Financial Reporting

1. The Regulatory
Framework

2. Introduction
The regulatory framework is the most important element in ensuring relevant and
faithfully presented financial information and thus meeting the needs of
shareholders and other users.
Without a single body overall responsible for producing financial reporting
standards (the IASB) there would be no means of promoting compliance with
GAAP. There is a need for a relevant framework of general principles within which
the standards can be produced (the Conceptual Framework which was revised in
2018 following an extensive period of discussion with the initial proposals being
published in 2015),. Accounting standards need to be able to evolve in a
structured way, responding to changes in economic conditions.
2

3. Principle-based vs Rules-based
Systems
The Conceptual Framework provides the background of principles within which standards
can be developed. This system is intended to ensure that standards are not produced which
are in conflict with each other and also that any departure from a standard can be judged
on the basis of whether or not it is in keeping with the principles set out in the Conceptual
Framework. This is a principles-based system. The revisions to the Conceptual Framework in
2018 added further guidance, in particular, regarding the measurement of assets and
liabilities (covered in more detail in Chapter 22) as well as providing clarification on the
definitions of an asset and a liability.
In the absence of a reporting framework, a more rules-based approach has to be adopted.
This leads to a large mass of regulation designed to cover every eventuality, as in the US. As
we have seen over the past few years, a large volume of regulatory measures does not
always detect or prevent financial irregularity. One presumed advantage of rules-based
systems is that the exercise of judgement is minimised. Auditors who fear litigation tend to
prefer rules-based systems. It could be that a rules-based approach is appropriate for
controversial areas in accounting.

4. IFRS: Advantages and Disadvantages
The main advantages are seen to be:
(a) A business can present its financial statements on the same basis as its foreign competitors, making
comparison easier
(b) Cross-border listing will be facilitated, making it easier to raise capital abroad
(c) Companies with foreign subsidiaries will have a common, company-wide accounting language
(d) Foreign companies which are targets for takeovers or mergers can be more easily appraised
The disadvantages are perceived to be:
(a) The cost of implementing IFRS
(b) The lower level of detail in IFRS
Countries which have national standards which are very prescriptive are worried about the principles
based standards in IFRS which require the application of judgement. This is particularly so in the US. US
accountants are subject to a high degree of litigation and their defence in court is usually that they
complied with the relevant sub-section of one of the hundreds of detailed standards which make up US
GAAP. They fear that adoption of IFRS will remove this defence.

5. Setting of International Financial
Reporting Standards
The overall agenda of the IASB will initially be set by discussion with the IFRS Advisory
Council. The process for developing an individual standard would involve the following
steps.
Step 1 During the early stages of a project, the IASB may establish an Advisory Committee
to give advice on issues arising in the project. Consultation with the Advisory Committee
and the IFRS Advisory Council occurs throughout the project.
Step 2 IASB may develop and publish Discussion Papers for public comment.
Step 3 Following the receipt and review of comments, the IASB would develop and publish
an Exposure Draft for public comment.
Step 4 Following the receipt and review of comments, the IASB would issue a final
International Financial Reporting Standard.
The period of exposure for public comment is normally 120 days. However, in exceptional
circumstances, proposals may be issued with a comment period of not less than 30 days.
Draft IFRS Interpretations are exposed for a 60 day comment period.

6. International Accounting Standards

7. IFRS – International Financial
Reporting Standards

8. IFRS USE around the world

9. Worldwide effect of IFRSs and the
IASB
The IASB, and before it the IASC, has now been in existence for more than 30 years, and it is worth
looking at the effect it has had in that time.
As far as Europe is concerned, the consolidated financial statements of many of Europe's top
multinationals are now prepared in conformity with national requirements, EC directives and IFRSs.
Furthermore, IFRSs are having a growing influence on national accounting requirements and practices.
Many of these developments have been given added impetus by the internationalisation of capital markets.
As mentioned previously, IFRSs have been implemented in the EU for listed companies since 2005.
In Japan, the influence of the IASC had, until recently, been negligible. This was mainly because of links in
Japan between tax rules and financial reporting. The Japanese Ministry of Finance set up a working
committee to consider whether to bring national requirements into line with IFRSs. The Tokyo Stock
Exchange has announced that it will accept financial statements from foreign issuers that conform with
home country standards, which would include IFRS.
This was widely seen as an attempt to attract foreign issuers, in particular companies from Hong Kong
and Singapore. As these countries base their accounting on international standards, this action is
therefore implicit acknowledgement by the Japanese Ministry of Finance of IFRS requirements.

10. Criticisms of the IASB
Accounting standards and choice
It is sometimes argued that companies should
be given a choice in matters of financial
reporting on the grounds that accounting
standards are detrimental to the quality of such
reporting. There are arguments on both sides.

11. In favour of accounting standards (both national and
international), the following points can be made.
1. They reduce or eliminate confusing variations
in the methods used to prepare accounts.
2. They provide a focal point for debate and
discussions about accounting practice.
3. They oblige companies to disclose the
accounting policies used in the preparation of
accounts.
4. They are a less rigid alternative to enforcing
conformity by means of legislation.
5. They have obliged companies to disclose more
accounting information than they would
otherwise have done if accounting standards
did not exist, for example IAS 33 Earnings per
Share.
In Favour and Disfavour of Accounting
Standards
Points in disfavour of standardization.
1. A set of rules which give backing to one method of
preparing accounts might be inappropriate in some
circumstances. For example, IAS 16 on depreciation is
inappropriate for investment properties (properties not
occupied by the entity but held solely for investment),
which are covered by IAS 40 on investment property.
2. Standards may be subject to lobbying or government
pressure (in the case of national standards). For
example, in the US, the accounting standard FAS 19 on
the accounts of oil and gas companies led to a
powerful lobby of oil companies, which persuaded the
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) to step in.
FAS 19 was then suspended.
3. Many national standards are not based on a
conceptual framework of accounting, although IFRSs
are.
4. There may be a trend towards rigidity, and away from
flexibility in applying the rules. 11

12. Harmonization of International
Accounting Standards
The impetus for changes in accounting practice has come from the needs of the business
community and governments. With the expansion of international business and global
capital markets, the business community and governments have shown an increased
interest in the harmonization of international accounting standards.
Suggested problems caused by the lack of harmonization of international accounting
standards include the following:
1. A need for employment of key personnel in multinational companies to bridge the “gap”
in accounting requirements between countries.
2. Difficulties in reconciling local standards for access to other capital markets.
3. Difficulties in accessing capital markets for companies from less developed countries.12
4. Negative effect on the international trade of accounting practice and services.13

13. Sarbanes-Oxley
(Discuss)