International Accounting, Problems Associated with IAS39 and Actions to Improve It - Essay Example

International Accounting Name Institution Introduction Globalisation has resulted in the instigation of global trade techniques that facilitate trade without boarder restriction. This paper focuses on the accounting segment of this trade. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is the international body that is responsible for setting global accounting standards which aims at breaking accounting barriers between distinct states by designing mutual standards. The adoption of the standards set by IASB has being slow which is attributable to hitches such as lack of permanent funding that discourage some states (Thorne, 2010). The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is economic hardships that have afflicted the global economies-particularly the western world- for the last five years commencing in 2008. There are many causes of the crisis with regards to the viewpoint: some may cite irresponsible leadership since other economies like the Asian Pacific economies are growing at high paces. Since this paper focuses on international accounting, the perceptions expressed are accountancy underpinned when assessing possible contribution of accounting in the crisis. The assessment covers distinct regions and accountancy bodies around the globe (Bloomer, 2005). This paper particularly aims at analysing the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2012, its impacts around the world and actions taken by disparate economies to tackle the crisis. It also assesses the efficacy of some standards set by IASB to govern accountancy. PART A Fair-value Accounting Role in GFC Accounting standards are hardly perceived as a field of infatuation and debate. Nonetheless, heated speculation in the upshot of the GFC over whether or not fair-value accounting techniques exacerbated the disintegration and heightened market instability has grasped the profession. Economists, politicians, professional associations, and business leaders have exchanged perspectives in a dialogue that appears set to posses long-term repercussions for financial controllers, auditors, and organisational directors as they partake their respective corporate obligations. It is timely to elucidate the disposition of fair-value accounting to historical costs? (Cascini & DelFavero, 2011) Comparison to Historical cost Accounting In essence, fair-value accounting encompasses utilising accessible market information to approximate the likely selling value of an asset or charge to foot a liability. The conjecture goes that employing present market figures in valuing assets and liabilities is the best technique to give investors contemporary information about the economic conditions of organisations. In contrast, historical cost accounting is a technique whereby assets are priced at their initial cost and leaves out modifications for inflation. However, they factor in alterations such as impairment and depreciation. Both accounting standards are in broad utilization and have their exponents and antagonists. Proponents of fair-value contend that it imparts more relevant and timely market information regardless of the surged use of approximates and judgments, while antagonists argue that it impart inaccurate and undependable market information. Supporters of historical-cost accounting technique believe it is more reliable as asset prices are based on real transactions, but antagonists maintain that acquisition prices under this technique are often outdated and may thus provide little or no relevance to investors. Accusations In the pursuit for culprits responsible for the GFC, some industrial and political pundits have indicted fair value accounting. A relapsing allegation in some quintiles is that it hastens undue influence in boom markets and comparably exaggerated write-downs of entities during a bust. One setting which commentators advance is that financial institutions are compelled to dispose distressed securities at low prices, draining their capital and shooting asset values through the ground. This can result in a downward curl that adversely afflicts the institutions and investors. While extensive losses cause drawbacks for banks and other financial institutions, the query is whether conveying the losses while employing fair-value accounting generates additional glitches. Would the market have responded inversely if banks had employed a distinct array of accounting standards? One of the key areas of assessment following the GFC has been the large banks' handling of CDOs (Collateralised Debt Obligations), a financial framework that clusters bonds, loans or assets into an assortment that can be transacted. The worth of most CDOs tumbled during the financial crunch on the back of the sub-prime mortgage farce in the United States where the financial institutions granted high-risk loans to individuals with poor credit pasts. The fallout from the crunch underpins the case for financial institutions being more agile and less reflex in their path to loan reimbursements. What intensified the financial crunch was the pace and magnitude of the plummet in values to which financial institutions applied credit guidelines, forcing insolvency of assets in a flurry. This had the general effect of shoving the prices further down. Western bankers and institutions can mug up a lesson from the Japanese colleagues, who have for the long run on a banking culture that employs historical-cost accounting techniques. Japanese financial institutions are more accommodating to their debtors when collateral values plunge, this attribute may have aided borrowers weather the storm a little bit more. Nonetheless, the Japanese economy has a counterpoint. As of the 90s, its economy and banks have strained, with some pointing a finger on historical-cost accounting techniques. A culture possibly less lenient than the Japanese framework, but a little more accommodating than witnessed in the Anglo-Saxon approach, may be logical, at least in the short-term (Gornik & McCarthy, 2003). The Bottom Line It is evident the GFC has been a reveille for global economies, and certainly the dramatic occurrence will result in some tardy changes. The IASB has at present moved to design a mutual principle for mitigating financial assets and liabilities that impart more resourceful information on a unit’s impending net value. Hedge accounting guidelines have been eased to certify closer affiliation between accounting and organization risk management techniques, while vicissitudes to the impairment of assets are also imminent. It is vital that pressure is not given to accountants over inadequate accountancy upshots since that would lead them to outguess the market. That is a level of deduction that accountancy practitioners are not capable of making. Any guiding changes excluding, the consensus among most analysts seems to be that fair-value did not trigger the bank melt downs of 2008. A report by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) in the United States stated that mark-to-market and fair-value accounting do not seem to be the grounds of bank and other financial institution meltdowns. Rather than a crunch hastened by fair-value accounting, the crunch was a ‘run on the bank' at selected institutions, demonstrating itself in counterparties lessening or defecating the assorted credit and other hazard exposures, they posed to each organisation. In the ‘Journal of Economic Perspective’s journal, respected finance practitioners Christian Leuz and Christian Laux came to the deduction that speculations fair-value accounting techniques exacerbated the credit crisis are "largely baseless". Based on their assessment and the evidence in the collected information, there was little reason to suppose that fair-value accounting technique underpinned to American banks' setbacks in the financial crunch in a key way. In contrast, they concluded that fair values perform merely a limited part in banks' income turnover and supervisory capital ratios, apart from a few banks with extensive trading ranks (Klumpes, O'brien & Reibel, 2009). The two, Leuz and Laux, add that financial institutions have safe measures and optional powers that allow them to circumvent any buckle in market prices. Simultaneously, the two are not campaigners for further extension of fair-value technique and say the practice evidently is not perfect. IASB Response to GFC The IASB drafted an array of measures in 2008 to respond to the GFC and proposals made by the G-20 leaders. Some of the measures consist of better- quality accounting standards for off balance sheet entities, new disclosure obligations associated to impairment, it is desired that once these measures are executed it could aid to circumvent a number of the glitches that have weighed in to the current crunch. The IASB and the U.S. FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) are presently working together to impart an array of measures to develop a more globally matched response and strategy to execute these changes in the future. Impact of IASB actions on the Global Financial Stability The assumption that should be made by the IASB after the Global Financial Crisis is that the global economy has learnt a lesson from the crunch and that they are willing and already making changes in their system to ensure that they can weather such a storm in the future. The reason for the assumption is that accounting standards only play a minimal part in causing such a crunch, and thus the key aspects have to be addressed by individual economies. Since the economies have to trade with one another, IASB should develop the most effective methodologies to govern and run accounting. IASB input is very significant, but other aspects that afflict the global economy should materialise. PART B Problems Associated with IAS39 Actions to Improve It The swap to international financial accounting standards is one of the most noteworthy occurrences in the history of the field. Given the massive pressures the intricate process imparts on institutions, one would hope that the issue would be tackled smoothly and competently by those liable for laying this weight at their shoulders. Regrettably, this is not the case. Consequently, organisations and users of these accounts are presently paying the price, and this will go on for some time (Zeff, 2002). Majority of the drawbacks centre around one concern, IAS39. The accounting standard that specifies how to identify and evaluate financial instruments such as hedge funds and derivatives has been the issue of immense political intrigues. There has been pressure on the IASB to make amendments to the standard. Two sections of the standard are under examination - hedge accounting and the fair-value route. IAS39 is possibly the most intricate and resource intense standard for large organizations to adopt. It is the standard that shareholders, analysts, and other market observers will strain hardest to understand. Because there are 2 distinct versions of it, perplexity could thrive and assessing company accounts grows increasingly troublesome. One of the problems with IAS39 is that although it surges disclosures, the guidelines are intricate and outputs are not always simple to comprehend. This can cause uncertainty and experts will always sell first and work out the answers later. A warning of late by the Financial Services Authority over the aptness of revealing IFRS information will stuck further pressure on organizations to ensure they convey financial instruments as precisely as possible. The IASB is still fiddling across the edges of IAS39, and still there is no certainty of how long it will take to reach a deduction on the hedging guidelines. An effective group has been set up by the board to delve into hedge accounting issues and set backs, but there is no assurance that it will impart any short-term solutions. Up until this sore point is eliminated, markets will solely have to withstand two similar, but fundamentally distinct standards. Another perceived problem with IAS39 is that defects in the IFRS standards allow the banks and financial institutions to overstate their profits. Research depicts that the IFRS technique allows Barclays Bank to exaggerate its net assets and profits by £6.7bn; RBS Bank by £16.8bn: and HSBC Bank by $16bn.The grumble is not a new one, at times, a fundamental glitch in IFRS sanctions banks to disburse on unrealised turnovers by not compelling them to make ample stipulation for loans that might go bad. The concern focuses on the employment of the IAS 39 incurred loss model, which necessitates proof of a loss prior to the writing down of loans. This allows financial institutions to not impart a ‘factual and fair view’ of their financial position since of its backward-looking nature. The defect in the model was evident during the financial crunch of 2007 when bankrupt banks possessing overrated assets were made to seem healthy. The deficit in the cases of RBS and HBOS totalled to £30bn and culminated in one being bailed out by taxpayers while the other was acquired by a rival (Cascini & DelFavero, 2011). Both the IASB and FASB (U.S. accounting standards setter) concurred that the IAS 39 was shutting the gate after the horse had bolted and are still toiling towards switching the incurred loss technique with a more forward-looking expected loss or fair value standard. It is here that the real wrangling instigates. Amendments to IAS 39 are not likely to come in to existence until 2015 or later, and until that happens antagonists of IFRS contend that auditors should stick to legislation over the standards. Antagonists argue that the Companies Act, which is legislation, should posses more influence than IFRS as it presently stands. The company’s act necessitates that account provide a factual and fair view. There is a common misapprehension that a true and fair opinion depicts sticking to accounting standards, that is not factual, and most definitely not when accounting standards generate an outcome that is flawed against the true and fair assumption of the law. In spite of this, it has been proposed to Accountancy Age that setters would have to be ‘grumbling mad' to shun the standard as it presently stands. In 2002, the Financial Reporting Review Panel (FRRP) backed the employment of a ‘true and fair override' embraced by Liberty International in regards to its acquisition in 2000 of the minority interest of shares subsidiary Capital Shopping Centres (Gornik & McCarthy, 2003). That contention is backed by the FRC's July 2011 manuscript on true and fair view accounting. The FRC stated that where an organisation pulls out from a standard so as to give a true and fair view and an apt elucidation is provided of the grounds for the departure and its upshots, the FRRP will be loath to substitute its own deduction for that of the organisation’s board lest it is not contented that the board has proceeded reasonably. However, auditors are solely preparing accounts under IFRS as sanctioned by the European Commission. In some conditions, where fair values are authorised or required, this implicates the insertion of profits that are not recognised in monetary terms in the income statement. This is prepared so as to give a true and fair view of the organisation’s performance in the year. Until the IASB and FASB endorse a definitive amendment to IAS 39, gear up for years of this argument rumbling on. PART C Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) Response to the GFC Why? Although the Global Financial Crisis afflicted almost every economy in the world, some were adversely affected than other. Australia was not one of the severely hit economies although it felt the punch. It is commonly stated that the worst action that one can do when an opportunity comes reckoning is nothing. Therefore, when the global economy is going through some hardships all over a sudden, the Australian economy setters should act to weather the storm. The Asian Pacific region was able to weather the storm but the Americas and Europe were hard hit. How? Although there are signs of economies budding from recessionary conditions, there is still considerable pressure for regulatory modifications. Then again, as history has illustrated, it is imperative that the response by standards setters is fitting and of lasting benefit. In this case, the pressure on the standard setters is to enhance the comprehensibility of financial info, precisely in the conveying of financial instruments. This has ensued in a hastened completion time-frame for several projects on the IASB’s schedule so as to tackle the proposals made by the G-20 to perk up financial reporting (Bramble, 2005). De-recognition of fiscal assets and liabilities The AASB reacted to the IASB Exposure Draft ED/2009/3 De-recognition (Proposed amendments to IAS 39 and IFRS 7) in July 2009. The AASB propped the goals of the ED to improve de-recognition prerequisites for fiscal assets in IAS 39, reposition towards meeting de-recognition prerequisites in US GAAP, and to impart more expedient information about an entity’s contact to the perils of transferred fiscal assets by facilitating disclosure requisites, particularly where entities persist to have continuing involvement with the fiscal asset (Allen & Powell, 2011). The AASB cogitated the alternative techniques endowed in the ED for de-recognising fiscal assets and liabilities: (a) Recommended Approach An entity should de-recognise a fiscal asset when the votive rights to the cash flows from the fiscal asset elapse, the entity hands over the fiscal asset; the entity has no ongoing participation in it, or the individual hands over the fiscal asset and maintains an ongoing involvement in it. The transferee (the individual that purchases the fiscal asset), however, has the practical capacity to reallocate the fiscal asset for the transferee’s own advantage. (b) Alternative approach It deliberates whether or not the transferor has admittance at present, for its own use, to all of the economic benefits of the fiscal assets that the transferor realized prior to the transfer. The AASB remarked in its compliance to the IASB that it did not perceive the proposed technique to be a noteworthy improvement to the existing de-recognition requisites and that the comparable glitches in the implementation of the recommended approach would emerge. Thus, the AASB proposed that the International Accounting Standards Board further improve the substitute approach which is more intimately affiliated to the structure. The IASB mulled over response to the ED at its September of 2009 conference in which the majority of respondents articulated views that were coherent with the AASB’s remark of preference of the alternative technique. Consequently, the IASB has instructed staff to take into account in more detail the alternative technique and to set up guidance to aid in its implementation. Credit Risk in Liability Evaluation The AASB conceded that recent developments in fiscal markets have resulted in surged interest on fair value evaluation advance of financial liabilities that ensued from an asset’s plummeting credit risk. The AASB remarked in its compliance that the query of credit risk in evaluating liabilities can only be tackled in the framework of a quantified measurement aspect. The AASB proposed a possible structure that the IASB could employ, implying that credit risk performs a role in liability evaluation on initial realisation and ensuing only when the liability is needed to be evaluated at fair value. The IASB mulled over the reactions obtained at its September of 2009 conference and took notice of the mutual perceptions of numerous constituents that the first and ensuing evaluation of liabilities need not be coherent (that is, distinct measurement bases for first and ensuing measurement). The IASB doyens further consider the effect of credit peril on liability evaluation as part of its considerations on other strategies, such as phase I replacing IAS 39 (Carlin & Finch, 2010). Fair value measurements The AASB supported the recommendations in the ED to change the fair value measurement regulation encompassed in individual IFRSs with a sole description of fair value, in addition to imparting authoritative guidance on evaluating the fair worth of assets and liabilities in dormant markets. Nonetheless, the AASB was fretful with some of the recommendations in the ED. The AASB asked for amplification of whether market purchasing prices provided that it is an entry value and fair value is described in the ED as an exit value. Additionally, the AASB articulated concerns with regards to the highest and best use impression. It remarked that the ED does not aptly articulate why such an impression is not appropriate for liabilities and also that the requisite to discretely reveal the ‘auxiliary value and ‘existing-use value’ of assets, when it varies from the entity’s highest and best use, is unsuitable (McRae & Paolucci, 2011). Conclusion The general consequence of the GFC was adverse not only to some developed countries but entirely to the global economies which encompass all economies regardless of size. A notable attribute that all the economies should hold dearly is that the global economy is continually changing, and hence they should be up to date with prevailing trends. Failure to which, and knowing that another economic crunch is eminent, poorly planned economies will strain the most (Jones, 1998). Reference List Allen, D. E., & Powell, R. (2011). Measuring and Optimising Extreme Sectoral Risk in Australia. The Asia Pacific Journal of Economics & Business , 15(1),1-14. Bloomer, J. (2005). Developments in International Financial Reporting Standards and Other Financial Reporting Issues. Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance ,30(1), 101-107. Carlin, T. M., & Finch, N. (2010). Resisting compliance with IFRS goodwill accounting and reporting disclosures: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 6(2), 260-280. Cascini, K. T., & DelFavero, A. (2011). An Evaluation Of The Implementation Of Fair Value Accounting: Impact On Financial Reporting. Journal of Business & Economics Research ,9(1), 1-16. Gornik-Tomaszewski, S., & McCarthy, I. N. (2003). Cooperation between FASB and IASB to achieve convergence of accounting standards. Review of Business , 24(2),52-59. Jones, S. (1998). An evaluation of user ratings of cash vs accrual based financial reports in Australia. Managerial Finance ,24(11), 16-28. Klumpes, P. J., O'brien, C. D., & Reibel, A. (2009). International Diversity in Measuring the Fair Value of Life Insurance Contracts. Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance , 34(2),197-227. McRae, I. S., & Paolucci, F. (2011). The global financial crisis and Australian general practice. Australian Health Review , 35(1),32-35. Thorne, K. (2010). Does History Repeat? The Multiple Faces of Keynesianism, Monetarism, and the Global Financial Crisis. Administrative Theory & Praxis , 32(3),304-326. Zeff, S. A. (2002). "Political" lobbying on proposed standards: A challenge to the IASB. Accounting Horizons , 43-54. Read More