Discussion of Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15)

IF 4.6 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting in Europe Pub Date : 2018-02-21 DOI:10.1080/17449480.2018.1437457
P. Walton
{"title":"Discussion of Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15)","authors":"P. Walton","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2018.1437457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I provide comments on two papers, Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15), in this issue, which were presented at the EAA-IASB research forum in Brussels. The paper accepts the shortcomings of the updated IASB conceptual framework and argues that these are in large part due to the origins of the document. It points out that the original US project was an attempt to make standard-setting more consistent and involved creating principles which would explain existing standards. Constituents have subsequently resisted attempts to make the framework theoretically sound because they fear this will encourage too much innovation. Standard-setters prefer incremental change, so continue to work with a model created to resolve a problem of the 1970s. I suggest that since standard-setting has been professionalised, the more significant need to is to define what information investors find useful. This may involve providing more granular information about the entity’s business model.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"15 1","pages":"193 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2018.1437457","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2018.1437457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract I provide comments on two papers, Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15), in this issue, which were presented at the EAA-IASB research forum in Brussels. The paper accepts the shortcomings of the updated IASB conceptual framework and argues that these are in large part due to the origins of the document. It points out that the original US project was an attempt to make standard-setting more consistent and involved creating principles which would explain existing standards. Constituents have subsequently resisted attempts to make the framework theoretically sound because they fear this will encourage too much innovation. Standard-setters prefer incremental change, so continue to work with a model created to resolve a problem of the 1970s. I suggest that since standard-setting has been professionalised, the more significant need to is to define what information investors find useful. This may involve providing more granular information about the entity’s business model.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Barker和Teixeira[2018]。国际财务报告准则概念框架中的差距。会计在欧洲,15)和Van Mourik和Katsuo([2018]。国际会计准则理事会概念框架中的损益。欧洲的会计,15)
本文对Barker和Teixeira([2018])两篇论文进行了评论。国际财务报告准则概念框架中的差距。会计在欧洲,15)和Van Mourik和Katsuo([2018]。国际会计准则理事会概念框架中的损益。欧洲会计,15),发表于布鲁塞尔的EAA-IASB研究论坛。本文承认更新后的IASB概念框架存在缺陷,并认为这些缺陷在很大程度上是由该文件的来源造成的。它指出,最初的美国项目是为了使标准制定更加一致,并涉及创建解释现有标准的原则。选民们随后抵制了使该框架在理论上健全的尝试,因为他们担心这会鼓励太多的创新。标准制定者更喜欢渐进式的变化,所以继续使用为解决上世纪70年代的问题而创建的模型。我认为,既然标准制定已经专业化,那么更重要的需要是定义投资者认为有用的信息。这可能涉及到提供关于实体业务模型的更细粒度的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting in Europe
Accounting in Europe BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Exploring Multi-level Drivers of Accountants’ Opinions on the Changes Introduced by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive Does Readability of Textual Disclosures in Modern Slavery Reports Pay Off? Evidence from a Regulatory Setting Sales Order Backlog and Credit Ratings Double Materiality Disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities The Usefulness of Financial Reporting Quality in the Access to Bank Debt for Private Firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1