Upload
arianna-stone
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AC4304Financial Reporting Theory
Week 11Accurate Matching is NOT Possible
Li Cheuk Fung, Henry 50190712
Lo Michael Chitung 50190512
Mak Chi Keung, Mike 50193890
Agenda
What is matching principle??Importance of matching principleDefinition of accurate matching3 basic principles of matching & Arguments Cause and Effect Allocation of Costs Immediate Recognition
Conclusion
Definition of Matching
Procedure: Determine revenue Match against expenses (effort to
generate that revenue)
Involves combined recognition of revenues and expenses that result directly or jointly from the same transaction or other events
Importance of Matching
Guide accountants to decide which costs should remain unexpired or expensed to match against revenue generated for the periodTo calculate a ‘true’ profit to reflect actual performance of a company
Accurate Matching
Expenses can be matched exactly with the revenue generated and/or,
Future economic benefits (FEB) of each transaction can be matched with particular expenses incurred for that transaction
Accuracy of matching basis
1. On a basis of items of products (product by product)
2. By departments3. By projects of operations (project
by project)4. Classes of costs5. Time period (mostly used by
accountant)
Most accurate
Less accurate
Therefore…
3 Basic Principles of Matching
-Cause and Effect-Allocation of Costs-Immediate Recognition
Matching by Cause and effect
Meaning of Matching by Cause and Effect
Certain goods and services used up must have aided in the creation of the revenue for the period.
Expenses Revenue
Cause Effect
An example of Cause and Effect
Effect: Revenue
Financial year
Sales commission Revenue
Cause: Salesman’s effort
Matching commission & revenue in P&L
Year end
1st Argument against Cause and Effect
RATIONAL
FEASIBLE
1st Argument against Cause and Effect
Accurate matching should be: Direct cost association with relevant revenue in terms of units of output.
Costs incurred in outputs
Revenue (attributable to the costs) generated from those outputs
MATCHING
Profits
1st Argument against Cause and Effect
However, it is not possible! Not all costs are in a discernible manner. Revenue directly attributable to the
expense is not observable
Depreciation of assets incurred in units of outputs
Revenue from outputs (attributable to the depreciation)
MATCHING
Profits
1st Arguments against Cause and Effect
In general practice: match costs and revenue to the
related period of time.
Costs incurred in a period
Revenue generate in the period
MATCHING
Profits
1st Argument against Cause and EffectThe assumption is:
Costs assigned to a given time period as expenses must therefore have helped to generate the revenue for that period.
Cost incurred in 2001
MUST GENERATE
Revenue in 2001
1st Argument against Cause and Effect
Therefore: Matching can only be based on an
assumption. No directly cause and effect
relationship can be created
2nd Argument against the Cause and Effect Method
There is no evidence to prove: certain percentage of expenses
generate the same percentage of revenue.
Matching by cause and effect also implies: Certain amount of revenue can be
attributable to a certain amount of expenses.
2nd Argument against the Cause and Effect Method
E.g. we cannot prove the proportion of total expenses of a project did really generate that proportion revenue of the project.
Total Revenue
$ 100,000
Total Expense
$ 60,000
$ 25,000 Salaries & Wages
$ 15,000MATCHING
2nd Argument against the Cause and Effect Method
As a result, no accurate amount of revenue can be matched precisely with the relevant expenses.
Allocation of Costs
Matching by Allocation of Costs??
Matching process begins by associating expenses to segments of time. When this is accomplished, the amount of expenses is assumed to correlate with the revenues for that period.Therefore match incurred expense with the economic benefit received by the company in that period.
Method used currently
Straight Line, Reducing balanceFIFO, LIFO, Weighted Average
Does allocation of cost accurately match expense with future economic benefit generated?
Which one is more accurate?
Matching costs with revenue basing on: Individual transaction, or Time Period
Matching cost with individual transaction is more accurate, BUT practically
it is easier to match costwith time period!
Does currently used allocation method too simplified for the purpose of accurate matching?
E.g. Allocation of depreciation
Assumptions need to made Time period Rate of depreciation Depreciation method
Why assumptions become unrealistic Subjective to government regulation Costly to do accurate measurement Unable to receive timely information Lack of information
Does accounting justified to use allocation approach?
When accounting is justified to use allocation approach?
3 criteria need to satisfied Additivity
When the allocating amount is added together, the total is the same as before the allocation.
Unambiguity A clear-cut choice of the method should
be made Defensibility
The selected allocation method should be conclusive and can be defend against other possible alternative method
When accounting is justified to use allocation approach?
According to Arthur L. Thomas
Additivity
To use allocation approach
Unambiguity Defensibility
The reasons are
Available of variety of methods
Each of methods can defend with each other
No conclusive method to choose which allocation methods preference than others
If it is unjustified to allocate cost?
It is also unjustified to say accuratematching can be get by cost allocation
So…
Allocation methods commonly used are too simplifiedIt is unjustified to allocate cost sometimes, andIt is inaccurate to match expense with revenue by allocation of cost
Immediate Recognition
If expenses are not covered by first 2 methods, it will be usedE.g. Advertising expense
It may have long-lasting benefits, but it is difficult to determine them
It is difficult to measure exact F.E.B. Customers saw an ad. 2 years ago
and buy goods now (ad. Cost recognized 2 years ago)
Argument
In HKSSAP, advertising expense cannot be capitalized (∵ FEB is uncertain)Conservatism vs. MatchingIf conservatism wins, violate matchingSo, company cannot match expenses with revenue
ConclusionCause and Effect Ideal way to match expenses with
revenue Rational but not feasible
Allocation of Costs A cost effective way to monitor
company’s performance Inaccurate matching because
estimation and subjectivity involved
Immediate Recognition Conservatism vs. Matching