Should Accounting Standards be Principles or Rules?

In a recently-published article, Sir David Tweedie notes that: “Forty-odd years ago, as a CA apprentice, I didn't have to study accounting standards because there weren’t any! There was one major standard – the true and fair view – augmented by accepted practice.” According to Tweedie, two disputed takeover bids soon changed that. The President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), Sir Ronald Leach, senior partner of Peat Marwick & Co., and Professor Edward Stamp of Edinburgh University became embroiled in a public argument in the pages of The Times over the state of British financial reporting.

 

“Professor Stamp argued that for any major company, there would be a million ways which you could show a true and fair view, and that this was totally unacceptable. Sir Ronald reacted with alacrity, and together with the other Institutes (including a rather reluctant ICAS), agreed to form the Accounting Standards Steering Committee in 1969. Pressured by the Government, the Committee looked for a quick win and came upon a research paper of the ICAEW dealing with Associated Companies. This was rapidly turned into the Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 1. While to accountants such a topic would be a bizarre choice for the first standard, rather than what became SSAP2 – Accounting Policies – the profession needed to show it.”

 

“The argument continues over whether standards in financial reporting can best be governed by clear and detailed rules, or by principles and judgement could act quickly in a time of crisis. Since then, we have seen the SSAPs gradually replaced with Financial Reporting Standards and latterly by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These standards have become more and more complex.”

 

“Accounting is not rocket science. Writing a standard to deal with 80 per cent of the problems takes only a few pages, yet if our profession requires every avenue to be explored, then it can run into hundreds. ICAS is just completing a judgement framework to assist professionals who are unsure what exactly judgement involves. If you have been trained in what I term ‘search-engine’ accounting – looking up the answer in a massive book of rules –judgement can be scary.”

 

“The profession is at a crossroads, and the more we head down the rules route the harder it will be to pull back to simpler, more clearly expressed principle-based standards.” Read the article “Should Accounting Standards be Principles or Rules?” by Sir David Tweedie, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), as well as previous postings regarding the Principles versus Rules debate.

The First Quarter Century of the GASB (1984–2009): A Perspective on Standard Setting

 

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was established in April 1984 as the authoritative accounting standard-setting body for state and local governmental entities in the United States. There are over 87,000 state and local entities in the country and for the most part these entities are required to comply with the generally accepted accounting principles established by the GASB. Therefore, the standards promulgated by the GASB are significant. On June 30, 2009, the GASB completed its 25th year of standard setting. Because of its influence and the importance of its mission, a better understanding of the GASB and its accomplishments during its first 25 years of existence may be helpful.

 

Two research papers (Part 1 and Part 2) provide a complete sequential treatment of the GASB’s operational history through the end of its first quarter century. The first paper begins with an historical perspective about municipal accounting issues from colonial times to 1934. The origin of professional self-determining standards is the feature of the second paper, identifying standard-setting bodies that contributed to municipal accounting from 1934 to 1984. The early activities of the GASB are then reviewed. Two appendices are provided to detail the composition of the Board during its first quarter century, along with biographical information about the early Board members and later Chair and Vice Chair personnel.

 

The first paper concludes with a review of the relationship of other governmental standard setting bodies at the federal level and the international level. The second paper provides an overview of the future challenges faced by the GASB and supplies a digest of the standards including appendix and a synoptic summary of the standards the Board has promulgated by topic and by standard number.

 

Gary J. Previts

For more information, read the article “The First Quarter Century of the GASB (1984–2009): A Perspective on Standard Setting” by Helen M. Roybark, Edward N. Coffman and Gary J. Previts.

 

Part 1 of this article was published in ABACUS (Volume 48, Issue 1, pages 1–30, March 2012) and Part 2 was published in ABACUS (Volume 48, Issue 2, pages 147–198, June 2012).

 

 

 

In addition, refer to the article “The GASB Marks 25 Years of Standards-Setting” published in June 2009 on the GASB website.

 

The future of corporate reporting: a review article (2000)

 

In a research article published in 2000, Professor Vivien Beattie noted that: “Significant changes in the corporate external reporting environment have led to proposals for fundamental changes in corporate reporting practices. Recent influential reports by major organisations have suggested that a variety of new information types be reported, in particular forward-looking, non-financial and soft information.”

This paper presents a review and synthesis of these reports and provides a framework for classifying and describing suggested information types. The academic antecedents for certain current proposals are identified and the ambiguous relationship between research and practice is explored. The implications for future academic research are discussed and a research agenda is introduced.

For additional insight, read the article “The future of corporate reporting: a review article” by Vivien Beattie published in the Irish Accounting Review 2000, 7(1), pages 1-36. As well, refer to the 1991 landmark research study called Information to be included in the Annual Report to Shareholders published by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). This 317-page study was drafted by J. Paul-Emile Roy, CA under the direction of a seven-member Study Group chaired by Gerald Trites, FCA.