Search results

An episode in the development of accounting for Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme transactions is explored from a social constructionist perspective. The “carrying” of meanings between sub‐worlds of the financial accounting world through social processes, principally by means of the standard‐setting body’s conceptual framework, is shown to be implicated in the social construction, maintenance and modification of accounting meanings. The social constructionist model is developed in several ways, some of which respond to particular characteristics of the financial accounting world.

Traditionally in the UK, accountants and their concepts of value have held little interest for those involved with the technical aspects of property management. Indeed, property valuers and accountants have traditionally adopted differing professional approaches towards the concept of valuation, despite nominally agreed valuing practices dating back to 1974. Most particularly, notwithstanding these agreements, the accounting profession has regarded the theory of property valuation for company accounts as a monopoly of its professional domination of the creation and implementation of accounting standards. Because of the lack of a codified conceptual framework, property assets were regarded identically to other assets. Equally, property managers attended to technical, infrastructural and legal aspects of managing properties. Examined in this paper, the development process behind Financial Reporting Standard 15: Tangible Fixed Assets (FRS 15) provided a realistic and fundamental shift of attitude. Not only were the opinions of valuers actively sought over the issue, but also the final standard adopted the definitions of value created by The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). Moreover, property assets now figure prominently in financial statements and so impinge directly on the net asset value and borrowing capability of the firm. Property management and modes of holding property have become central to running the business. This paper examines some of the arguments presented within the discussion process undertaken in the creation of FRS 15, highlighting the different approaches to the issue, and noting the likely negotiations to the standard to follow.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is designed to introduce new resources into the national infrastructure. It introduces the idea that the public sector can provide services by purchasing them from the private sector rather than by direct provision. There have been considerable disagreements about how to account for these transactions. Key in this has been differences of view as to whether PFI transactions involve purchase of assets and thus whether the transaction should appear on the balance‐sheets of the public sector. This seemingly technical question has generated considerable debate and disagreements between the UK government and the Accounting Standards Board (ASB). Closer investigation into this disagreement demonstrates a range of alternative views and tensions. Describes and analyses these different views and the inter‐ and intra‐relationships and tensions between these parties using an interests‐based, political framework for this contextual analysis. Demonstrates how accounting standard setting, in cases such as accounting for PFI, if only analysed at the technical level, misses a range of social dynamics that are central to understanding the role of accounting in the development of society.

The consensus‐based approach to setting accounting standards, which incorporates a formal consultation process, leads to questions about the lobbying process with regard to the nature of the argument, the characteristics of lobbying groups and the responsiveness of the standard setters. FRS 3, as the first standard initiated by the UK Accounting Standards Board (ASB), provides the context for considering these questions in relation to the nature of responses and respondents to the prior exposure draft, and the extent of comment integration, leading to a conclusion that the relative lack of change between the exposure draft and the standard is not explained by the pluralist concept of the standard‐setter in bilateral interactions with the independent respondents. It may, however, be rationalised in terms of a community of business interests collectively permitting the ASB to demonstrate its effectiveness through the apparent legitimisation afforded by an overt position of accommodating users as a special interest group and a market force. The formal consultation process served the purpose of a symbolic ritual to establish the acceptance and acceptability of a newly‐established regulatory agency.

This study makes a critical examination of the present accounting standard setting process and current issues and practices of corporate financial reporting (CFR) in an Indian context by referring to 95 annual reports of large sized companies. It is found that Indian accounting standards have many alternative accounting choices which make financial statements of companies less comparable. The Accounting Standard Board (ASB) has issued 12 definite accounting standards, yet none of them has been reviewed. The membership of ASB lacks proper representation particularly from the users side. The standard setting process has deficiencies in the absence of public hearing and the machinery for enforcement of accounting standards is not apparent. While a review of CFR shows a strong tendency for companies to follow strict legal requirements in the disclosure and preparation of financial statements, there is much diversity in voluntary reporting practice particularly with respect to value added accounting, reporting by segments, inflation accounting, human resource accounting, and corporate social performance reporting, and there has been a tendency towards minimum disclosure. The study suggests that, to improve standards the Institute of Chartered Accountants in India should establish a Financial Reporting Council (FRC) to oversee ASB and to prepare a conceptual framework for financial reporting purposes.

The unique characteristics of property are being recognised by those who create accounting standards. The purpose of this paper it to discuss the process by which standards are created and the opportunities for the involvement of property professionals, owners and users within the standard‐setting regime. In particular the paper seeks to draw attention to the shift towards International Accounting Standards.

The paper is an explanation and discussion of the UK standard‐setting regime.

The paper explains the UK standard‐setting regime, introducing the shift towards International Accounting Standards.

The work explains the ideologies and principles forming the theoretical foundations of the conceptual framework of UK accounting. Specific issues are not discussed, and are the subject of further work by the authors.

It is imperative for the surveying profession and wider property owners to be involved with the creation of accounting standards in order to ensure that property issues are reflected within them. This paper establishes the basic framework to assist them to do this.

Property professionals have traditionally tended to have been overlooked or ignored the consultation processes to establish new accounting standards. The paper establishes a platform to encourage them to become more involved.

This paper is concerned with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and their impact upon existing accounting practices for property within the UK. It also anticipates the wider international and European demands for IAS. There are two primary points to consider. First, the European Union (EU) has stated that it expects publicly listed companies quoted on the stock exchanges of EU member states to adopt International Accounting Standards by 2005. Others are encouraged to do so, with an implication that this will become mandatory at some future date. In earlier papers, the authors examined the recent changes within property accounting and the role played by property professionals within that process. This paper examines the requirements of international standards within the context of the British position as explained earlier. Differences are noted, the contrasting debates analysed and suggestions offered for corporate real estate professionals to consider. Secondly, unlike British Accounting Standards, IAS do not recognise property professionals or any professional organisation representing them, such as the International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC), and none of their regulations are represented within the standards. This situation is examined, and commentary provided upon the repercussions and possible solutions.

The lack of user response in written submissions on accounting standards has been noted in previous research. That lack of user response has limited empirical investigations with the result that lobbying by users has to be understood largely from theoretical literature in the political and social arena. Aims to add empirical data to the understanding of the user perspective, taking as a focus for the investigation the lobbying of the UK Accounting Standards Board in respect of the Operating and Financial Review. Four issues are chosen for analysis: usefulness to users, effectiveness of voluntary compliance, confidentiality and provision of forward‐looking information. Shows that the ASB’s responses on these four major issues are rational in terms of the relative intensity of lobbying. Using interview methods to obtain user responses shows that a different perception of lobbying intensity may be derived from a comparison of preparer and user responses, such that preparers’ views may have given too negative an impression to the ASB. The relative persuasive power of different arguments is shown to depend on how the comparison is undertaken. Uses the quantitative analysis of responses as a base from which to explore the potential for strategic lobbying to disguise self‐interested motivation and provides some insight on the lack of user response.

The paper proposes to outline the rules, regulations and generally accepted accounting principles that must be followed when recognising and valuing property in UK financial statements. Its aim is to give the professional surveyor or corporate real estate adviser a clear understanding of the underlying principles involved and also the rules and conventions that must be followed. A plethora of new regulations has led to a range of new practices that must be understood by those advising upon corporate property matters. Not least of the reasons are the direct effects property matters now have upon balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. The aim of this paper is to offer corporate real estate managers an overview of the accounting framework in which they must offer advice to businesses. Traditionally, non‐property companies have tended to relegate property matters to advisers, who found themselves excluded from the key strategic decision‐making processes of the company, despite the large amounts of capital frequently tied up in their premises. The rise of facilities management and new forms of serviced office structure began to increase awareness of the issue. However, recent changes to accounting standards by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) will impact directly upon the balance sheet and profit and loss account. In short, property issues directly impinge upon a business’s ability to report profits. Even so, relatively few property‐related views were put forward as part of the consultation process in the creation of these new standards. The area that has achieved most notice recently has been desire for accurate and consistent valuation and depreciation of assets ‐ including the management and maintenance of properties, and the selection of the property valuer. The basic premise behind such changes was to make accounts more visible and to demand clear logic and rationality of sensible business decisions. The paper deals solely with firms operating as manufacturers or service providers, with no interest in their property except as a place to do business, and an asset held as part of that business. Neither investment properties nor leased properties are discussed here, for reasons of space.

This paper examines the lobbying behaviour of UK managers who commented on Accounting Standard Board proposals to re‐introduce full provision deferred taxation accounting. Although there were no direct cash‐flow implications associated with these proposals, they had the potential to affect a company’s reported net income and revenue reserves. Using published comments and financial statements data, the paper tests: (a) the conventional positive accounting theory gearing hypothesis, using debt/equity ratios and (b) a new dividend hypothesis that is presented in the paper. The findings did not provide support for the gearing hypothesis and are therefore consistent with recent work of various other authors. However, the new dividend hypothesis was supported and the paper therefore suggests that the potential impact that an accounting treatment has on the revenue reserves of a company, and thus its dividend paying capacity, is a plausible reason for observed lobbying behaviour in the UK.