IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v25y2013i2p196-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards

Author

Listed:
  • McEnroe, John E.
  • Sullivan, Mark

Abstract

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.

Suggested Citation

  • McEnroe, John E. & Sullivan, Mark, 2013. "An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 196-207.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:25:y:2013:i:2:p:196-207
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2013.08.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045713000210
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2013.08.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cortese, Corinne & Irvine, Helen, 2010. "Investigating international accounting standard setting: The black box of IFRS 6," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 87-95.
    2. Luthardt, Ulf & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-88.
    3. Trahan, Emery A. & Gitman, Lawrence J., 1995. "Bridging the theory-practice gap in corporate finance: A survey of chief financial officers," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 73-87.
    4. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R., 2001. "The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2-3), pages 187-243, May.
    5. Larson, Robert K. & Herz, Paul J., 2011. "The academic community’s participation in global accounting standard-setting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 34-45.
    6. Larson, Robert K., 2008. "An examination of comment letters to the IASC: Special purpose entities," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 27-46.
    7. George J. Benston & Michael Bromwich & Alfred Wagenhofer, 2006. "Principles‐ versus rules‐based accounting standards: the FASB's standard setting strategy," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 42(2), pages 165-188, June.
    8. Darnell F. Hawkins, 1975. "Estimation of Nonresponse Bias," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 3(4), pages 461-488, May.
    9. McEnroe, John E. & Sullivan, Mark, 2011. "Individual investors’ attitudes toward the acceptance of International Financial Reporting Standards in the United States," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 20-31.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Braun, Gary P. & Haynes, Christine M. & Lewis, Tom D. & Taylor, Mark H., 2015. "Principles-based vs. rules-based accounting standards: The effects of auditee proposed accounting treatment and regulatory enforcement on auditor judgments and confidence," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 45-50.
    2. Anna Bedford & Martin Bugeja & Nelson Ma, 2022. "The impact of IFRS 10 on consolidated financial reporting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 101-141, March.
    3. Franzen, Laurel & Meckfessel, Michele & Moehrle, Stephen R. & Reynolds-Moehrle, Jennifer A., 2015. "Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2013 academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 138-159.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Okamoto, Noriaki, 2017. "Norm entrepreneur lobbying and persuasion: A case study involving the IASB's modification of an exposure draft," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 129-138.
    2. McEnroe, John E., 2009. "CFOs’ and public accountants’ perceptions of material weaknesses in internal control areas as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 48-55.
    3. Flasher, R. & Luchs, C.K. & Souza, J.L., 2018. "Sustainability assurance provider participation in standard setting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 20-25.
    4. Alexander, Cindy R. & Bauguess, Scott W. & Bernile, Gennaro & Lee, Yoon-Ho Alex & Marietta-Westberg, Jennifer, 2013. "Economic effects of SOX Section 404 compliance: A corporate insider perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 267-290.
    5. Brav, Alon & Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Michaely, Roni, 2005. "Payout policy in the 21st century," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 483-527, September.
    6. Hoang, Daniel & Gatzer, Sebastian & Ruckes, Martin E., 2018. "The economics of capital allocation in firms: Evidence from internal capital markets," Working Paper Series in Economics 115, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Hermes, Niels & Smid, Peter & Yao, Lu, 2007. "Capital budgeting practices: A comparative study of the Netherlands and China," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 630-654, October.
    8. Szyszka Adam, 2014. "Factors Influencing IPO Decisions. Do Corporate Managers Use Market and Corporate Timing? A Survey," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 42(1), pages 30-39, June.
    9. Baker, H. Kent & Smith, David M., 2006. "In search of a residual dividend policy," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18.
    10. Siziba, Simiso & Hall, John Henry, 2021. "The evolution of the application of capital budgeting techniques in enterprises," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    11. John R. Graham & Michelle Hanlon & Terry Shevlin, 2011. "Real Effects of Accounting Rules: Evidence from Multinational Firms’ Investment Location and Profit Repatriation Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 137-185, March.
    12. Pereiro, Luis E., 2006. "The practice of investment valuation in emerging markets: Evidence from Argentina," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 160-183, April.
    13. Heltzer, Wendy & Shelton, Sandra Waller, 2011. "The book–tax divide: Perceptions from the field," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 130-137.
    14. Wei-Chuan Kao, 2018. "Innovation quality of firms with the research and development tax credit," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 43-78, July.
    15. Ravi Jagannathan & Iwan Meier & Vefa Tarhan, 2011. "The Cross-Section of Hurdle Rates for Capital Budgeting: An Empirical Analysis of Survey Data," NBER Working Papers 16770, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jurcau Anca Sabina & Andreicovici Ionela Irina, 2010. "A Survey On Business Evaluation Methods Used In Mergers," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 878-884, December.
    17. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Rajgopal, Shiva, 2005. "The economic implications of corporate financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 3-73, December.
    18. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Puri, Manju, 2015. "Capital allocation and delegation of decision-making authority within firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 449-470.
    19. McEnroe, John E. & Sullivan, Mark, 2011. "Individual investors’ attitudes toward the acceptance of International Financial Reporting Standards in the United States," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 20-31.
    20. Samira Demaria & Dufour Dominique & Moïse Louisy-Louis & Philippe Luu, 2012. "An exploratory study of the exposure draft of IAS 19 due process," Post-Print halshs-00721326, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:25:y:2013:i:2:p:196-207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.