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.

Principles-based standards and professional judgment - then and now

At a historic roundtable discussion in New York, the chairman (Charles B. Couchman) stated that: “For many years the leading practitioners of public accountancy have been reducing the practice of accountancy to rules and standards as far as it has been found practical and logical to do so. The elements that make up financial statements have been reduced to standard classifications to the extent permitted by complicated and constantly changing transactions of the business world. Rules have been adopted covering, to a large extent, the various entries affecting the financial classifications. These classifications and these rules have been made widely available through books, articles, addresses and accounting curricula. Practically all the progress that has been made in reducing accountancy to rules and standards has been accomplished by the public accounting profession.”

“If all of the transactions of business were susceptible to analysis into a definite and rigid number of effects that could be analyzed to an extent that would allow exact classification, then rules could be adopted that would cover correctly each one. However, that is not the case. No matter how long one is engaged in an extensive practice of accountancy, he is continually faced  by new and unexpected transactions, each legitimate but each presenting combinations of effects not previously encountered. That is why the sorting of accounting transactions is rigid classifications to which rules and standards may be applied without distortion of fact is a slow process and cannot be otherwise.”

“No fixed rule may be laid down until all of the accounting elements that may fall within its scope have been studied and their effects determined so completely as to bring exact knowledge that the rule, when applied to them, will result in a proper statement of financial facts. Even then the rule must be subject to possible exception, as there is always the possibility that a new and unexpected set of circumstances may arise to which the rigid application of this rule would result in distortion of truth.”

“It is true, not only of accountancy, but of almost every other complicated subject, that the one who has only a smattering of knowledge of it considers that the subject is reasonably simple and that he can readily devise rules governing each phase thereof. To the simple, all things are simple. It is only when one goes deeply into the subject, whatever it may be, that he becomes aware of the complications and the difficulties of proper treatment that is applicable to each element.”

To learn more about the history of the principles versus rules debate, read the transcript of an October 19, 1937 roundtable at the Waldorf-Astoria, New York titled “To What Extent Can the Practice of Accounting Be Reduced to Rules and Standards?” For more information and different perspectives regarding this ongoing debate, refer to previous postings during the past year.