertaking impactful research in these and related areas are increasing. In this paper, we focus on research that has examined the following questions: (i) Which private and public NFPOs lodge financial reports and what is reported; (ii) Who are the users and what are their information needs? (iii) Which private and public NFPs should lodge financial reports and what should be included in them; and (iv) How should the accounting frameworks for NFP sector reporting be set? For each of these issues, we identify the research gaps and opportunities for further research.     

Banks’ Net Interest Margin in the 2000s: A Macro-Accounting international perspective

This paper re-examines the determinants of Net Interest Margin (NIM) in the banking industries of 15 developed and emerging economies. It presents three main contributions with respect to previous studies: first, we analyze the determinants of NIM in the years leading to the 2008 financial crisis; second, we account for the role of different accounting standards across countries; third, we use multi-way cluster estimation methodologies which control for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in macroeconomic and banking variables. We find that the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) contributed to lower NIM variations unexplained by standard accounting variables. Interest rate volatility is found to be positively and strongly related to NIM dynamics, whereas inflation risk is often found to be a relevant driver of NIM cross-country differences.     

Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Beaufsichtigung und Rechnungslegung von Versicherungsunternehmen: IFRS und Solvency II

Accounting and supervision are closely related, especially via the determination of regulatory capital. As a precondition for the harmonisation of solvency rules within Europe, as discussed in the context of Solvency II, there is a need for harmonised accounting rules regarding the recognition and measurement of assets and liabilities. The International Financial Reporting Standards resp. International Accounting Standards (IFRS resp. IAS) are used as a starting point. Insurance contracts are accounted for under IFRS 4, published in March 2004, which is only established as an interim standard allowing insurance companies to continue their existing accounting policy without major changes in their accounting systems. The IASB has just begun working on a final standard (Phase II). The IASB’s work on the final standard should be taken into account for the determination of regulatory capital as well. The third pillar of Solvency II is an additional connection between international accounting standards and the Solvency II project: extensive disclosure requirements companies shall provide disciplinary transparency with regard to their risk management systems and risk profiles.     

A Framework for Identifying (and Avoiding) Fraudulent Financial Reporting*

This commentary analyzes the relationship of fraud risk assessments to other risk assessments by auditors. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board notes that this is a problem area of current practice. Effective detection of fraudulent financial reporting requires an integrative accounting/auditing conceptual framework. As a result, this paper is as much about accounting theory as it is about auditing. To simplify the development of such an integrated framework, this paper uses an expanded risk model. This effectively results in a risk perspective on fraudulent financial reporting. There are many potential implications but the major findings are as follows. First, the study identifies the crucial role of benchmarks based on acceptable levels of risk to help differentiate between intentional and unintentional misstatements. Such differentiation is critical to successfully implementing the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99 and international standards ISA Nos. 240, 540, and 700. Second, the paper shows the importance of not allowing the major categories of risks identified here from getting too high. This paper explains the need to set acceptable levels of these risks, either by standard‐setters as a matter of broad policy, or by individual practitioners as part of the terms of specific engagements. I propose that a major factor in the concept of “present fairly” be the acceptable levels of accounting risks that are defined here, especially the risks due to intentional forecast errors. Third, this paper clarifies how the fraud risk of SAS No. 99, and similar international standards, relates to the current audit risk model framework.     

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

Abstract

We examine the changes in Croatian accounting regulation, in the context of 2013/34/EU Directive implementation and analyse indirect effects of IFRS on national reporting regulation for non-listed companies. The main goal is to determine the level of conformity between Croatian accounting rules and IFRS as adopted by EU. Analysis shows that IFRS are used in the great extent as a source for provisions in Croatian Financial Reporting Standards (CFRS). There are only a few major differences between Croatian financial reporting standards and IFRS. However, there are a number of IFRS standards that are considered not to be relevant in the context of CFRS, as CFRS are intended to be used only by SMEs. Nevertheless, the management is permitted to use provisions and guidance from IFRS, if CFRS provisions are not applicable to a certain transaction or event.     

Interpretation and application of “new” and “complex” international financial reporting standards in Fiji: Implications for convergence of accounting standards

This study extends prior research on accounting judgment and decision making research by examining the effects of ‘new’ and ‘complex’ accounting standards on judgments of professional accountants. It examines whether there are differences in judgments of professional accountants in Fiji when interpreting and applying selected International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). A significant within-country difference in judgments of professional accountants has serious implications for convergence of accounting standards. The results show that interpretation and application of accounting standards are affected by complexity of the accounting standard and professional accountant's familiarity with the standard. The study also finds strong support for an interactive effect of familiarity with the accounting standards and complexity in accounting standards on judgments of professional accountants. Furthermore, the results show that differences in judgments exist between the Big 4 and non-Big 4 professional accountants when provided with new accounting standards that require complex judgments. The results of this study are of interest to stakeholders at a time when IFRSs are increasingly being adopted throughout the world and standard setters are struggling to promote compliance with those standards.