Search results

The ability of investors, taxpayers and researchers to compare financial statements issued by hospitals, universities and other governmental agencies is affected by their understanding of current accounting and reporting rules. Publicly owned not-for-profit organizations report different financial results from those that are privately owned. This study looks at the historical events that brought about the accounting and reporting divergences, discusses the recognition and reporting differences, and explores the implications for statement users.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) have issued significantly different accounting and financial reporting standards for contributions. These standards are particularly significant for reporting by private and public institutions of higher education. This paper summarizes many of these differences including timing of revenue recognition, classification of contributed resources, recording pledges, and recognition of “collections.” A framework is suggested for evaluating accounting and financial reporting standards for contributions. Finally, recommendations are made to both FASB and GASB for changes to make their standards more consistent.

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.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.

The purpose of this study is to examine the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s response to criticism and political pressure at the time of the global financial crisis through the lens of legitimacy theory.

This study constructs a thick description about a causal mechanism between social crisis and organizational change using a process-tracing approach that combines a historical narrative and a theoretical consideration.

The IASB faced criticism of its accounting standards for financial instruments and its governance structure during the financial crisis. This criticism represented the crises of pragmatic and cultural legitimacy. Facing these legitimacy crises, the IASB adopted such legitimation strategies as normalization and restructuring to repair its legitimacy. Additionally, in these repairing processes, the IASB, as a bonus, became institutionally embedded itself in the global political arena and succeeded to strengthen its legitimacy.

The study suggests that the financial crisis had a significant impact on the standardization of transnational accounting. Indeed, the crisis was an important turning point of the IASB’s work on revising its accounting standards to reduce complexity and altering its Constitution. Moreover, the authors bridge the gaps in the literature on accounting and legitimacy by examining how the IASB used particular legitimacy repair strategies when facing its legitimacy crises

The last four decades have seen the rise of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) as the core locus of transnational accounting regulation. Initial steps of associational cooperation were superseded by establishing a standard setting organization that heavily draws on consultation procedures. The purpose of this paper is to focus on recent changes in governance and accountability of IASB in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Emphasis is given to the organizational configuration, the ambivalence of consultation procedures and reactions to mounting criticism after the crisis. The paper proposes that IASB is the heart of a new transnational regulatory constellation in accounting.

The material and analysis presented in the paper derives from an extensive review of official reports, consultation documents and related responses and a range of additional information available on IASB's web page.

The paper analyzes how IASB uses legitimation strategies to defend its position as a transnational standard setter. From analysis of recent changes, the paper reveals a growing reliance on – and domination through – consultation procedures. The paper also shows the IASB’S swift action to counter substantial criticism emerging with the financial crisis.

By highlighting developments surrounding IASB, its governance structure and the emphasis on consultation, the paper establishes the importance for public policy of further study and debate the operation of IASB. It could also contribute to re-politicize accounting regulation at the transnational level.

IASB is an integral player in global financial governance processes and is only recently receiving substantial academic accounting research. This paper seeks to provide an introduction and critical account of the organization's development.

Accounting standards are issued only after a comprehensive due process, which includes opportunities for external constituents to participate via public hearings and comment letters. The purpose of this paper is to identify stakeholders unique to government and evaluate the extent to which they respond to 13 due process documents issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The results provide insight into the comment letter element of due process – who participates, in what way do they participate, and why do they participate?

Comment letters received by the GASB in response to eleven exposure drafts and three preliminary views (PV) documents from 2010-2013 were examined, and respondents were categorized according to Cheng’s (1994) model as modified by Kidwell and Lowensohn (2011), resulting in the following 16 participant types: academics, budget officers, bureaucratic managers, state auditors/controllers, citizens, financial markets, elected officials, external auditors/CPA firms, finance officers, government accountants, government auditors, interest groups, media, professional associations, standard setters, and other governments. The authors next examined responses in favor of and opposed to for each document by group and responses by stakeholder group over time.

The authors find that participants came from various stakeholder groups. Consistent with findings in different standard-setting environments, the primary financial statement preparers – finance officers – were the most frequent individual respondents; however, there was participation from a wide variety of stakeholders. Responses are generally constructive and relatively consistent in their balance of favorable and unfavorable feedback over time, with a few exceptions. Closer examination of comment letters in response to the financial projections PV document reveals both conceptual and practical considerations underlying respondent participation.

Motivations for participation were discerned from the letter content, but direct data on motivation was not measured, limiting the conclusions to apparent motivation. Future research might examine the extent to which comment letter content is incorporated into the basis of conclusions section of issued standards to assess the direct impact of comment letters on the governmental accounting standard-setting process. It would also be relevant to trace specific projects that advanced from a PV stage to the exposure draft stage to assess whether the proportional participation of these stakeholder groups is different throughout due process.

The GASB has long been receptive to constituent feedback (Lowensohn, 2000) and can glean useful input from comment letters. By closely examining arguments impounded within comment letters, including conceptual and practical considerations, and by utilizing a more delineated understanding of the stakeholders in governmental accounting standard setting, the Board can better forge into the future.

Much of the extant research documents that stakeholder participation is relatively low, given the number of parties affected by accounting standards. Prior research into both public and private sector accounting standard setting in the USA and abroad has not used all unique actors specific to the public sector. Using a comprehensive stakeholder model designed for the governmental environment, the authors examine who participates in the GASB comment letter process, assess the nature of GASB comment letter participant responses, determine whether relative participation by stakeholder group is relatively constant over time, and consider why the participants respond.

This paper aims to analyse the character and strength of the claims made in an emerging literature offering a sociology of financial reporting principles.

The analysis evaluates exemplary works in the literature against the characteristics of the paranoid style first identified by Richard Hofstadter: overheated claims of a far-reaching, malign and collusive machinery of influence; a reductive, rationalistic and dualistic reading of events; weak empirics; and weak theorisation.

A significant stream within the literature is coming to be constructed in the paranoid style. Paranoid stylistics, used as a diagnostic tool, alerts us here to distorted judgement.

Alternative ways of avoiding the dangers of paranoid-style readings are suggested, ranging from resisting the temptations towards such readings to a radical re-working of the epistemics of “socio-accounting”.

The danger of allowing the conclusions advanced in the literature to go unchallenged is that they may influence society’s attitude to accounting, public policy-making and scholars’ willingness to contribute to the crafting of reporting principles and standards.

Although paranoid style analysis has been widely used to examine narratives in other academic fields, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to apply it to scholarly accounting.

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.