Revaluation of Fixed Assets in Accruals Accounting

The paper explores the topic of revaluation in accruals accounting under the assumption that an important purpose of financial statements is to report 011 management's financial performance. Having differentiated valuation and matching based approaches, the paper proceeds to indicate some reasons for revaluation in the latter by reference to the literature of management accounting and logical argument. It identifies exit value (net realisable value) as the most appropriate basis for valuation for the postulated purpose, but argues that revaluation should not occur annually but by reference to the expiration of ‘planning periods’ or to other specified events which may occur earlier. Therefore its arguments and proposals differ from those previously associated with advocates of exit value. The article concludes by discussing some of the practical issues arising from its suggestions.     

Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: Findings in 48 U.K. companies

Among 48 U.K. companies those with more vulnerable core technologies employ more specialist planners, more forecasting and evaluative techniques, in proposal generation and evaluation, irrespective of size. Allowing for size, hostility of market conditions is associated with greater scope, status and involvement of planners, and diversification and divisionalization with formality and scope of planning.     

Incompatible theoretical bases underlying accounting standards

The paper presents evidence that demonstrates that U.K. and International Accounting Standards require entries in income statements that are sometimes based on a matching approach and sometimes on a valuation approach. It indicates that the two approaches are fundamentally different and that they produce different net income figures that have different meanings. In these circumstances, the imposition of the standards currently required results in figures of net income that have no defined meaning and are therefore potentially confusing. Consequently, one can argue that the regulators have been misguided in failing adequately to differentiate between the two approaches. Each income statement published should be based on a clearly identified model and be interpretable by reference to known assumptions.