3.3. IASC and fair valuesThe Framew

3.3. IASC and fair values
The Framework of Principles published by the IASC in 1989 had similarities to the FASB framework. The FASB conceptual framework project ended in 1985 and by then six concept statements had been issued.6 In retrospect, the major fault of the FASB can be identified as not having chosen, as a matter of principle, the relevant measurement attribute or attributes that should govern the preparation of financial statements. Reasons that explain the board’s indecisiveness are ‘resistance to change – from preparers, practitioners, and the SEC, as well as within the Board – coupled with an indifference, at best, by users’ (Zeff, 1999, p. 123). Macve (1997, p. xxii) has characterised these sources of resistance as ‘the political problems of different interests and needs’. Even within the board, the members differed intellectually and emotionally on the choice of measurement attribute – reflecting what Horngren (1981, p. 90) has called ‘individual conceptual frameworks’. The paragraphs in the IASC Framework up to paragraph 98 implicitly point to a fair value system through the information perspective of decision-usefulness and the embodiment of future expectations in the definitions of assets and liabilities, as well as the linkages of performance to changes in net assets.7 It is interesting that the paragraphs from paragraph 99 onwards were put there because it was thought that the world was not ready for fair value in the 1980s despite the fact that references to fair value were made in the standards developed during the decade (D. Alexander, 2007). After the framework, as is shown below, the IASC has worked on the assumption of moving to a fair value solution of each measurement problem as it arose in the different standards. The influence for this appears to be the FASB, although this is nowhere stated explicitly. In fact, despite Camfferman and Zeff’s (2007) extensive reporting of the development of the IASC, fair value is not evaluated in any detail as a concept in its own right.The IASC first included the concept of fair value in the 1977 drafts of IAS 17 Accounting for Leases. In IAS 17, fair value played a role in determining the classification of a lease as either a finance lease or an operating lease, as well as in the determination of profit or loss in sale and leaseback transactions. Following IAS 17, in IAS 16 Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, assets acquired in exchange for other assets might be recorded at the fair value of the assets given up, and a similar requirement applied to assets acquired in exchange for shares. IAS 18 Revenue Recognition, observed that the amount of revenue in an exchange of non-monetary assets is normally determined using the fair value of the assets exchanged, whilst IAS 22 Accounting for Business Combinations also included reference to fair values. All steering committees paid close attention to the relevant USA accounting standards (SFAS 13 Accounting for Leases, APB Opinion 29 Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions and APB Opinion 16 Business Combinations) that made reference to fair value (Camfferman & Zeff, 2007).Despite the conceptual developments during this period, changes in practice are justified on reasons such as inflation and the threat of government interference – what Suchman (1995, p. 585) might refer to as ‘crass pragmatic appeals’. When fair value appears in standards the term tends to be interchangeable with market value and little other guidance is given on howit is to be measured. During the 1980s, as D. Alexander (2007, p. 76) observes, ‘US usagewas essentially net realizable value and IAS usage in the same period was not’. In practice, market values are used as part of a mixed measurement system. Historic costs begin to lose legitimacy to market and deprival values due to their claimed inability to depict crucial aspects of economic reality in periods of rising prices and in banking crises. Conceptual developments also appear to favour an alternative approach, although as in the previous period this is not advocated exclusively. A significant contribution to this reorientation in accounting thought was the problematisation of the revenue-expense approach in the 1980s and the mark of the usefulness of the asset-liability approach. The perception was that under the existing approach the balance sheet merely served as a ‘mausoleum for the unwanted costs that the double-entry system throws up as regrettable by-products’ (Baxter,1977, p. x). Thus, marking to market re-emerges, along with the growing issue of accounting for derivatives and other securities.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

3.3. chức và công bằng giá trịThe Framework of Principles published by the IASC in 1989 had similarities to the FASB framework. The FASB conceptual framework project ended in 1985 and by then six concept statements had been issued.6 In retrospect, the major fault of the FASB can be identified as not having chosen, as a matter of principle, the relevant measurement attribute or attributes that should govern the preparation of financial statements. Reasons that explain the board’s indecisiveness are ‘resistance to change – from preparers, practitioners, and the SEC, as well as within the Board – coupled with an indifference, at best, by users’ (Zeff, 1999, p. 123). Macve (1997, p. xxii) has characterised these sources of resistance as ‘the political problems of different interests and needs’. Even within the board, the members differed intellectually and emotionally on the choice of measurement attribute – reflecting what Horngren (1981, p. 90) has called ‘individual conceptual frameworks’. The paragraphs in the IASC Framework up to paragraph 98 implicitly point to a fair value system through the information perspective of decision-usefulness and the embodiment of future expectations in the definitions of assets and liabilities, as well as the linkages of performance to changes in net assets.7 It is interesting that the paragraphs from paragraph 99 onwards were put there because it was thought that the world was not ready for fair value in the 1980s despite the fact that references to fair value were made in the standards developed during the decade (D. Alexander, 2007). After the framework, as is shown below, the IASC has worked on the assumption of moving to a fair value solution of each measurement problem as it arose in the different standards. The influence for this appears to be the FASB, although this is nowhere stated explicitly. In fact, despite Camfferman and Zeff’s (2007) extensive reporting of the development of the IASC, fair value is not evaluated in any detail as a concept in its own right.The IASC first included the concept of fair value in the 1977 drafts of IAS 17 Accounting for Leases. In IAS 17, fair value played a role in determining the classification of a lease as either a finance lease or an operating lease, as well as in the determination of profit or loss in sale and leaseback transactions. Following IAS 17, in IAS 16 Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, assets acquired in exchange for other assets might be recorded at the fair value of the assets given up, and a similar requirement applied to assets acquired in exchange for shares. IAS 18 Revenue Recognition, observed that the amount of revenue in an exchange of non-monetary assets is normally determined using the fair value of the assets exchanged, whilst IAS 22 Accounting for Business Combinations also included reference to fair values. All steering committees paid close attention to the relevant USA accounting standards (SFAS 13 Accounting for Leases, APB Opinion 29 Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions and APB Opinion 16 Business Combinations) that made reference to fair value (Camfferman & Zeff, 2007).Despite the conceptual developments during this period, changes in practice are justified on reasons such as inflation and the threat of government interference – what Suchman (1995, p. 585) might refer to as ‘crass pragmatic appeals’. When fair value appears in standards the term tends to be interchangeable with market value and little other guidance is given on howit is to be measured. During the 1980s, as D. Alexander (2007, p. 76) observes, ‘US usagewas essentially net realizable value and IAS usage in the same period was not’. In practice, market values are used as part of a mixed measurement system. Historic costs begin to lose legitimacy to market and deprival values due to their claimed inability to depict crucial aspects of economic reality in periods of rising prices and in banking crises. Conceptual developments also appear to favour an alternative approach, although as in the previous period this is not advocated exclusively. A significant contribution to this reorientation in accounting thought was the problematisation of the revenue-expense approach in the 1980s and the mark of the usefulness of the asset-liability approach. The perception was that under the existing approach the balance sheet merely served as a ‘mausoleum for the unwanted costs that the double-entry system throws up as regrettable by-products’ (Baxter,1977, p. x). Thus, marking to market re-emerges, along with the growing issue of accounting for derivatives and other securities.