Search Results

While there are substantial differences in the regulatory regimes, cultures, economic history, nature of government, and institutions among the countries surveyed in the book, these countries have also faced common problems. This chapter provides a comparative assessment of how differences in some of these factors have affected accounting, auditing, and corporate governance. It shows that diversity in financial reports prevails worldwide, and discusses various ways used by companies and users of financial reports to cope with this diversity. The appendix illustrates accounting diversity by describing crucial differences among international financial rules and standards (IFRSs) and national standards, in particular, U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

This chapter provides evidence that the American experience with accounting rulemaking is not unique and that special-interest politics has a role in accounting rulemaking worldwide. It focuses on the impact of the proliferation of International Financial Reporting Standards on the politics of accounting rulemaking. It discusses how political pressure from state-controlled entities in China was able to temper the nature of worldwide accounting rules on disclosures of transactions involving related parties. Such disclosures are intended to safeguard against self-dealing, so the weaker rules could compromise trust in global financial markets. The chapter also discusses how one large Indian conglomerate was able to structure accounting rules on foreign-currency translations in ways that protected its interests at the potential expense of sound national accounting policies.

The European and global regulation of accounting standards have witnessed remarkable changes over the past twenty years. In the early 1990s, EU accounting practices were fragmented along national lines and US accounting standards were the de facto global standards. Since 2005, all EU listed companies must issue accounts according to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. US GAAP lost ground as the EU and many other countries started using IFRSs. This chapter analyses how the global regulatory context has influenced the EU’s accounting policy and how EU regulatory initiatives have affected global accounting regulation. The EU adopted IFRSs as an easy way to harmonize accounting standards while countering the hegemony of US standards. The EU’s adoption triggered a remarkable shift in global accounting regulation, ushering in a new bi-polar situation in which US GAAP and IFRSs occupy more or less equal positions.

This book is a general history of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from 2001 to 2011. The book covers the initial organization of the IASB and its subsequent evolution, the process of developing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and the acceptance of IFRSs in many countries around the world. The book was written at the invitation of the IASB, as a companion to a previous book on the history of the IASB’s predecessor body, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). While written at the IASB’s invitation and with the IASB’s support, the book was researched and written as an independent academic study. The book is based on archival materials provided by the IASB, published sources, and over 170 interviews with individuals from around the world who have been involved with the IASB and IFRSs in various capacities.

This chapter summarizes the history of the IASC from 1973 to 2000. Created at the initiative of accountancy bodies from several countries, the IASC achieved a modest acceptance of its basic accounting standards. After 1987, the IASC pursued acceptance of its standards for the purpose of cross-border securities listings. To this end, the IASC strengthened its standards in consultation with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Although IOSCO endorsed the IASC’s standards in 2000, the main objective of acceptance of the standards by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) remained elusive. With strong encouragement of SEC, a restructuring of the IASC into an independent standard setter was agreed in 1999.

This chapter discusses the appointment of the initial trustees of the IASC Foundation, including their chairman Paul Volcker, and the trustees’ decisions and activities to bring the new IASB into being. The most vital of these decisions were the selection of the first chairman of the IASB and the other initial Board members. Once appointed, the initial Board chairman, Sir David Tweedie, played an active role in setting up the IASB. Other aspects of the IASB’s initial organization covered in this chapter include the creation of a Standards Advisory Council (SAC) and an International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), the building of a technical staff, and the soliciting of a sufficient amount of voluntary contributions to fund the new organization.

The tensions over IAS 39 and controversy over some of the IASB’s other projects, turned the first five-yearly review of the IASC Foundation Constitution into a debate on how to square the IASB’s identity as an independent technical expert group with demands for oversight and control from jurisdictions where IFRSs had the status of law. Key questions discussed included the appointment process of trustees and board members, control over the IASB’s agenda, and ensuring constituents’ right to a proper hearing by the IASB. In the end, the trustees made only minor adjustments to the Constitution. Yet, it was recognized that the trustees should be more active in overseeing the IASB, that the Board should enhance its procedures for consultation and feedback, and that establishing some form of accountability still required attention.

Acceptance of IFRSs as a basis for financial reporting by foreign companies listing in the United States, without a mandatory reconciliation to US GAAP, was a chief objective of the IASB, as it had been of the IASC before it. In 2005, the Chief Accountant of the US Securities and Exchange Commission published a roadmap that, for the first time, set a target date for lifting the reconciliation requirement. Even faster than expected, the SEC lifted the reconciliation requirement in 2007. Under the leadership of Christopher Cox, chairman of the Commission, the SEC proceeded to consider the use of IFRSs, instead of US GAAP, by domestic registrants. A roadmap proposal was published in 2008, raising expectations that IFRSs might truly become the global accounting standard.

This chapter traces the evolution of the IASB organization through its first decade, and reviews the changing composition of the trustees, the Board, the advisory council, the interpretations committee and the technical staff. The trustees exercised their right to appoint Board members by gradually shifting the emphasis in the Board from technical accounting expertise to a broader range of backgrounds and experiences. Several initiatives were taken to enhance the Board’s due process and to improve its communication with constituents. Establishing a secure funding basis for the IASC Foundation was a continuous preoccupation of the trustees. Gradually, the initial reliance on voluntary contributions was replaced by national funding mechanisms and by funding from the European Commission.

Between 2005 and 2008, the IASB’s technical agenda was increasingly dominated by convergence with US GAAP. In order to facilitate the lifting of the 20-F reconciliation, the IASB and the FASB agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2006, outlining a work programme of over a dozen convergence projects. The MoU was updated in 2008. A target or deadline for completion by mid-2011 was agreed, evidently with a view to a decision by the SEC on use of IFRSs by US domestic companies. The chapter reviews the most important convergence projects. To the alarm of some constituents, the work programme led the two boards to a fundamental reconsideration of several basic accounting concepts and practices. During the period, the IASB also completed a version of its standards designed for small and medium-sized entities (SMEs).

During the initial stages of the financial crisis, the IASB came under pressure to revise its guidance on fair value measurement for financial instruments traded in inactive markets. As the crisis intensified, the role of accounting standards in exacerbating financial instability became a matter of debate at the highest political level. In October 2008, the IASB was forced to amend IAS 39 without due process in order to avoid the loss of its franchise to set accounting standards for the EU. The IASB and the FASB sought to coordinate their attempts to develop a new financial instruments standard, but drifted apart as each faced its own political pressures. When the IASB produced a revised standard, IFRS 9, the European Commission declined to propose its endorsement for use in the EU.

This chapter reviews major developments between June 2011 and the middle of 2014. Because of the SEC’s silence on the use of IFRSs in the United States, the IASB had to find its position in a world where it had unquestionably become a leading player, but where national standard setters retained important positions in several jurisdictions. In modifying its consultative arrangements, the IASB paid particular attention to interaction with national standard setters. The IASB’s special relationship with the FASB was reconsidered. Some of the two boards’ remaining convergence projects were completed, but no new joint projects were initiated. The IASB undertook a major agenda consultation to chart its course over the next years. As evidenced by events in the United States and Europe, critical questioning of the IASB and of IFRSs continued.