evaluate international developments in accounting standards and banking regulations

convergance

In 2001, the IASB was given a mandate to develop IFRSs as the basis for companies participating in globalised trading. Each country’s government and/or accounting body would then be tasked with incorporating or harmonising IFRSs into their own reporting standards. The aim is for one set of standards to apply worldwide or, at least, for multiple sets of standards to be consistent in all material respects.

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) are adopted for mandatory or voluntary use by many countries around the world, including Australia. IFRSs are not yet fully converged with all nations’ accounting standards, particularly those issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in the United States.

• International Accounting Standards Board (IASB): Develops international financial reporting standards standards (IFRSs) for global companies.
• National standard setters encouraged to model national standards on IFRSs.
• Many countries have adopted IFRSs for their listed companies.

Australia

Current projects

• Conceptual Framework project – a revised Conceptual Framework is scheduled for release during 2016
• This project could subsequently also lead to revisions to a number of specific standards
• Principles of Disclosure project – designed to help entities better determine the basic structure and content of their financial statements as a whole
• Leases – a new leases standard is required to ensure that financial statements provide sufficient information about the assets and liabilities that may arise from operating leases


Public Sector Accounting

International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB)
• Independent standard-setting body supported by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
• Issues International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs).
• IPSASs are based on accruals concept.
• So far, IPSASs have been based on IFRSs to the extent that they are relevant to the public sector.

• Australia produces accounting standards on a sector-neutral basis: where appropriate requirements of IPSASs are included in accounting standards.

converganve

IPSASB: Conceptual Framework
• IPSASB has recently drafted a Conceptual Framework of it own (parallel to the IASB’s Conceptual Framework for private sector companies)
• This Framework should underpin the development of IPSASs and Recommended Practice Guidelines (RPGs) in coming years
• IPSASB believes the Framework will improve the consistency of its standard setting, as a result of having greater linkage between standards.

Full convergence will end the requirement for many large companies to report using two sets of standards, and should help investors to make more meaningful comparisons between US and non-US company financial statements.

The GFC played a part in driving changes in international regulations

• In Australia, the AASB aligns Australian accounting standards with IFRSs.
• Australian standards are sector-neutral, and apply to not-for-profit entities (as well as to for-profit entities).

Some countries have replaced their previous accounting standards for specific sectors with the equivalent IFRS— for example, for listed entities in the European Union.

the same transactions and events should, where possible, be subject to the same accounting requirements for entities preparing their financial statements. This has implications for entities regardless of their profit (or not-for-profit) motive, entities in the public and private sectors, and those entities that can apply the reduced disclosure requirements.

Development of IFRSs

The IASB is an independent, private sector body that develops and approves IFRSs. It operates under the oversight of the IFRS Foundation. Formed in 2001, the IASB superseded the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC).


Standards developed and approved by the IASB are identified as IFRSs.

The due process of developing an IFRS comprises six stages:apdesp


  1. setting the agenda;

  2. planning the project;

  3. developing and publishing the discussion paper, including public consultation;

  4. developing and publishing the exposure draft, including public consultation;

  5. developing and publishing the standard; and

  6. procedures after an IFRS is issued.

After an IFRS is published, subsequent procedures exist for any interpretational issues that may arise. When considered appropriate, the issue may be referred to the IFRS Interpretations Committee (previously known as the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee, or IFRIC).

In some cases, issues submitted to the IFRS Interpretations Committee for consideration are not added to its agenda, but they are


Study guide | 285



published as ‘IFRIC rejection notices’. The issue and the rejection notice are published along with a description of the issue and a detailed explanation of why further action is not required. Rejection notices do not have the authority of IFRSs.

To date, the IPSASs have been based on IFRSs to the extent that their requirements are relevant to the public sector. Therefore, the current IPSASs have drawn on the concepts and definitions contained in the IASB Conceptual Framework with modifications where required. This is set


to change as the IPSASB has recently drafted a conceptual framework of its own. According to the IPSASB, the purpose of the framework is to provide the IPSASB with the concepts that will underpin the development of IPSASs and Recommended Practice Guidelines (RPGs) in the coming years. In doing so, the IPSASB believes it will improve the consistency of its standard setting through greater linkage between standards (IFAC 2015b).

The development of a robust set of accounting standards applicable in the public sector, particularly for governments, has taken on more importance since the sovereign debt crisis (discussed later in this module):


The sovereign debt crisis has illustrated the dire consequences of insufficient transparency and accountability of governments and poor public finance management and reporting.


Governments are not risk-free and the failure of fiscal management in the public sector has an economic impact that will far exceed the impact of losses incurred by corporate failures. This jeopardizes both the interests of the public as well as investors.

The impact of this can be seen in the separate not-for-profit standards collated by the AASB and the inclusion of Australia-specific paragraphs in accounting standards applicable to not-for-profits.