RESTRICTIONS IN THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 18, 50 - 67, 04.01.2021

Ali İhsan Akgün

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to literature examining the restrictions in the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. The globalisation process has affect to an invitation for the harmonisation of financial reporting standards, and consequently, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have joined forces to create one set of accounting standards. One of the joint projects is a common conceptual framework (henceforth referred to as the CFW). These paper provide a guidance to the conceptual framework a long with international accounting and financial reporting standards. To understand the quality and objective of financial reporting, it is important for CWF to examine the fundamental characteristics of financial accounting information and its restrictions. I imply that most of the existing empirical research is US GAAP-oriented and that IFRS investigate on the restriction in the CFW for financial reporting is limited.

Keywords

Conceptual Framework, Financial Reporting, Restrictions, IASB

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

FİNANSAL RAPORLAMAYA İLİŞKİN KAVRAMSAL ÇERÇEVEDEKİ SINIRLANDIRMALAR: LİTERATÜRSEL BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to literature examining the restrictions in the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. The globalisation process has affect to an invitation for the harmonisation of financial reporting standards, and consequently, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have joined forces to create one set of accounting standards. One of the joint projects is a common conceptual framework (henceforth referred to as the CFW). These paper provide a guidance to the conceptual framework a long with international accounting and financial reporting standards. To understand the quality and objective of financial reporting, it is important for CWF to examine the fundamental characteristics of financial accounting information and its restrictions. I imply that most of the existing empirical research is US GAAP-oriented and that IFRS investigate on the restriction in the CFW for financial reporting is limited.

Keywords

Kavramsal Çerçeve, Finansal Raporlama, Kısıtlamalar, IASB

Project Number

-

References

• AMERICAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION’S FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS COMMITTEE, Benston, G.J. (primary author); D. R. Carmichael; J. S. Demski; B. G. Dharan; K. Jamal; R. Laux; S. Rajgopal; G. Vrana. (2007). “The FASB’s Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: A Critical Analysis”, Accounting Horizons, 21(2), 229-238.
• ARMSTRONG, C. S., GUAY, W.R. & WEBER, J.P. (2010). “The Role of Information and Financial Reporting in Corporate Governance and Debt Contracting”, Journal of Accounting and Economics,Vol. 50, Nos. 2-3, 179-234.
• BALL, R., ROBIN, A. & SADKA, G. (2008). “Is financial reporting shaped by equity markets or by debt markets? An international study of timeliness and conservatism”, Rev Acc Stud., 13, 168-205.
• BARTH, Mary E. (2008). “Global Financial Reporting: Implications for U.S. Academics”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 83, No. 5, 1159-1179.
• BARTH, M. E. (2013). “Global Comparability in Financial Reporting: What, Why, How, and When?”, China Journal of Accounting Studies, 1, 2-12.
• BAUER, A.M., O'BRIEN, P.C. & SAEED, U. (2014). “Reliability Makes Accounting Relevant: A Comment on the IASB Conceptual Framework Project”, Accounting in Europe, 11, 211-217. BASU, S. (2005). Discussion of ‘‘Conditional and Unconditional Conservatism: Concepts and Modeling’’, Review of Accounting Studies, 10, 311-321.
• BEAVER, W.H. & RYAN, S.G. (2005). “Conditional and Unconditional Conservatism: Concepts and Modeling”, Review of Accounting Studies, 10, 269-309.
• BROWN Jr.W.D., HE, H. & TEITEL, K. (2006). “Conditional Conservatism and the Value Relevance of Accounting Earnings: An International Study”, European Accounting Review, 15, 605-626.
• BROUWER, A., FARAMARZI, A. & HOOGENDOORN, M. (2014). “Does the New Conceptual Framework Provide Adequate Concepts for Reporting Relevant Information about Performance?”, Accounting in Europe, 11,235-257.
• BRYER, R.A. (1999). “A Marxist Critique of the FASB’S Conceptual Framework”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, 551-589.
• CHRISTENSEN, J. (2010). “Conceptual frameworks of accounting from an information perspective”, Accounting and Business Research, 40, 287-299.
• CHO, M., KIM, O. & LIM, S.C. (2010). “Two conflicting definitions of relevance in the FASB Conceptual Framework”, J. Account. Public Policy 29, 604-611.
• DIEWERT, W.E. (2005). “The Measurement of Business Capital, Income and Performance”, www.econ.ubc.ca/diewert/barc3.pdf, (31.10.2014).
• ERB, C. & PELGER, C. (2015). ‘‘Twisting words’’? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting, Accounting, Organizations and Society 40, 13-40.
• FASB (2010). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 8. September 2010, NORWALK, CONNECTICUT.
• FASB/IASB (2008). “Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics and Constraints of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information. Exposure Draft”, Issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and by the International Accounting Standards Board.
• FRIDSON, M. & ALVAREZ, F. (2002). Financial Statement Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide. Third Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• GARC´IA Lara, J.M., OSMA, B.G. & PENALVA, F. (2009). “The Economic Determinants of Conditional Conservatism”, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(3) & (4), 336-372.
• GARC´IA Lara, J. M., OSMA, B.G. & PENALVA, F. (2011). “Conditional conservatism and cost of capital”, Rev Account Stud, 16, 247-271.
• GARC´IA Lara, J.M., OSMA, B.G. & PENALVA, F. (2009a). “Accounting conservatism and corporate governance”, Rev Account Stud, 14, 161-201.
• GARC´IA Lara, J.M. & MORA, A. (2004). “Balance sheet versus earnings conservatism in Europe”, European Accounting Review, 13(2), 261-292.
• GARC´IA Lara, J.M., OSMA, B.G. & PENALVA, F. (2014). “Information Consequences of Accounting Conservatism”, European Accounting Review, 23,173-198.
• GEBHARDT, G. & DEAN, G. (2008). “Commentary on Siena Open Forum: Conceptual Framework”, ABACUS, Vol. 44, No. 2, 217-224.
• GEBHARDT, G., MORA, A. & WAGENHOFER, A. (2014). “Revisiting the Fundamental Concepts of IFRS”, ABACUS, Vol. 50, No. 1, 107-116.
• GERBER, M.C., GERBER, A.J. & VAN DER Merwe, A. (2014). “An Analysis of Fundamental Concepts in the Conceptual Framework Using Ontology Technologies”, SAJEMS, NS 17, No 4, 396-411.
• GIGLER, F., KANODIA, C., SAPRA, H. & VENUGOPALAN, R. (2009). “Accounting Conservatism and the Efficiency of Debt Contracts”, Journal of Accounting Research, 47(3): 767-797.
• GORDON, E.A., BISCHOF, J., DASKE, H., MUNTER, P., SAKA, C., SMITH, K.J. & VENTER, E.R. (2015). “The IASB’s Discussion Paper on the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: A Commentary and Research Review”, Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 26, 72-110.
• HEINICKE, A. (2018). “Performance measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms: a systematic literature review”, Journal Management Control 29, 1-46.
• HENRY, E. & HOLZMANN, O.J. (2011). “Conceptual Framework Revisions: Say Goodbye to “Reliability” and “Stewardship”, The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, March/April 2011, 91-94.
• IASB. (2003). IAS 8-Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, (London: IASB).
• IASB. (2008). Preliminary Views on Financial Statement Presentation, IASB, London.
• IASB. (2009). IASB/FASB Meeting July 2009 Financial Statement Presentation Commentary Letter Summary, IASB, London.
• IASB. (2010). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting 2010, London: IASB, 2010.
• IASB. (2013a). Discussion Paper DP 2013/1: A Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. (July 2013), London, UK: IASB, IFRS Foundation.
• IASB. (2013b). Snapshot: Review of the Conceptual Framework, London, UK: IASB, IFRS Foundation.
• IATRIDIS, G.E. (2011). “Accounting disclosures, accounting quality and conditional and unconditional conservatism”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 20, 88-102.
• KIESO, Donald E., WEYGANDT, J.J. & WARFIELD, Terry D. (2013). Intermediate Accounting. Fifteenth Edition, Volume: 1, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• LENNARD, A. (2007). “Stewardship and the Objectives of Financial Statements: A Comment on IASB's Preliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information”, Accounting in Europe, 4,51-66.
• MACVE, LSE, R. (2010). “Conceptual frameworks of accounting: Some brief reflections on theory and practice”, Accounting and Business Research, 40(3), 303-308.
• MACVE, R. (2014). “What should be the nature and role of a revised Conceptual Framework for International Accounting Standards?”, China Journal of Accounting Studies, 2, 77-95.
• MCGREGOR, W. & STREET, D.L. (2007). “IASB and FASB Face Challenges in Pursuit of Joint Conceptual Framework”, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 18 (1), 39-51.
• MILLER, P.W. & BAHNSON, P.R. (2007). “The Top 10 Reasons to Fix: The FASB’s Conceptual Framework”, Strategic Finance, July 2007, 43-49.
• PEASNELL, K., DEAN, G. & GEBHARDT, G. (2009). “Reflections on the Revision of the IASB Framework by EAA Academics”, ABACUS, 45(4), 518-527.
• PENMAN, S.H. (2007). “Financial reporting quality: is fair value a plus or a minus?”, Accounting and Business Research, 37,33-44.
• ROBSON, K. (1999). “Social Analyses of Accounting Institutions: Economic Value, Accounting Representation and the Conceptual Framework”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, 615-629.
• RYAN, S. G. (2006). “Identifying Conditional Conservatism”, European Accounting Review, 15(4), 511-525.
• SUTTON, D.B., CORDERY, C.J. & VAN Zijl, T. (2015). “The Purpose of Financial Reporting: The Case for Coherence in the Conceptual Framework and Standards”, Abacus, doi: 10.1111/abac.12042.
• TIFFIN, R. (2005). The complete guide to International Financial Reporting Standards: Including IAS and Interpretation, Rollinsford: Books Network International Inc. TRANFIELD, D., DENVER, D., and SMART, P. (2003). “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.
• WAGENHOFER, A. (2009). “Global accounting standards: reality and ambitions”, Accounting Research Journal, 22, 68-80.
• WHITTINGTON, G. (2008). “Harmonisation or discord? The critical role of the IASB conceptual framework review”, Journal of Accounting Public Policy, 27, 495-502.
• WUSTEMANN, J. & WUSTEMANN, S. (2010). “Why Consistency of Accounting Standards Matters: A Contribution to the Rules-Versus-Principles Debate in Financial Reporting”, ABACUS, 46, 1-27.
• www.iasplus.com/en/projects/major/cf-iasb, (last access, 29 October 2014).
• YOUNG, J.J. (1996). “Institutional Thinking: The Case of Financial Instruments. Accounting”, Organizations and Society, 21(5), 487-512.
• ZEFF, S.A. (1999). “The Evolution of the Conceptual Framework for Business Enterprises in the United States”, Accounting Historians Journal, 26(2), 89-131.
• ZEFF, S. A. (2007). “Some obstacles to global financial reporting comparability and convergence at a high level of quality”, The British Accounting Review, 39, 290-302.
• ZHANG, Y. & Andrew, J. (2014). “Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 17-26.