IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/advacc/v39y2017icp1-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Difficulties converging US GAAP and IFRS through joint projects: The case of business combinations

Author

Listed:
  • Hughes, Susan B.
  • Larson, Robert K.
  • Sander, James F.
  • Xiques, Glenn

Abstract

In order to converge US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) agreed in the 2002 Norwalk Agreement to participate in several joint projects with the intention of developing common standards. This exploratory research study investigates the first major joint project, Business Combinations. In 2005 the FASB and IASB issued joint Exposure Drafts (ED) for comment. Despite the Boards' intentions of creating a single high-quality standard, two separate standards with many differences were ultimately issued. The purpose of this article is to better understand the various issues related to using joint EDs as a means toward the goal of convergence. The results suggest systematic differences in comment letter quality, ED question response and agreement rates depending on CL Board audience, stakeholder interest group, and region. The analysis of the 283 comment letters submitted finds that different stakeholders responded to the FASB and IASB, and that respondents to the joint ED differ from those normally responding to FASB or IASB EDs. Compared to single Board EDs, the number of letters to the FASB dropped substantially while those to the IASB increased. Significant differences are found between different stakeholder interest groups and regions in their levels of support for proposed changes as well as in the quality of the comment letters submitted to the FASB and IASB. Letters written to the FASB are significantly shorter than those to the IASB, and those written to both Boards and by international accounting firms are significantly longer. This is especially noticeable for those key issues where the final standards for the Boards differ. Non-US letter writers much more frequently cite national accounting standards in their opposition to proposals. National accounting standard-setters frequently have different levels of support than writers to the FASB, which are over 90% from the US. The results support concerns that convergence efforts may be hampered by the Boards having their own constituent groups and that these diverse groups engage in the “joint” due process in different ways that will need to be addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Hughes, Susan B. & Larson, Robert K. & Sander, James F. & Xiques, Glenn, 2017. "Difficulties converging US GAAP and IFRS through joint projects: The case of business combinations," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:39:y:2017:i:c:p:1-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.adiac.2017.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611016301067
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.09.001?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. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    2. Ann Jorissen & Nadine Lybaert & Raf Orens & Leo Van Der Tas, 2012. "Formal Participation in the IASB's Due Process of Standard Setting: A Multi-issue/Multi-period Analysis," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 693-729, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Alan Richardson & Burkard Eberlein, 2011. "Legitimating Transnational Standard-Setting: The Case of the International Accounting Standards Board," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(2), pages 217-245, January.
    5. Larson, Robert K. & Kenny, Sara York, 2011. "The financing of the IASB: An analysis of donor diversity," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    7. Botzem, Sebastian & Quack, Sigrid, 2009. "(No) Limits to Anglo-American accounting? Reconstructing the history of the International Accounting Standards Committee: A review article," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 988-998, November.
    8. Kelly, L, 1985. "Corporate-Management Lobbying On Fas No-8 - Some Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 619-632.
    9. Brown, Pr, 1981. "A Descriptive Analysis Of Select Input Bases Of The Financial-Accounting-Standards-Board," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 232-246.
    10. Robert K. Larson, 2007. "Constituent Participation and the IASB's International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 207-254, December.
    11. Hussein, Mohamed Elmutassim, 1981. "The innovative process in financial accounting standards setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 27-37, January.
    12. Nancy Thorley Hill & Sandra Waller Shelton & Kevin T. Stevens, 2002. "Corporate Lobbying Behaviour on Accounting for Stock‐Based Compensation: Venue and Format Choices," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 38(1), pages 78-90, February.
    13. Adhikari, Ajay & Betancourt, Luis & Alshameri, Faleh, 2014. "The SEC's Proposed IFRS Roadmap: An analysis of comment letters using content analysis and textual software," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 98-108.
    14. Koh, Wei Chern, 2011. "What drives firms' decisions to lobby and determinants of their lobbying positions: Evidence from firms' comment letter submissions during FASB's stock option expensing proposal in 2004," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Anantharaman, Divya, 2015. "Understanding the evolution of SFAS 141 and 142: An analysis of comment letters," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 99-110.
    16. Robert K. Larson & Paul J. Herz, 2013. "A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 99-151, June.
    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. Wil Martens & Prem W. S. Yapa & Maryam Safari, 2020. "The Impact of Financial Statement Comparability on Earnings Management: Evidence from Frontier Markets," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Gordon, Elizabeth A. & Gotti, Giorgio & Ho, Joanna H. & Mora, Araceli & Morris, Richard D., 2019. "Commentary: Where is International Accounting Research Going? Issues Needing Further Investigation," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Rey, Andrea & Maglio, Roberto & Rapone, Valerio, 2020. "Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin, 2016. "An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 59-73.
    2. Rey, Andrea & Maglio, Roberto & Rapone, Valerio, 2020. "Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    4. Marius Gros & Daniel Worret, 2016. "Lobbying and Audit Regulation in the EU," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 381-403, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Samindi Ishara Hewa & Rajni Mala & Jinhua Chen, 2020. "IASB's independence in the due process: an examination of interest groups’ influence on the development of IFRS 9," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(3), pages 2585-2615, September.
    7. Molina Sánchez, Horacio & Bautista Mesa, Rafael, 2018. "La participación en el /Participation in the IASB Due Process," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 429-458, Mayo.
    8. Bailey, Wendy J. & Sawers, Kimberly M., 2018. "Moving toward a principle-based approach to U.S. accounting standard setting: A demand for procedural justice and accounting reform," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Samira Demaria & Dominique Dufour & Moïse Louisy-Louis & Philippe Luu, 2012. "An exploratory study of the exposure draft of IAS 19 due process," Post-Print hal-00690943, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Paola Ramassa & Alberto Quagli, 2024. "Interpreting IFRS: The Evolving Role of Agenda Decisions," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 60(2), pages 205-235, June.
    12. Guerreiro, Marta Silva & Rodrigues, Lúcia Lima & Craig, Russell, 2012. "Voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards by large unlisted companies in Portugal – Institutional logics and strategic responses," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 482-499.
    13. Durocher, Sylvain & Fortin, Anne & Cote, Louise, 2007. "Users' participation in the accounting standard-setting process: A theory-building study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 29-59.
    14. Brandon Gipper & Brett J Lombardi & Douglas J Skinner, 2013. "The politics of accounting standard-setting: A review of empirical research," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(3), pages 523-551, December.
    15. Karen Handley & Sue Wright & Elaine Evans, 2018. "SME Reporting in Australia: Where to Now for Decision†usefulness?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(2), pages 251-265, June.
    16. Karen Handley & Elaine Evans & Sue Wright, 2020. "Understanding participation in accounting standard‐setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3621-3645, December.
    17. Hervé Kohler & Anne Le Manh, 2014. "Etude Exploratoire De La Participation Au « Due Processus » De L'Iasb De L'Industrie Des Telecommunications, Dans Le Cadre Du Projet « Revenue Recognition »," Post-Print hal-01899618, HAL.
    18. 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.
    19. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. Crawford, Louise, 2019. "Exploring the emancipatory dimensions of globalisation: The struggle over IFRS8 and country-by-country reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:advacc:v:39:y:2017:i:c:p:1-20. 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/advances-in-accounting/ .

    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.