Accounting for Option–based Compensation: The Economic Cost Approach

The intrinsic value approach amortizes over the life of the option, the difference between the stock price on the date of the grant and the exercise price of the option. The fair market value approach amortizes over the life of the option, the market value of stock options on the date of the grant. These approaches do not reflect the changes in the option–based compensation cost after the grant date. This paper proposes an economic cost approach that not only adjusts for the changes in the value of the options during its life but also records the issuance of the stock at fair market value on the exercise date.     

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.     

A Critical Look at SFAS 34: Capitalization of Interest Cost

In 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that an increasing number of companies were capitalizing interest costs, and that this practice was not being adequately disclosed (FASB, 1979, par. 26). In light of the alternative practices concerning the accounting for interest and lack of adequate disclosure by companies that were already capitalizing interest, the SEC recommended that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) consider the issue of accounting for interest cost. As a result of the SEC's initiative, in 1979 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards [SFAS] No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Cost, which mandated uniform interest capitalization rules in accounting for interest costs associated with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. The purpose of this article is to examine SFAS 34 in terms of its financial statement impact, the congruence of its assumptions with economic behaviour, its effect on subsequent standards related to interest capitalization, and its implications on financial accounting standard setting. To explore these issues we first illustrate the extent to which interest capitalization affects financial statements. We then empirically analyse the measure employed in SFAS 34 for the capitalization of interest cost in cases where debt is not directly linked with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. In addition, we critically examine the treatment accorded interest cost in subsequent FASB standards. Our research suggests that SFAS 34′s rationale for interest capitalization is incompatible with firm behaviour, and that the rules for interest capitalization as reflected in various accounting standards are inconsistent. These findings suggest that in the case of interest capitalization the benefits of comparability in financial reporting are not realized. A policy recommendation is then offered to alleviate some of these difficulties. The recommendation is to disallow the capitalization of interest cost in the absence of a direct link between the debt and the acquisition of qualifying assets.     

分部报告的中外比较

随着经济的发展和企业规模的扩大，各国纷纷制定分部报告准则，要求企业提供分部信息，以满足信息使用者不断增长的信息需求。我们可以通过比较中、美、国际会计准则中有关分部报告的规定，对分部报告的有关问题进行探讨，以利于分部报告的编制及信息使用者使用不同会计标准的分部报告。     

Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2016 academic literature

In this paper key regulation-related findings and commentaries in the 2016 academic literature are synthesized in annotated form. This paper is one in a series of previously published annotated bibliographies published in this journal. Papers published in academic outlets including The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation were reviewed for potential inclusion. The 2016 literature featured strong regulation-related threads as follows: financial accounting regulation, analysis of individual pronouncements, SEC regulatory activity and its impact, international financial reporting standards, income tax reporting, and auditing.     

IASB与FASB财务会计概念框架的趋同

国际会计准则理事会(IASB)和美国会计准则委员会(FASB)2004年开始共同构建统一的财务会计概念框架,该项目分为八个阶段:目标与质量特征;要素:确认与计量属性;初始计量与后续计量;报告主体;列报与披露;概念框架的目的及其在GAAP层级中的位置;非盈利机构的可适用性;完成整个概念框架。至今五六年,已经取得了一些阶段性成果。对这些初步成果进行梳理并作适当评述,以期对概念框架更加关注,加深对概念框架的理解,得到一些关于我国概念框架构建的启示。     

美国公允价值会计的应用研究

公允价值会计是当前国际会计的热点问题.美国在公允价值会计的研究和应用领域30多年来一直引领世界.本文对美国公允价值会计理论的发展及其准则应用的拓展过程进行梳理,总结其发展历史,分析其应用现状,为我国会计准则中进一步推广公允价值会计提供参考和借鉴.     

Does the “management approach” contribute to segment reporting transparency?

Segment reporting creates an opportunity for companies to add value to the information they disseminate about their industry and geographic operations. This article examines the “management approach” to segment reporting from a user perspective that should be of great interest to corporate financial executives. The management approach to segment reporting requires companies to report segment financial information consistent with the way they manage their businesses. We conclude that, despite more segment data being reported, the potential of the new management approach to significantly benefit users is compromised by uneven compliance among reporting companies. The complicity of external auditors in compliance shortcomings should concern all stakeholders in the financial reporting process. Noting two high-profile examples of accounting fraud, we comment on how the management approach sheds light on Enron's operations, while WorldCom concealed important segment information due to probable auditor malfeasance.     

财务报表要素还是财务会计要素——FASB—IASB新财务报表列报方案下的思考

FASB的SFAC No.6定义财务报表要素为构成财务报表的模块或财务报表大的项目分类。定义的关键在于用报告环节的财务报表模块来定义整个财务会计确认、计量、记录、报告各环节遵循的基本要素。这明显破坏了财务会计概念框架中命题的演绎关系。现在,FASB—IASB联合的新财务报表列报方案的出台,使得FASB财务报表要素定义的逻辑问题暴露无遗。另外,FASB的定义既没有提到要素是交易事项的对象要素,更没有提要素是根据信息使用者的需求和交易事项的经济特性对交易事项进行的分类,因而忽略了要素的本质特征。目前,FASB—IASB正在制定联合概念框架。建议在联合概念框架中定义财务会计要素而非财务报表要素,且将要素定义为贯穿财务会计确认、计量、记录、报告全过程（或贯穿财务会计信息生成的全过程）,根据经济特性和信息使用者的需求对交易和事项的基本分类。     

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.