Niclas Hellman

Accounting Conservatism under IFRS

In a recent discussion paper on an improved conceptual framework (IASB, 2006a), the IASB and the FASB argue that prudence and conservatism are not desirable qualities of financial reporting information (IASB, 2006a, BC2.22). One interpretation of this proposal is that the consistent undervaluation of net assets (consistent conservatism), which used to be common under Continental European GAAPs and to some extent under US GAAP, is not considered to be an adequate way of dealing with uncertainty. Instead, the changes in the business conditions of a firm should be, to a greater extent, reflected in the financial reporting via changes in future-oriented estimates and probabilities. In turn, this should increase the decision relevance to users. However, although the boards suggest that the improved framework will not include prudence or conservatism as desirable qualities, this paper suggests that a more valid description is that consistently conservative accounting treatments will be replaced by accounting methods that leave more opportunities for temporary conservatism (changes in accounting estimates that temporarily understate net assets via the creation of hidden reserves which later may be reversed). From a user perspective, temporary conservatism is demanding because of the increased income-shifting between periods. This is illustrated in the paper by examining three cases concerning loss carryforwards, development costs and construction contracts, related to three different standards (IAS 12, IAS 38 and IAS 11, respectively). Furthermore, the paper illustrates how the mixing of consistent and temporary conservatism may lead to counter-intuitive interpretations of the underlying business activities that, in turn, make the information less relevant to users.

What causes investor action

The relationship between news and investor actions, manifested in stock price changes and changes in trading volume, has been intensely studied within the area of market-based accounting research (MBAR). This paper discusses the causes of investor actions on the basis of a case study of a large Swedish institutional investor. The findings of the case study indicate that when one disaggregates from the market level to the investor level, there is no mechanical relationship between financial information and investment action, as suggested in MBAR. In fact, none of the studied investment actions could be directly linked to the release of a financial report. The findings of the study also demonstrate that decisions regarding equity trades are continuous processes, rather than single points in time, where the main use of accounting information seems to be when there is already some idea of action that needs to be quantitatively evaluated. The factors that seemed to affect the initiation of these decision processes were mainly macro-economic information, private information and different investor conditions. Finally, there were time lags of considerable length, in all of the three main trades studied, between information events and the decision to act.

The persistence of international accounting differences as measured on transition to IFRS

The international accounting classification literature emphasises the importance of understanding how institutional factors shape accounting regulations and practices. With the mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the European Union and Australia in 2005, our empirical study examines whether three international accounting classification systems relating to equity financing, law and culture still had merit as measured on transition to IFRS and explore whether they are effective in grouping accounting systems. Using IFRS as the yardstick, we find statistically significant differences in the measurement of shareholders’ equity as between strong (Class A) versus weak (Class B) equity financing systems, common law versus code law systems and cultural systems based on ‘Anglo’, ‘Nordic’ and ‘More Developed Latin’ cultural groups. With regard to the measurement of net income, however, we find statistically significant differences only in respect of strong (Class A) versus weak (Class B) equity financing systems. Our findings demonstrate that traditional international accounting system differences still persisted at the time of IFRS adoption even after long periods of harmonisation and growing international accounting convergence.

On the ‘Review of Structure and Effectiveness of the IFRS Foundation’: the EAA’s Financial Reporting Standards Committee’s View

Abstract In July 2015 the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation launched its third five year review of its structure and effectiveness of the organisation. In a public call, the Trustees solicited stakeholders’ input on the relevance of IFRS Standards with respect to broadening the IFRS scope and to the impact of new technology, on the consistent application of IFRS and on the governance and funding of the International Accounting Standards Board and the IFRS Foundation. The European Accounting Association (EAA)’s Financial Reporting Standards Committee responded to this request for views by submitting a comment letter based on research-informed opinions. This article provides an overview of this Review of Structure and Effectiveness of the IFRS Foundation and the EAA’s opinions in response to this Review.

Introducing More IFRS Principles of Disclosure – Will the Poor Disclosers Improve?

Abstract The current paper was prepared for the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Research Forum 2017 and evaluates the effects of introducing more principles of disclosure as part of the IASB Disclosure Initiative. We perform a literature review of academic research on how entities have complied with disclosure requirements in the past. The review shows high levels of non-compliance and high volatility across entities, including poor disclosers being far below the average. We find no clear pattern of higher compliance for International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) with more reliance on disclosure principles as compared to specific requirements (i.e. IFRS 7, IFRS 8), but note the methodological problem of measuring compliance with disclosure principles. Academic research suggests that the degree of compliance depends on entities’ incentives for providing or withholding information in combination with local conditions for primary users, auditors and regulators. Based on our review, we argue that increased reliance on entities to act in ‘good faith’ when complying with disclosure requirements, in capital-market contexts where entities may be in high-incentive situations and have low costs of non-compliance, is potentially risky in terms of how well the Standards protect primary users from poor disclosers. More emphasis is needed on ensuring that the disclosure requirements are enforceable and auditable in order to secure a certain minimum level of disclosure.

What Is the Way Forward for IASB’s Research Programme under the Evidence-Supported Approach? Some Analyses and Comments Based on the 2015 Agenda Consultation

Abstract The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) the paper reviews the International Accounting Standards Board (IASBs) evidence-supported approach to standard setting, in particular the very broad definition of evidence that does not distinguish between scientific evidence used for developing the normative foundation (the standards) and observations in practice. Based on comparisons with medicine and auditing, we argue that there are good reasons for the IASB to separate scientific evidence from other sources of information. As producers of scientific evidence, the academic community must consider whether better alignment between publishing incentives and standard setting can be achieved. (2) Examining the 2015 Agenda Consultation, the ‘top-five’ research projects were identified: ‘Disclosure Initiative – Principles of Disclosure’, ‘Primary Financial Statements’, ‘Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity’, ‘Business Combinations under Common Control’, and ‘Goodwill and Impairment’. In order to further support evidence-informed standard setting, we provide research-based comments on these projects (based on the European Accounting Associations Agenda Consultation comment letter).