PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [European Accounting Association]On: 27 January 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 762317449]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Accounting ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713696487
The adoption of International Accounting Standards in the European UnionGeoffrey Whittington aa International Accounting Standards Board, London, UK
Online Publication Date: 01 January 2005
To cite this Article Whittington, Geoffrey(2005)'The adoption of International Accounting Standards in the European Union',EuropeanAccounting Review,14:1,127 153To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0963818042000338022URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000338022
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Adoption of InternationalAccounting Standards in theEuropean Union
GEOFFREY WHITTINGTON1
International Accounting Standards Board, London, UK
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the IASBs process of developing accounting standardsfor adoption by listed companies within the European Union. Issues addressed include thestructure of the IASB, its role as a global standard setter and its programme. Particularattention is given to two topics that are both controversial and important, accounting forfinancial instruments and reporting financial performance.
1. History and Background
In 2000, as part of its Financial Services Action Plan, the European Commission
announced its intention to require International Accounting Standards for use in
the group accounts of all companies listed on stock exchanges within the
European Union (EU) from January 2005. This proposal was formally approved
in July 2003. Member states were given discretion to apply this requirement to
a wider group of companies and their accounts. This Regulation not only
applies to full members of the EU but also to members of the European Economic
Area (such as Norway). This gave further impetus to the adoption of International
Accounting Standards within Europe. These standards had already been adopted
by many large internationally listed companies in countries such as Germany2
and Switzerland, which permitted international standards as an alternative to
local standards, and several of the transition economies of Eastern Europe,
which did not have established local standards, were either adopting or permitting
the use of international standards. Notably, Russia intends to require the use of
international accounting standards by its listed companies from 1 January 2004.
European Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 127153, 2005
Correspondence Address: Geoffrey Whittington, International Accounting Standards Board, 1st
Floor, 3D Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
0963-8180 Print=1468-4497 Online=05=01012727# 2005 European Accounting AssociationDOI: 10.1080/0963818042000338022Published by Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Group Ltd on behalf of the EAA.
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
The adoption of International Accounting Standards by the EU was,
however, only one further step in a long process of developing international
standards. Earlier in 2000, IOSCO, the international organisation of securities
regulators, had recommended that its members allow multinational issuers to
use International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) standards in cross-
border offerings and listings. This was the culmination of many years of work
by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), from its foun-
dation in 1973, and particularly in the period of its programme to achieve a com-
plete set of core standards (1995 onwards) which was specifically directed
towards achieving the IOSCO approval. As a result of this approval, International
Accounting Standards are now fully accepted for overseas registrants by most of
the worlds stock exchanges, the notable exception being those of the USA where
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allows overseas registrants to
present accounts prepared on international standards but requires that the
results be reconciled to those that would be reported under US generally accepted
accounting principles (US GAAP).
In addition to the use of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by
listed companies, many countries adopt international standards for unlisted com-
panies or model their domestic standards on international standards. This practice
is becoming more widespread. For example, the Australian government has
decided to adopt international standards for the statutory accounts of all domestic
companies from 2005 onwards, and New Zealand has indicated that it will
follow, in 2007. A recent survey (Street, 2003) of 59 countries shows that 56
have either adopted, intend to converge with, or intend to adopt IFRS.3 A
wider survey, by Deloitte and Touche (2003) suggests that more than 90 countries
will either require or permit IFRS for listed companies by 2005.4
2. The Demand for International Accounting Standards
A notable feature of the development of IFRS is that they are the product of one
independent, private-sector body, and have arisen in response to demand, from
capital markets not as a result of specific political initiatives by governments.
It has only been in the more recent stages that governments have offered
active support (e.g. in the EU and Australia) and even then, this has arguably
been because international standards had already become important in practice,
so that governments were forced to take a position in relation to them. In the
early stages of the development of international standards, the IASC was
formed by a group of professional accountants and sponsored mainly by their
professional bodies.
The motivation for the creation of the IASC was the need for a common inter-
national language of accounting to serve capital markets which had become
increasingly international, a trend which has continued since. A common set of
accounting standards increases the comparability of companies based in different
countries but traded in the same market. An additional benefit for trans-national
128 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
companies and their auditors is that the preparation of group accounts, consoli-
dating the accounts of companies based in different countries is made easier
and more informative. Finally, there was a benefit to those countries that did
not have an established set of national accounting standards. The adoption of
international standards in such countries provided a ready-made set of standards
which would meet the needs of domestic companies (or at least the larger ones)
and have credibility in international capital markets.
The evidence of this demand is the growth and success of the IASC between
1973 and 2000, after which it was replaced by the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB). This provides an interesting example for those who
argue that accounting standards should be left to competition in the marketplace
(e.g. Watts and Zimmerman, 1986). The IASC, as a response to demand, was a
product of the marketplace, and, because of this, the IASC had no powers of its
own to enforce adoption of its standards. It therefore had to rely on persuading
individual companies (in those jurisdictions that allow choice) or national regu-
lators that it provided a superior solution to the alternatives that were available
(such as national GAAP).
The adoption of international standards by the EU is a good example of the
nature of the demand. There was no existing single set of accounting standards
within the EU: rather there was a variety of national standards of varying
degrees of completeness, sophistication and authority, reflecting different
national traditions and institutional arrangements. There are currently 15
countries in the EU, 3 in the Economic Area, and 10 more countries scheduled
to join in 2004, a total of 28 countries, so that, without common accounting stan-
dards, there could be 28 different national methods of accounting, in addition to
the use of IFRS and of US GAAP which is permitted by some EU countries. In
order to achieve a single market within the European Community and Economic
Area, there was an obvious need for a shared set of accounting standards to
provide comparable information to the capital market. One possibility would
have been to adopt an established set of national standards, the most likely
candidate being US GAAP. However, this would have tied accounting in the
EU to standards designed to meet the needs of a particular economy: in the
case of US GAAP an economy that was not even a member of the EU. In
these circumstances, the European Commission was faced with a choice either
of creating its own accounting standards, through a new European Accounting
Standards Committee, or of adopting international standards. The latter offered
two obvious advantages. First, a complete set of international standards was
already available, whereas a new set of European standards would have taken sig-
nificant time and effort to develop. Second, international standards had estab-
lished international credibility, confirmed by the IOSCO endorsement, and
would thus provide EU adopters immediate access to international capital
markets. Of course, bodies such as the European Commission are reluctant to
delegate authority completely to independent organisations over which they
have no direct control, so the Commissions acceptance of international standards
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 129
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
was subject to an approval process, on a standard-by-standard basis, and this
process is currently being tested by the adoption of the first set of standards,
including the controversial standards on financial instruments, IAS 32 and
IAS 39.
3. The New IASB Structure
The IOSCO endorsement of the IASCs standards, in 2000, not only marked the
culmination of nearly three decades of work by the IASC but it also indicated a
significant change in future expectations of international standards. The Board of
the IASC therefore decided to re-constitute it as a smaller committee (the IASB)
with mostly full-time members and with a much larger technical staff.
The new framework is described by Figure 1. The model is based, in some
important respects, on that of the USAs Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB). A governing body, the Board of Trustees, raises the funds from
a wide variety of sources (including corporates, audit firms and market regula-
tors) and appoints the members of the standard-setting body (IASB), the Advi-
sory Council (SAC) and the Interpretations Committee (IFRIC). It also
monitors the IASBs compliance with its constitution. The IASB sets the stan-
dards independently, but within the broad objectives laid down in its constitution,
and according to a due process of exposure and consultation.
The 14 members are (with two exceptions) full-time and are selected for their
skills and knowledge, not as representatives of any group or constituency. Board
members (other than the two part-time members) are required to resign from their
previous employment, with no commitment to re-employment when their term
on the Board has ended, thus ensuring their independence from their former
employers. The Trustees, in making appointments, are required by the
Figure 1. The new IASB structure. Note: The thick lines represent the Trustees power ofappointment. The thinner lines represent flows of advice, feedback and information.
130 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
constitution to ensure that the membership of the Board has a broad geographical
spread and maintains a balance between former auditors, preparers and users of
accounts. Decisions of the Board are made by a simple majority of eight of the 14
members, in order to avoid the possibility of a blocking minority being able to
force untidy compromises. The composition of the Board is designed to
achieve independent, rational decisions based on an evaluation of the issues,
arguments and facts which emerge from the due process of consultation and
exposure and guided by the Boards conceptual framework.
The IASB is assisted by regular (at present, every four months) meetings with
its Advisory Council (the SAC, whose members also are appointed by the Trus-
tees), which has approximately 50 members from a wide range of nationalities
and backgrounds. The IASB must consult the SAC before adding an item to its
agenda, and the SAC also offers comment on the ongoing work of the IASB.
The IASB also holds regular meetings with the liaison group of national stan-
dards setters, to discuss its programme and, particularly, current and prospective
joint projects. An annual meeting has also been instituted with all national stan-
dard setters, in order to widen the IASBs worldwide contacts and avoid the
possibility that the other standard setters would be discouraged from participating
in the IASBs due process by the apparently privileged position of the liaison
group. The IASB has also instituted a series of regional and national meetings
and visits by Board members and staff, in order to develop contacts with the
wider international community.
The liaison group of national standard setters is listed in Table 1. These are
all from countries that have had a long-standing involvement in the work of
IASC and have well-established standard-setting bodies. Five of these countries
(Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA) were members of the
former G4 1 group of standard setters (disbanded in January 2001), whichformed a technically active sub-set of the membership of the former IASC
(and included the IASC itself). The G4 1 issued a number of important jointposition papers on emerging problems in financial reporting. The liaison relation-
ship is a means of maintaining the active participation of this group in the IASBs
work. The other three special liaison relationships (France, Germany and Japan)
are with standard setters in major economies that are committed to the
international convergence of accounting standards. A liaison member of the
IASB is assigned to maintaining communication and coordination between
Table 1. Composition of the IASB
IASB membersChairman 11 full time and 2 part timeLiaison withFrance USA JapanGermany Canada Australia and New ZealandUK
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 131
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
the IASB and the respective liaison standard setter. It is intended that the liaison
standard setters will work jointly with the IASB on specific projects, and several
such projects have been established.
In addition to the process of setting standards, the IASB issues interpretations,
developed by the International Financial Accounting Interpretation Committee
(IFRIC). IFRIC members are appointed by the Trustees and its interpretations
are approved by the IASB. These interpretations are intended to fill important
gaps in current accounting standards, not to provide detailed application guidance
which could be obtained by thorough consideration of the existing standards and
the conceptual framework.
This system is intended to enable the IASB to produce a set of high quality
accounting standards (to be known in the future as International Financial
Reporting Standards, IFRSs) suitable for use by international capital markets,
and serving as a model for convergence between different systems of national
standards. In order to achieve this, the IASB will need to persuade those with
regulatory and enforcement powers to approve the use of international standards:
the IASB has no direct powers of its own. The IOSCO endorsement was an
important step in this respect, but IOSCO merely recommends international stan-
dards to its members; it does not require that they be adopted. The US SEC is a
leading member of IOSCO and its requirement that the use of international stan-
dards on US markets should be accompanied by a reconciliation to US GAAP is a
major obstacle to the progress of the IASB. For this reason, the current conver-
gence programme with the FASB, which is intended to reduce the number of
items requiring reconciliation, is extremely important. However, the USA is
not the only geographical area in which the IASB may face obstacles. All
countries, or regulators, in adopting international accounting standards, are
likely to retain some veto or option to avoid applying aspects of IFRSs that
they find to be inappropriate. If such powers are exercised widely, they could jeo-
pardise the possibility of achieving true international comparability. A test case
in this respect may be the European Commissions forthcoming decisions on the
approval of IAS 32 and 39 on financial instruments. At present, the Commission
has approved all of the other standards inherited by the IASB from its predecessor
body, but these two have encountered strong opposition in Europe, particularly
from the banks, and their approval has been deferred, pending the issue of the
final amendments to IAS 32 and 39 in March 2004.5
4. Objectives of the IASBs Programme
The IASB has three broad objectives underlying its work: improvement, conver-
gence and leadership. All three objectives are involved in every aspect of the pro-
gramme, but the balance varies. By improvement the IASB means specifically
the improvement of existing standards, which are those which it inherited from
the IASC and formally adopted at its first meeting in April 2001. The IASB
also inherited an obligation to IOSCO to consider a detailed list of possible
132 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
improvements that IOSCO had identified as part of its endorsement review. This
list was circulated to national standard setters, for comment and additional sug-
gestions, and the IASB considered these proposals and exposed its provisional
conclusions for comment. It made final revisions to the relevant standards in
December 2003, to enable them to be used by EU companies that are adopting
IFRS in 2005, thus completing the first stage of the improvements programme.
However, improvement will continue to be an important element in the
IASBs future programme, not least in relation to IAS 39.
Convergence means reducing international differences in accounting stan-
dards by selecting the best practice currently available, or, if none is available,
by developing new standards in partnership with national standard setters. The
convergence process applies to all national regimes and is intended to lead to
the adoption of the best practice currently available. There is no assumption
that the best solution is that of a particular regime, such as IASB standards or
US GAAP. For example, the current proposal for a convergence project on
accounting for pension costs will consider adopting the UKs FRS 17 approach
of reporting actuarial gains and losses immediately, rather than smoothing
them through the corridor approach which is currently used by both the
IASB and FASB standards. Equally, IASB projects are often conducted jointly
with individual national standard setters or groups of national standard setters,
and are discussed at regular meetings with standard setters. This ensures that
different national approaches are given proper consideration. Nevertheless, the
USA is the worlds largest economy and, in the FASB, has the worlds most pro-
lific and well-resourced national standard setter. It is therefore not surprising that
a significant degree of convergence involves the USA and this is, of course,
particularly in the interests of those EU companies that are listed in the USA
and whose reconciliations to US GAAP, required by the SEC, will be made
simpler by convergence between IASB and FASB standards. To aid their conver-
gence process, the IASB and FASB have, as a result of the Norwalk Agreement
(October 2002), instituted a joint short-term convergence project, looking at
items that can be converged relatively easily, without re-issuing entire standards.
The SEC helped in the selection of such items by providing details of where the
major quantitative differences requiring reconciliation have occurred. The objec-
tive is, as always, to converge to the best solution, so that both FASB and IASB
will make changes in their existing standards as a result of this project. It is
intended to continue this process until the need for detailed reconciliation
between IFRS and US GAAP is removed. In the longer term, the two boards
will coordinate their agendas and exchange information in order to prevent
future divergence as new standards are developed and to promote future conver-
gence on issues of principle.
Leadership, in the IASB context, means developing new accounting stan-
dards to deal with problems not yet addressed adequately by the international
standard-setting community. The IASB should lead the world in partnership
with other standard setters, in developing new initiatives and solutions, for
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 133
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
problems where there is no national standard with which it is appropriate to con-
verge. An example of a current project in which there is a strong leadership
element is that on share-based payments, particularly with respect to employee
stock options. The FASB developed a pioneering standard on share-based
payment (SFAS 123) which could be regarded as leading the rest of the world,
but it was prevented by domestic political pressure from taking the decisive
step of requiring employee stock options to be expensed. The IASB intends to
take this step in its new standard on share-based payment (due for publication
in March 2004). The IASB, as an international standard setter, has the advantage
of being less susceptible to the level playing field argument, that stringent
national standards may disadvantage domestic companies relative to those over-
seas, which have less stringent regimes. However, because international stan-
dards are not followed in the largest economy in the world, the USA, this
advantage is not as strong as it will be if international standards are converged
with US standards. European companies listed in the USA are particularly
sensitive to this issue. This demonstrates the importance of the convergence
programme between the IASB and the FASB.
Apart from the share-based payments project, the IASB is dealing with explicit
leadership issues in its current projects on reporting financial performance
(intended to replace the current profit and loss account with a new comprehensive
income statement format) and on insurance (intended to provide a new,
more informative, method of accounting for insurance contracts, to replace the
wide range of current national practices which are largely based on regulatory
requirements). It is perhaps not surprising that both of these projects have
encountered strong opposition from preparers of accounts and have therefore
progressed more slowly than was originally planned. Leadership is also involved
in the current project (with FASB) on revenue recognition, and other aspects of
the conceptual framework that are also likely to enter the agenda, as well as a pro-
spective new project (with the UK ASB) on accounting for leases.
5. Targets for 2005
The IASB has set itself a target list of standards to be published by the end of
March 2004, to be available for implementation by EU companies from
1 January 2005. These are listed in Table 2. After these are implemented, it is
intended that there be a period of calm for one year (to 1 January 2006),
during which no additional standards will need to be applied, although new stan-
dards may be published and made available for early adoption, at the preparers
discretion.
The new standard on first-time adoption of accounting standards (IFRS 1),
which was published in June 2003, is designed particularly to assist companies
implementing international standards for the first time and is therefore particu-
larly relevant to (although not solely applicable to) those EU listed companies
that will be required to adopt IASB standards in 2005. The standard provides
134 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
some exemptions from requirements for retrospective application of international
standards in the opening balance sheet (which will be the first comparative
balance sheet dated 1 January 2004 or later). It also makes it clear that, where
retrospective application is required, this should be done on the basis of
current international standards, rather than those applicable at the time of the
original transaction.
The general improvements project, initiated by IOSCOs list of suggested
improvements, has led to revisions of 13 standards, issued in December 2003.
The changes are small, rather than structural, but there are important changes,
such as the elimination of the option to use LIFO as a method of recording
stocks. They reflect the suggestions of national standard setters, as well as
IOSCO. The other arm of the improvements project relates to the financial instru-
ments (IAS 32 and IAS 39). This is the most controversial, and in many respects
the most challenging, of the 2005 targets, and it is discussed in more detail in the
next section of this paper. In order to assist preparers in the implementation of a
complex new pair of standards, the revised IAS 32 and most of the revised IAS 39
were issued in December 2003, but the controversial new section of IAS 39
on macro hedging is being held back until March 2004 to enable the maximum
consultation with the banking industry.
The share-based payments standard will deal with all payments for goods and
services that are made in the form of the purchasers equity, whether in the form
of shares, options on shares, or cash payments indexed on shares. The general
principle is to expense the consumption of such items through the profit and
loss account. In the case of employees and provision of similar services, it is
assumed that the value of the services is impossible to measure direct, so that,
as a proxy, the value of the consideration granted (shares or options, less any
cash payment received for them) measured at grant date, should be used as a
proxy. In the case of goods and services the value of these should be measured
direct at the time of delivery, unless the presumption that direct measurement
is possible can be rebutted. The default measurement in this case is to value
the equity-based consideration at the time of delivery of the goods or services.
When, in the case of employee payments, there are non-market-based vesting
Table 2. IASB targets for 2005 implementation
Standards Latest publication date
First-time adoption Already published, June 2003Improvements general December 2003IAS 32/39 improvements March 2004Share-based payments March 2004Business combinations 1 March 2004Insurance 1 March 2004Accounting for discontinued
operations (short-term convergence FASB)March 2004
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 135
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
conditions for services and performance whose achievement is uncertain at grant
date, it is now proposed to deal with these conditions by truing up the expense to
the number of shares or options actually vesting. The original proposal was to
rely on a grant date expectation of the amounts that would vest, but truing up
was seen to be a more objective and practical method. It also has the advantage
of converging with the treatment in the current FASB standard. The FASB is
monitoring the IASBs project and it is hoped that the FASB also will soon
require the expensing of employee stock options. This would remove the objec-
tion that the IASB might otherwise face, particularly from EU companies listing
in the USA, that companies reporting on IFRS are required to expense employee
stock options whereas their US counterparts have the choice of not doing so, thus
recording higher earnings numbers.
The business combinations project will produce a standard that is, in many
aspects, convergent with the FASB standard (SFAS 141) issued in 2001. The
IASB proposal, like the FASB standard, abolishes the distinction between
mergers and acquisitions, treating all business combinations as acquisitions. It
therefore precludes the use of pooling of interests accounting. The choice, at
the margin, between the pooling of interest and acquisition methods had
created serious problems of comparability between entities that chose different
methods. In applying acquisition accounting, the standard requires that all the
assets and liabilities of the acquired entity should be recorded at fair value,
including goodwill and those intangible assets (such as in-process research and
development) and contingent assets and liabilities that can be measured reliably,
although they were not previously recognised in the accounts of the acquired
entity. Subsequent to the business combination, goodwill is no longer to be amor-
tised but is, instead, to be subject to an annual impairment test (previously, unless
the expected life of the goodwill exceeded 20 years, impairment testing was
carried out only when there was an indicator of impairment). The impairment
test to be applied is a single step test based on that in the existing international
standard, IAS 36, rather than the more complex two-stage test devised by the
FASB. Thus, the standard is not fully convergent with the US standard, although
both standards share the essential characteristics of abandoning pooling of inter-
est accounting and, within acquisition accounting, replacing amortisation of
goodwill by an impairment test.
The proposed insurance standard is the first phase of the much more ambitious
project to lead the improvement and convergence of insurance accounting glob-
ally. It was clear that this project could not be completed within the 2005 dead-
line, but first-time adopters of international standards, particularly those in the
EU, required guidance immediately. The phase 1 standard is intended to
provide it. It is permissive, in so far as insurance contracts can be accounted
for as they are at present, under a variety of national GAAPs and regulatory
regimes, with limited exceptions, such as the use of catastrophe provisions
(which the IASB sees as a profit smoothing device inconsistent with its concep-
tual framework). There are also constraints on the new accounting practices that
136 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
can be adopted (e.g. it is not permitted to change to a method that anticipates
future investment margins, thus front-end loading profit recognition). In order
to allow present practices to continue, the IASB has had to suspend its hierarchy
for choosing accounting policies (contained in IAS 1) in the case of insurance
contracts. Despite this considerable concession, the insurance industry has
been critical of the interim standard. The main reason is that it relates to insurance
contracts rather than insurance companies. Thus, the financial instruments stan-
dards (IAS 32 and IAS 39) apply to all of the financial investments of insurance
companies and to liabilities for items, such as investment contracts, that do not
contain a large enough insurance element to be classified as insurance contacts.
This creates a potential mismatch in valuation, particularly between liabilities for
insurance contacts, which will typically be measured at amortised cost under
existing industry practices, and the financial investment held to back those liabil-
ities which will, unless held to maturity, be measured at fair value under IAS 39.
This would lead to volatility in the net assets of insurance businesses, as fair
values of assets fluctuate with markets whereas the liabilities held are at
a stable, cost-based amount. Many in the industry regard this as artificial
(a result of accounting methods rather than economic realities) and undesirable
(volatility possibly eliciting an adverse response from the markets). At the
time of writing (December 2003) the IASB is still discussing whether there are
any steps that can and should be taken to alleviate this difficulty, without requir-
ing material, and possibly temporary, systems changes for those entities that
are affected.
The short-term convergence project with the FASB has already been referred
to. The project is short term in the sense that it is concerned with changing the
detail rather than the structure of the standard, in order to reduce the need for
reconciliation. The first output of this project outcome is the new guidance on
asset disposals and discontinued operations, exposed in ED4, July 2003, which
will result in a new standard by March 2004, but the work will continue until sub-
stantial convergence is achieved and the reconciliation to US GAAP is minimised
(and preferably eliminated), an objective which is in the interests of EU compa-
nies that list in the USA.
6. Financial Instruments, IAS 32 and IAS 39
The IASB inherited two standards on financial instruments from its predecessor
body, the IASC. These were IAS 32, which dealt primarily with disclosure, and
IAS 39, which dealt with accounting methods. The IASC had started its project
on financial instruments, jointly with Canadian Institute of Chartered Accoun-
tants (CICA) in 1988. Two exposure drafts were issued (E40 in September
1991 and E48 in January 1994). In view of the critical responses to E48, the
IASC decided to divide the project into phases, starting with disclosure and pres-
entation, which were dealt with in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and
Presentation (March 1995). The more controversial issues of recognition,
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 137
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
measurement and hedge accounting were deferred to the second phase. In March
1997, the IASC jointly with CICA published a Discussion Paper, Accounting for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which attempted to deal comprehen-
sively with accounting for financial instruments and suggested that fair value was
the most relevant basis for their measurement. This aroused considerable contro-
versy and opposition, and it became clear that it would not be possible to issue a
standard based on comprehensive fair value of financial instruments in time to be
included, before the end of 1998, in the core standards to be considered by
IOSCO. The need to complete the core standards for IOSCO, together with the
urgency of improving accounting for financial instruments, persuaded the
IASC to develop what is described as an interim standard, IAS 39, based on
a mixed-attribute measurement model (combining elements of fair value, histori-
cal cost and hedge accounting). This was preceded by an exposure draft (E62)
issued in June 1998 and IAS 39 was approved in December 1998 (with
subsequent revisions in October 2000).
At the time when IAS 39 was issued, the USAs FASB was the only national
standard setter to have addressed accounting for financial instruments in a com-
prehensive manner and this also used a mixed attribute model, so naturally, the
IASCs standards reflected the FASBs work (particularly SFAS 133 on deriva-
tives and hedge accounting). Subsequently, the IASB sought to improve IAS 32
and IAS 39, to simplify application and remove inconsistencies but, because of
the 2005 target, not to revisit the fundamental concepts of the standards. This
gave the opportunity for critics, particularly the banks, to attack not only the pro-
posed improvements but also the original standards. The issue is of particular
interest in the EU because the controversy has raised the possibility that the
EU may not endorse an important IASB standard. We discuss below, first, the
technical issue, and, second, the political dimension.
6.1. The Technical Issue
IAS 32 and 39 raise a number of difficult technical issues, several of which were
revisited in the IASBs exposure draft (June 2002) suggesting improvements. For
example, the classifications in IAS 32 raise the difficult problem of distinguishing
debt from equity (an issue that requires deeper analysis in IASBs future
improvements of the conceptual framework) and IAS 39 deals with the criteria
for derecognition of financial instruments. However, the centre of the recent con-
troversy has been an issue not revisited in the original improvements proposals,
hedge accounting, and, in particular, macro hedging.
The need for hedge accounting arises mainly because IAS 39 is a mixed-
measurement standard. Traditionally, historical cost has been the basis of
accounting, and this has applied to financial instruments. In recent years, there
has been an enormous growth in the volume of financial derivatives and the
markets in which they are traded. A report by the Bank for International Settle-
ments (2003) records that, in June 2003, the market value of over-the-counter
138 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
derivatives was $7.9 trillion. These instruments often have very low or even (in
the case, for example, of some swaps) zero historical cost, yet their current values
are highly sensitive to the underlying variable (such as interest rates or exchange
rates) and may be very high. Thus, it is important to measure derivatives at
current value, which, in the IASBs standard, IAS 39, takes the form of fair
value. Current values alone do not capture the full economic implications of
derivatives, because of the volatility of their values, and the IASB plans, as a
post 2005 project, to revise IAS 32 on financial instrument disclosures, to
include more disclosures relating to financial risk. This project has been devel-
oped jointly with the Basel Committee Group of banking supervisors.
At the other extreme from derivatives are financial assets that are held to
maturity, and financial liabilities not held for trading. Preparers of accounts
argue that the revaluation of such items before maturity does not yield useful
information (because any changes in value will not be realised) and that revalua-
tion is often unreliable and costly. IAS 39 accepts these arguments by allowing
such items to be accounted for at amortised cost. Loans and receivables held
by the preparer entity can also be carried at cost. Financial instruments held
for trading, on the other hand, are valued at fair value, and changes in value
are reported in the profit and loss account. Financial assets may also be desig-
nated as available for sale, in which case they are valued at fair value, but
changes in fair value are accounted for in equity until they are realised, at
which point they are recycled to the profit and loss account.
The subsequent amendments to IAS 39 (December 2003) introduced the fair
value option whereby any financial asset or liability may be measured at fair
value with changes in fair value passing through the profit and loss account, pro-
vided that it is designated as such on initial recognition. The object of this con-
cession was to ease some of the difficulties raised by commentators on IAS 39.
For example, where there is a natural hedge between an asset and a liability,
the complications of hedge accounting can be avoided by carrying both items
at fair value and passing the offsetting gains and losses through the profit and
loss account. Also, the problem of separating out and fair valuing an embedded
derivative could be avoided by carrying the whole instrument, including the
embedded derivative, at fair value. Equally, the balance sheet mismatch,
whereby volatility in equity is created because assets recorded at fair value
(because they do not satisfy the requirements of the held to maturity category)
are financed by liabilities recorded at cost (a particular problem in the case of
some insurance liabilities) might be avoided if the liabilities, like the matching
assets, could be recorded at fair value. However, despite its good intentions,
this concession has proved to be controversial, particularly in relation to carrying
an entitys own debt (including its own credit risk) at fair value. This issue has
raised particular concern amongst banking regulators. At the time of writing,
the possibility of amending the fair value option is still under discussion.
Thus, IAS 39 has a mixed measurement model because it is considered essen-
tial to value some financial instruments (notably derivatives) at fair value, but
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 139
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
other items may be carried at cost, in deference to the views of preparers of
accounts (including banks). Such a system contains the possibility of a measure-
ment mismatch between assets and associated liabilities, and to alleviate this, IAS
39 allows hedge accounting.
Two types of hedge accounting are permitted under IAS 39, fair value and cash
flow hedge accounting. Fair value hedge accounting reflects the case where a
financial instrument is used to hedge the effects of a particular risk factor on
the value of another item currently held, so that it is expected that the value of
the instrument will change inversely with that of the hedged item, in response
to the risk factor, the two value changes offsetting one another. In such a case,
IAS 39 allows the hedged item, which will usually be valued at cost (there
would be no need for hedge accounting, because the offset would be reported
directly, if the hedged item were measured at fair value), to be revalued to the
extent that the revaluation reflects the hedged risk. The changes in value of
both the hedged item and hedging instrument are reported in the profit and loss
account, where they offset one another. Cash flow hedge accounting, on the
other hand, relates to the hedging of future cash flows (such as floating rate inter-
est payments or forecast purchases of inventory) which, by definition, have not
yet occurred and (unlike the hedged item in a fair value hedge) are not yet
recorded in the accounts. Thus, the technique of cash flow hedge accounting is
different: rather than the value of the hedged item being adjusted, the changes
in the value of the hedging instrument are excluded from the profit and loss
account, being recorded direct in equity, before being recycled to the profit
and loss account when the hedged item (the cash flow) affects the income
statement.
Hedge accounting is an exceptional concession intended to deal with a specific
problem, and it can involve either deferring the income statement recognition of
losses (in the case of a cash flow hedge) or advancing the income statement rec-
ognition of gains (in the case of a fair value hedge). It is therefore allowed only
under specific conditions. These are that the hedging instrument, the hedged risk
factor and the hedged item be specifically designated as such at the inception of
the hedge, that the hedge is expected to be highly effective, that the effectiveness
can subsequently be tested, and that the hedge is highly effective. These con-
ditions are built upon the idea of a one to one hedge of specific items, and
this has created difficulties for the banking industry, which does its hedging on
a portfolio basis and would therefore prefer to be allowed to do what is known
as macro hedge accounting. This does not fit naturally into the IAS 39 designation
and effectiveness testing rules and the IASB has worked hard with the banks to
develop an approach which is consistent with these rules but meets at least some
of the needs of the banks.
Macro hedging, as done by the banks, consists of hedging the net position on a
portfolio of assets and liabilities. The example commonly quoted is an interest
rate swap which is designed to fix the interest margin on borrowings and lend-
ings. A bank will typically hold a portfolio of fixed-rate financial instruments as
140 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
assets and will also have fixed rate borrowings. It will collect these into separate
portfolios based on common expected maturity or repricing dates and hedge the
net amounts by entering into an interest rate swap to convert the fixed interest rate
on the next exposure into a variable rate. As described here, this is a cash flow
hedge, to protect against future interest rate fluctuations, but it can equally
well be described as a fair value hedge, designed to protect the fair value of
the net portfolio against the effects of changing interest rates. A critical feature
of this arrangement is that the net portfolio is hedged, rather than individual
items. This makes a great deal of sense from the banks perspective, because
there is a natural hedge between the values of assets and liabilities (or the interest
rates on them, if we take the cash flow perspective) so that it is the risk rep-
resented by the net amount that needs managing by hedging. However, this
does not fit easily with the IAS 39 approach to hedge accounting (or that of
US GAAP) by reference to specific items rather than net amounts.
The implementation guidance to IAS 39 did describe (in paragraph 121) a
means whereby financial institutions could achieve cash flow hedge accounting
for a portfolio, but some banks did not find this attractive, partly because cash
flow hedge accounting can lead to volatility in equity because gains and losses
on hedging instruments are held there prior to recycling. They therefore asked
the IASB to develop a form of fair value hedge accounting suitable for appli-
cation to portfolios of financial instruments such as are held by banks. The
outcome, developed by the IASB assisted by a working party of bank represen-
tatives, is the proposed macro hedge accounting amendment to IAS 39, which is
due to be finalised by March 2004.
The new macro hedge accounting proposals preserve the principle that specific
items must be identified as a hedge (as did the paragraph 121 method of portfolio
cash flow hedge accounting). Thus, items equivalent in amount to the net position
need to be designated as a hedge. The critical problem is to identify these items:
do we take the top slice, the bottom slice or a proportion of each of the assets in
the portfolio (where, as in common, the net position is an asset position) as being
the hedged item? The IASB, after considerable deliberation, decided to take a
proportion of each item as the hedged item, whereas majority opinion in the
banking industry appeared to prefer the top slice. The reason for this being
important is that, because of the uncertainty of payment date, the relevant
assets may not mature on the date expected. Thus, the total may exceed or fall
short of the expected amount. This affects the effectiveness testing of the
hedge. The proportionate approach allows for ineffectiveness when prepayments
cause the actual hedge to be either an over or an under hedging, whereas the top
slice approach allows for ineffectiveness only when prepayments cause under-
hedging. The majority view on the IASB is that the proportionate approach
gives a result that is consistent with that which would be obtained from the
micro approach, embedded in IAS 39, of relating hedge accounting to specific
items. The supporters of a top slice approach argue that, if the amount arising in
a portfolio on a specific maturity date actually exceeds the expected amount, this
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 141
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
should not give rise to hedge ineffectiveness, because there are sufficient (or more
than sufficient) net assets to offset against the hedging instrument. The central
point at issue is really that the micro principles embedded in IAS 39 do not
translate naturally into a macro hedge accounting system, and the IASB has
had to decide how far it can stretch those principles to accommodate macro
hedge accounting without abandoning them completely.
Another difficult issue that emerged in the context of macro hedge accounting
was that of demand deposits. Banks have substantial demand deposits (customer
accounts that are repayable on demand) that bear no (or a negligible) rate of inter-
est and can therefore be regarded as fixed interest (at a zero rate) liabilities. These
liabilities typically have a short life to redemption, although they often revolve,
the current deposit being replaced by another, as is also the case with trade recei-
vables and payables. The banks often establish a minimum aggregate level of
these items, described as core deposits, that they expect to remain outstanding
for several years and include them in the portfolio to be hedged. This is a sensible
commercial strategy and no problem arises for the IASBs macro hedging system
if the total portfolio sums to a net asset position: in this case the core deposits
merely reduce the amount by which the assets need to be hedged. The problem
arises when the portfolio is in a net liability position. In this case, the core depos-
its will be part of the liabilities that are hedged. Under the IASBs fair value
hedging principles, the item to be hedged must exist and be designated at the
inception of the hedge. If the item is a core deposit that does not exist at inception
(although the core deposit existing at inception is expected to be replaced at the
time that the hedge has effect, by another, similar, deposit), then it does not
qualify for fair value hedge accounting. It could qualify for cash flow hedge
accounting, because this applies to expected future cash flows rather than
present assets or obligations, but the banks prefer fair value hedge accounting.
Another problem in relation to the fair valuing of core deposits is that the IASB
has decided that the demand feature means that the fair value of such deposits is
their nominal amount. This amount does not vary as interest rates vary, so that it
does not seem to be a suitable object for fair value hedge accounting, which
attempts to match changes in the value of the hedging instrument to changes in
the fair value of the hedged item. This difficulty also could be avoided by the
use of cash flow hedge accounting (which focuses on variations in interest pay-
ments rather than on variations in fair values), but the banks do not find this to be
an attractive alternative.
6.2. The Political Dimension
The development of the IASBs macro hedging proposals is, in many ways, a
model of how the IASB should be responsive to the real problems of its constitu-
ents but, at the same time, should not compromise its fundamental principles,
which are essential to achieving consistency and comparability in accounts and
to balancing the interests of preparers and users of accounts.
142 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
IAS 39 was originally issued by the former IASC, which had gone through a
full due process of consultation before implementing it. Moreover, it was one of
the standards in the package approved by IOSCO and it was also effective by the
time that the EU ministers decided, at the Lisbon meeting of 2000, to adopt IASB
standards in 2005. The IASB recognised that IAS 39 needed improvement, par-
ticularly to aid implementation, but it did not anticipate some of the criticisms
that were levelled at it by some European banks, which included the allegation
that the IASB had not followed its due process.
The banking industry had been critical of the original IAS 39 in its submissions
to the IASC. Perhaps these criticisms would have been expressed more forcefully
had the IOSCO and EU endorsements been in existence at the time: it is possible
that many saw international standards as not being relevant to them. However,
several banks within the EU and in Switzerland (as well as Japan) have since
implemented IAS 39 or a standard closely resembling it (such as the FASBs
SFAS 133), without any obvious damage being caused, so the problems
created by IAS 39 should not be insurmountable.
When the banks responded to the Exposure Draft on improvements to IAS 39,
they raised issues (such as macro hedge accounting) that were not addressed in
the draft. The IASB was prepared to address these concerns, as part of its due
process. The banking industry in Europe mounted a campaign outside the
IASBs due process to persuade politicians and other leaders of opinion that it
was being harshly treated and its arguments not heard. This included complaints
to the EU Internal Markets Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, who was responsible
for overseeing the EU adoption of IASB standards. The IASB decided to deal
with both the technical objections to IAS 39 and the allegations of lack of due
process (which it did not accept, but felt must be publicly disproved) by
holding a series of round-table discussions with those who had submitted com-
ments on IAS 39. They were held in public in Brussels and in London and
lasted for a whole week in March 2003. They provided a very useful exchange
of information and, although time-consuming, were worthwhile for a complex
standard such as IAS 39 which had been developed by one board (the IASC)
and was being revised by another (the IASB).
As a result of the round-table discussions, a number of amendments were made
to IAS 32 and IAS 39 (such as the clarification of loan loss provisioning). The
most difficult problem to emerge was that of macro hedging and a working
party, containing IASB members and banking representatives, was set up to
find a technical solution. The result was that the IASB proposed the macro
hedge accounting system described earlier.
Some of the banks, particularly the French banks, were not happy with this
outcome and took political lobbying a stage further. President Chirac of France
wrote a much publicised letter to President Prodi of the EU expressing anxiety
that the IASB standards were not sensitive enough to European interests and
that, in particular, volatility resulting from application of the standards would
be damaging to the European economy. Possibly as a result of this view,
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 143
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
Ecofin, the committee of EU finance ministers, has resolved to re-examine the EU
framework for approving accounting standards, with a possible view to changing
the role of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), the
advisory body. In the meantime, in July 2003 the EU regulatory committee,
ARC, has endorsed all of the IASB standards other than IAS 32 and IAS 39,
on the ground that the latter are still being discussed, and this was formally con-
firmed, in September, by the European Commission.
Thus, accounting has become explicitly a political issue. It is, of course, a
matter for the EU to choose what standards it wishes to adopt, and, in particular,
whether these are independently developed standards designed to command
international respect and application, or whether they are designed to meet
the perceived interests of the EU economy or particular groups within it. The
IASBs role is to develop standards of the former type in order to meet the
needs of global capital markets, not specifically those of the EU, and it must
be seen to be impartial in its dealings and not susceptible to political pressures
from favoured clients. It must certainly work strenuously to follow its due
process and listen to its constituency, as it did in the round-table meetings, but
having listened it must make an independent decision in accordance with its
principles.
The benefit of international accounting standards, set in this manner, is that
their objectivity and transparency should give investors greater confidence in
accounting information, reducing the perceived risks of investment and lowering
the cost of capital. Cross-border investment, in particular, should be encouraged
by removing the barriers to communication that are created by having different
national languages of accounting. These benefits are obviously consistent with
the European Commissions ambition to create a single market within the EU.
They are also consistent with the ambition that the EU capital markets should
play an important future role in the global capital market.
7. Beyond 2005
As stated earlier, the IASB has determined that, following the completion of its
programme for January 2005 application, there will be a period of calm for one
year, during which no new standards will be required to be applied. However,
new standards will continue to be issued, and some may be available for early
application, at the preparers option. The IASBs own programme of developing
new standards seems likely to be as active and full as ever.
Table 3 lists the projects on which the IASB is currently engaged and which
should lead to new standards being issued in the period following March 2004,
with application not required before January 2006. These are divided into two
groups; first completion standards which complement and complete standards
that have been issued recently, and, second, new standards, which break new
ground either by replacing existing standards or creating additional ones.
144 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
The business combinations phase 2 standard is being jointly developed with
the FASB and will address some of the problems of applying acquisition account-
ing, such as accounting for step acquisitions. The second phase of the insurance
project has the ambitious intention of devising a new, internationally acceptable
method of insurance accounting. This is bound to be controversial. The financial
risk disclosure project, as has already been described, will lead to a revision and
extension of IAS 32, and the short-term convergence project with FASB will con-
tinue its work of removing the need for IFRS/US GAAP reconciliation.The second group, the new standards, contains some innovative and controver-
sial projects. The project on reporting financial performance has attracted particu-
lar interest and criticism in the EU countries and is therefore discussed in more
depth in the next section of this paper. The two improvements projects also
aim to achieve international convergence in areas where practice is at present
diverse and unsatisfactory. That on pension costs is likely to prove to be the
most controversial, especially within the EU, where defined benefit pension
plans are important. In the short term, it is hoped, in 2004, to make minimal
amendments to IAS 19 to allow companies that do not use the smoothing mech-
anism to report actuarial gains and losses in the Statement of Changes in Equity.
The current proposal for a longer term project includes consideration of conver-
gence with the UKs FRS 17 with respect to the reporting of actuarial gains and
losses in the income statement (gains and losses to be reported immediately in
the profit and loss account, thus eliminating the smoothing achieved by the cor-
ridor and amortisation method of the current IAS 19). A particularly sensitive
issue will be the method of presenting these gains and losses, possibly within
the new performance statement format which may be available in time for the
long-term revision of the pension standard. Other issues which may be con-
sidered include the measurement of the return on pension fund assets, the dis-
count rate applied to liabilities, and the identification of the cash flows on
which pensions liabilities are based.
Table 3. Current work for post-2005 application
Completion standardsBusiness combinations, stage 2Insurance, stage 2Financial risk disclosuresShort-term convergence (FASB)
New standardsReporting financial performanceConvergence/improvement:
Pension costs (IAS 19)Government grants (IAS 20)
Consolidations and SPEsRevenue recognition (IAS 18)Extractive industries
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 145
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
The new standard on consolidations and special purpose entities is intended to
strengthen the IASBs existing guidance on the application of the control prin-
ciple (SIC 12), to make it Enron proof. The next item on the new standards
list, revenue recognition, is an important project addressing a fundamental
issue and may lead to revision of the conceptual framework as well as the
current IAS 18. It is a joint project with the FASB. Finally, it is hoped in
2004, after March but available for retrospective application, to issue a brief stan-
dard on accounting for exploration costs in extractive industries. This will give
interim guidance, pending the results of a longer term project on the topic.
The IASB also has a number of significant projects that are in the research or
early development phase. These are listed in Table 4. Most are being developed
jointly with individual national standard setters who are doing the preliminary
research necessary to define the scope of a project suitable for formal adoption
on the Boards agenda. The least active of these, at present, is that on financial
instruments. The IASB has been preoccupied with the improvements to IAS 32
and IAS 39 but, for the longer term, it is regarded as important to observe the
operation of these standards and to consider whether it might be possible to intro-
duce a new, more satisfactory (from both the conceptual and practical points of
view) method of accounting for financial instruments.
There are also problems and issues not reflected in Table 4 that might be
adopted as projects. Notably, the revision of the conceptual framework, which
underlies all of the standards, is regarded as fundamentally important. Two
aspects of this (revenue recognition and measurement) appear in Tables 3 and
4, but others, such as the definition of equity, also require attention.
Thus, even after the 2005 deadline, the IASB has a full agenda, and the period
of calm is unlikely to see diminished activity by the Board.
8. The Reporting Financial Performance Project
The issue of performance reporting, and particularly the re-formatting of the
income statement, is an urgent one, especially because of the problem of present-
ing the changes in fair values which are becoming increasingly a feature of IFRS
and financial reporting practice generally. It is a very controversial issue amongst
preparers and users of accounts, there being little apparent consensus on the
precise changes that are needed, although there is widespread recognition that
Table 4. Projects in the research and early development stages
Accounting for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)MeasurementLease accountingAccounting for extractive industriesManagement discussion and analysisAccounting for financial instruments
146 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
some changes should be made. It is also an issue that is of particular interest to
academics, much research effort having been devoted to the role of income,
and specific components of income, in determining share prices.
The project on reporting financial performance was initiated by the IASB in
2001, as a joint project with the UKs ASB.6 As its title suggests, the project is
wider than the income statement, covering also the cash flow statement and
the re-structuring of the IASBs statement of changes in equity. However, the
income statement is at the heart of the project and has been the centre of the
debate so far, so the discussion here will concentrate on that.
The central purpose of the project, contained in its original brief, was to
propose a format for a comprehensive income statement. Thus, the project was
concerned with the form of presentation rather than the detailed content of the
income statement, as prescribed by other standards, and was not intended
to change the requirements for recognition or measurement of transactions.
The concept of comprehensive income implies that the project embraces all
income, expenses, gains and losses, including those currently reported in
equity, but excluding transactions between the entity itself and equity holders.
This brief has given rise to difficulties, subsequently, in relation to gains and
losses that IASB standards allow to be held in equity, such as available for
sale financial instruments and derivatives held as cash flow hedges. Under
present standards, such items are recycled from equity to the income statement
when they are realised. Some commentators, such as the Accounting Standards
Board of Japan (ASBJ) have pointed out that a comprehensive income statement
eliminates the possibility of recycling to the income statement, although it can
allow recycling between headings within the statement. In this respect, the
critics argue that it is self-contradictory to attempt to create a comprehensive
income statement that does not change the current recognition requirements
when those requirements allow certain items to be withheld from the income
statement until such time as they are recycled to it.
The main reason for initiating a project to develop a format for a comprehen-
sive income statement was the increasing use of current values (particularly fair
value) in IASB standards. Fair value changes affect not only financial instruments
but also some fixed assets and long-term liabilities (such as, possibly, pension
obligations). Clearly, these changes can be important and require transparent
reporting, and a format is needed to achieve this. The UK had already, in
effect, developed a comprehensive income statement in FRS 3 (1992), but this
was done in two statements, the second of which (the Statement of Total Recog-
nised Gains and Losses) tended to be given less prominence than the income
statement. In 1997, the FASB issued SFAS 130, Reporting Comprehensive
Income, which requires that comprehensive income be disclosed within US
GAAP by adding other comprehensive income (OCI) to items that are reported
in the income statement. In 1999 the G4 1 issued a discussion paper advocatinga single comprehensive income statement, and the ASB subsequently (in 2000)
issued an exposure draft FRED 22 proposing a comprehensive income statement to
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 147
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
replace FRS 3 in the UK. Meanwhile, the IASC, aware of the likely future increase
in the use of fair values, appointed a steering committee to investigate the topic.
The report of this committee was not published, but it was available to the
newly formed IASB, and one of its proposals was a split of income and expense
items to separate out those amounts that were based on fair value.
The IASBs development of the comprehensive income statement concen-
trated on the format. Preparers of accounts, in particular, are anxious to identify
some concept of earnings which is separated from other gains and losses. Various
rationales for this were examined and found to be too subjective to provide infor-
mation that was comparable across different entities. These include:
1. Operating or core earnings should be identified. The difficulty with this is
that it depends entirely on the entitys business model, which is, in turn, sub-
jective. Identical operations could be classified differently by different entities
simply because of their different business models. This approach has been
favoured by the FASB in its recent explorations of the topic.
2. Recurring earnings should be separated from non-recurring earnings. The
difficulty with this is that few items are totally recurring or non-recurring.
Most have varying degrees of predictive content. Moreover, this predictive
content is difficult to assess.
3. Earnings that are within managements control should be separated from those
that are outside the managements control. The problem here is that external
factors have some impact on most elements of earnings. Equally, manage-
ments decisions are responsible for deciding to which external risks the
entity is exposed.
As an alternative, the IASB proposed to adopt a separation of the element of
each item that is the result of remeasurement (a change in the value at which
an asset or liability is recorded) from that which is the result of initial recognition
or derecognition (typically due to purchase, sale or use of an asset or liability).
The objective of separating out remeasurements was that they are objectively a
distinct property, rather than a result of managements subjective judgement
and business model. Also, it was believed that the extent of remeasurement
was relevant information from the perspective of users. Not only does remeasure-
ment facilitate comparison of those entities that remeasure from those that do not,
where there is a choice (as in the designation of financial instruments) but it is
also relevant for predictive purposes. Remeasurement reflects changes in expec-
tations about items that will be realised, as cash flows, subsequently. Such
changes in expectations, by their nature, will tend to be unique, rather than per-
sistent, and predicting them will probably be more difficult, and certainly will
involve a different predictive model, than the prediction of the routine business
transactions of the firm. Thus, the separation of remeasurement is a relatively
objective dis-aggregation which can provide useful information to the analyst.7
Because remeasurement affects, potentially, all items in the income statement,
148 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
it was proposed to use a columnar format to provide the separation. A further
possible advantage of the columnar format is that it avoids the habitual tendency
to ignore items below the line in a vertical format.
The use of the columnar format for the separation of remeasurements, enabled
the comprehensive income statement to have an independent horizontal format,
reflecting the types of broad category, such as operating or financing, that are
familiar features of traditional income statements. However, the IASB, as with
the remeasurement criterion, preferred to define the broad categories in a rigorous
and objective manner, to serve the needs of users, particularly with respect to
comparability. It thus excluded the possibility of preparers taking a through
the eyes of management view by using their own business models to define
items such as core earnings in the horizontal format. The broad categories pro-
posed by the IASB were business profit, financing expense, taxation, and discon-
tinuing items. Business profit was the residual item, in the sense that anything not
falling into the other categories should appear there, and it was divided into three
sub-categories: operating profit, other business income and financial income. The
distinction between operating profit and other business income provides some
room for management judgement as to what is operating, but this was limited
by restricting the other category to include (at the entitys option) such items
as property revaluations and disposal gains and losses, foreign exchange adjust-
ments and goodwill.
The complete format appears, in outline form, in Table 5. A comprehensive
income statement with this type of format was field-tested on a selection of
preparers of accounts and discussed with the user community. There was con-
siderable support for it from users, although some still sought a central earnings
number which fell short of comprehensive income. There was criticism from
many preparers, who saw the format as limiting their capacity to tell it the
way it is, that is, through the eyes of management. It is clear that most preparers
would prefer a system that gave more scope for the expression of their business
models. An obvious problem with the IASBs approach arises in the case of banks
Table 5. Proposed comprehensive income statement format
TOTALIncome beforeremeasurement Remeasurement
BUSINESSOperating otherbusiness financialincome
FINANCINGCOSTSTAXDISCONTINUED
OPERATIONSPROFIT
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 149
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
and other financial institutions whose business consists of dealing in financial
instruments and managing interest margins. The nature of such a financial
business contradicts the IASBs distinction between business and financial.
Useful and constructive discussions have been held with preparers to explore
possible solutions to this problem, but a satisfactory resolution has not yet
been reached. Another problem that was raised by manufacturing companies
was the extent to which the separation of remeasurement was relevant to
working capital items, such as provisions for bad debts or impairments of inven-
tories. This difficulty again reflects the business model, and further exploration
and discussion are needed.
In view of the various difficulties raised by the field visits, the IASB has
decided, after a review of the project (September 2003) to continue to develop
a comprehensive income statement, but with an open mind and in close consul-
tation with its constituency. This is a leadership project which needs to be done,
but an important aspect of leadership is that others should follow the leader! The
first stage will be to issue a discussion paper, reporting the IASBs thinking to
date, including what it has learned from the field visits, and presenting alternative
views. One possibility might be to issue an exposure draft to amend IAS 1,
Presentation of Accounting Statements, to require (rather than, as at present,
permitting) a statement of gains and losses that are not reported in the income
statement. IAS 1 already requires such items to be reported in a Statement of
Changes in Equity but that statement also includes transactions with owners,
such as new issues of shares. As an alternative, IAS 1 allows a statement like
the UKs Statement of Recognised Gains and Losses (STRGL), although,
unlike the STRGL, it allows for recycling to the income statement where other
IASB standards (such as IAS 39) require it. This would meet the criticism
made by the Japanese standard setter, ASBJ, and others. Consultations are also
taking place with the FASB, which, as indicated earlier, has tended to favour
the business model approach. In the interest of convergence, it is important
that the IASB and the FASB do not diverge on an issue so fundamental as the
format of the income statement.
9. Conclusions
We here draw conclusions about three aspects of the IASBs work towards the
2005 adoption of its standards in Europe, and its wider role as an international
standard setter. These are the technical programme, the political dimension
and the implementation problem.
With regard to the technical programme of developing standards, we have
tried to convey the range and richness of the IASBs programme. This has to
be put into the context of the tight time constraint imposed by the EU target
and the need to consult the constituency (particularly on IAS 32 and IAS 39).
The result has been enormous pressure on the IASB and its staff, and the pro-
gramme has not advanced as quickly as was originally planned, particularly
150 G. Whittington
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
with respect to the projects on insurance and reporting financial performance.
However, the IASB will have a workable set of standards ready for implemen-
tation in 2005. Beyond then, it has an equally demanding programme of improve-
ment, convergence and leadership.
With regard to the political dimension, the IASBs relationship with the EU has
gone through a learning process, during which the IASBs constituents within the
EU have tested the effectiveness and limits of political lobbying. The IASB has
tried, within the constraints of its resources and its EU-imposed timetable, to
consult fully with interested parties and to meet reasonable demands.
However, the IASB is determined not to be swayed by sheer political pressure:
once the IASB has completed its due process and determined its standards it is
the European Commissions responsibility to decide whether to endorse the
IASB standards and, if not, what alternative to choose. The IASB is also
engaged in a cooperative convergence programme with the FASB, and another
political dimension of the IASBs work is the attitude of the SEC and those
who control it. The SECs response to the future output of the convergence
project will determine whether accounts prepared in compliance with IASB stan-
dards are eventually accepted on US markets without the requirement for a recon-
ciliation to US GAAP. Such an outcome is in the interests of many European
companies. Finally, the IASB needs to continue to meet the needs, and
command the support, of the many countries outside the EU and the USA
which are committed or intending to commit to the implementation of IASB
standards.
Implementation has not been discussed earlier in this paper because it is
outside the control of the IASB. Nevertheless, it is of critical importance to the
success of international standards that they be effectively and consistently
implemented. If this is not achieved, international standards will not command
respect, however good their intrinsic quality. It is therefore to be welcomed
that the European Commission is working to achieve consistent regulation of
the auditing profession with the EU: the auditors play a critical role in ensuring
effective implementation. The creation of CESR, the Committee of European
Securities Regulators, is particularly to be welcomed, because it offers the pro-
spect that a uniform system for monitoring accounts will be established by the
securities regulators, performing a role similar to that of the UKs Review
Panel. Such a system will produce a powerful incentive for companies listed
on the securities markets to comply thoroughly with international standards.
Of course, the implementation problem, like the other dimensions of the
IASBs work, goes beyond Europe. This is why the Trustees of the IASC Foun-
dation are setting up an educational programme, to increase worldwide under-
standing of the IASB standards. The work of the International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board is also extremely important by helping to establish
a common international quality of auditing.
In summary, the IASB has a heavy programme of standard setting and has to
work within an overtly political environment, which is perhaps inevitable for an
Adoption of International Accounting Standards 151
Downlo
aded
By:
[Euro
pean
Acc
ount
ing
Asso
ciat
ion]
At:
10:
29 2
7 Ja
nuar
y 20
09
international body. It also needs to foster a