Purpose This paper aims to argue that the accounting standards’ requirements for the valuation of defined benefit pension schemes in the financial statements of scheme sponsoring companies potentially produce an artificial result which is at odds with the “faithful representation” and “relevance” objectives of these standards. Design/methodology/approach The approach is a theoretical analysis of the relevant reporting standards with the use of a practical example to demonstrate the impact where trustees adopt a hedged approach to portfolio investment. Findings Where a pension fund engages in asset liability matching and invests in “risk-free” assets, the term, quantity and duration/maturity of which is intended to match some or all of its scheme liabilities, the required accounting treatment potentially results in the sponsoring company’s financial statements reporting fluctuating surpluses or deficits each year which are potentially ill informed and misleading. Originality/value Pension scheme surpluses or deficits reported in the financial statements of listed companies are potentially very significant numbers; however, the dangers posed by theoretical nature of the calculation have largely gone unreported.

T he liabilities of a pension plan are monetary amounts to be paid at various times in the future. The current legal and regulatory framework for Irish occupational pension schemes can result in three different valuations for a scheme at any particular point in time. Using valuation models, this paper considers whether across the three different valuation bases there is consistency in the sensitivity of the reported results to changes in the key actuarial assumptions and what are the most sensitive assumptions under each calculation basis. It questions whether this current valuation framework creates potential hazards for scheme trustees who are charged with governance of the scheme and are ultimately responsible for the key decision-making processes within the scheme.

This study focuses on true and fair view (TFV) and fair presentation (FP) in financial statements. It questions if attitudes towards the true and fair override (TFO) condition, included in European Union (EU) legislation and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), is indicative of a principles-based approach or lip service to a concept that is rarely applied. We address this subject because we consider that there should be a consensus and harmonisation on TFV—that TFO has a vital role within the principles-based framework, and while the accounting standard development process should limit the application of the TFO concept, in practice, it is an important reporting option. TFV/TFO harmonisation also has an important role in sustainability accounting, to reveal company actions which are influenced by more than just the objective of complying with the standards. In the empirical part, accounting experts from 24 European countries were surveyed. Their responses suggest a lack of clarity around the distinction between TFV and FP and a reluctance to consider, in practice, the application of the TFO. Drawing on behavioural theories—ostrich effect and comfort theory—we find explanations and reasoning behind attitudes to these cornerstone concepts. Specifically, we try to explain behavioural attitudes to TFV/FP and TFO positions, which defend uncompromising compliance with standards.

No abstract

No abstract