Search results

This study aims to evaluate whether the Big-4’s commenting efforts influence the characteristics of Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB’s) Final_Standards using the content of their comment letters. Whether auditors lobby standard-setters to help their clients or to help themselves and whether they are successful are questions highly relevant to issues of auditor independence and audit effectiveness.

Based on components of Mergenthaler (2009), this study develops a rules-based continuum change score to measure how much more (less) rules-based a Final_Standard is compared to its exposure draft to evaluate the influence of the Big-4 on the FASB’s standard-setting for 63 accounting standards.

The findings show that extensive comment letters and increased uncertainty language are associated with increases in the rules-based attributes included in Final_Standards. These results suggest the Big-4 prioritize a reduction in their own litigation risk over the possible preferences of their clients for less rigid standards. Moreover, the results are consistent with their comment letters influencing the FASB’s decision to include more rules-based attributes in Final_Standards.

This study develops a potential proxy for audit risk by assessing the changes in the rules-based characteristics of proposed accounting standards and using the content of the comment letters to evaluate whether the Big-4 accounting firms may influence the FASB’s Final_Standards. Overall, this study provides a unique perspective on the influence of constituents on the FASB’s standard-setting.

Investigates the negative effect on employee welfare caused by economic decisions taken by corporate managements which they attribute to the adoption of an accounting standard, focusing on the case of McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which ended health‐care benefits for non‐union employees as a result of adopting the Financial Accounting Standards Board′s Statement 106 (FASB 106). It is estimated that the adoption of FASB 106 caused $148 billion in charges to earnings to be recorded by companies in the Standard & Poor′s 500 Index. Despite the large negative effect on earnings, FASB 106 had little or no impact on the economic condition of the affected firms. Nevertheless, managements have taken economic actions that have negatively affected employee welfare, and these actions have been attributed to FASB 106. Some of the hardest hit are employees at older industrial companies with mature workforces hired during the 1950s and 1960s. Some companies ended retirement health plans abruptly, while others required workers and retirees to pay more towards insurance premiums, or prevented new hires from receiving retirement health coverage.

The paper's aim is to research and discuss the issue of the lack of transparency in financial reporting and how companies take advantage of accounting rules in ways that inhibit transparency.

A literature review was carried out to see what had been written and discussed. Various legal cases were studied as well as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) studies of the impact of off‐balance‐sheet arrangements allowed by the FASB and SEC.

There are many ways that companies accomplish off‐balance‐sheet financing by taking advantage of rules‐based accounting. If there is not a rule to prevent an entity from handling a particular transaction a certain way, then it is difficult for the auditor to stop it from happening.

The paper is of descriptive nature. There are many policy implications from the results of the paper for all regulatory agencies. The economic substance of transactions needs to be communicated.

Financial managers and financial consultants need to refocus the structuring of financial transactions so that they comply with generally accepted accounting principles and that the economic substance of financial transactions is communicated. More accountability and ethical awareness needs to be instilled in the individuals who deceitfully structure financial transactions. Regulatory bodies need to ensure more transparency by closing loopholes and better enforcement of accounting standards. Boards of directors, especially the audit committees, need to be sure that a company is communicating the true economic reality of the financial transactions and financial position of the business entity. Off‐balance‐sheet financing is one of the most significant ways, among others, that the user of financial statements can be misled. It is time for regulatory bodies to eliminate overly rules‐based standards, clearly state the economic objective of each standard, and require firms to disclose the economic motivations for the accounting practices they adopt.

The value of the paper is that it studies the problems of the lack of transparency in financial reporting. It then suggests that if what is currently being done, (i.e. rules‐based accounting), is not working, then a new approach, principles‐based accounting needs to be implemented by the regulatory agencies. This paper provides an overview of the lack of financial statement transparency.

The ability of financial statement users, investors, donors and academic researchers to compare financial information issued by nonprofit universities, hospitals, fund-raising organizations and government agencies is affected by their understanding of current accounting recognition and reporting guidance. Public nonprofit organizations report different financial results from private nonprofit organizations. This study looks at the events that brought about the divergence in nonprofit financial accounting recognition and reporting for higher education institutions, discusses specific differences, and offers a look at additional changes in recognition and reporting for the sector currently underway.

Considers what role history plays in the US accounting standard‐setting process and how this role may be constrained by an emphasis on objectivity and an adherence to a positivistic view of bureaucratic decision making. Explores the role history could play in the development and review of accounting standards and, in particular, how history might contribute to pluralizing the past, problematizing the present and revisioning the future.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the expected effect of diverging accounting requirements and practices on firms in two industries – construction and retailing – which typically undertake different types of leases, namely, equipment and real estate, respectively. The paper also discusses how the new standards will provide expanded disclosures to aid this financial statement analysis.

The research demonstrates how to estimate information comparable to that produced under IFRS from US GAAP financial statements and estimates the significance of the impact on key financial statement ratios.

Key profitability ratios – return on assets and return on equity – generally improve over the time period 2007-2013 while interest coverage drastically deteriorates particularly for retailing firms. This finding contrasts with what some view as the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s reason for its choice of income statement presentation – to avoid the front-end loading of costs that ensues from accounting for leases as one would any other long-lived asset acquired through long-term financing.

Current IFRS and US GAAP requirements do not provide sufficient information to estimate lease accounting changes for those firms which have no long-term debt other than long-term leases. Therefore, the estimates presented in this analysis are limited below what will be possible to do under new accounting requirements.

The research covers a current topic of new divergence between US GAAP and IFRS requirements for leases. In addition, improvements over analysis techniques currently required that will be possible with new financial statement disclosures also are discussed.