No abstract

No abstract

The implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), particularly in the European Union, has led to frequent comments that IFRS are “fair value based standards” and that the IASB is moving inexorably towards full fair value accounting. This article examines the extent to which IFRS do, in fact, require the use of fair values for the measurement of assets and liabilities. It explains the definition of fair value in IFRS, the evolution of that definition and the need for further clarifications and guidance with respect to the application of the definition. It then identifies the four main uses of fair value in IFRS. Three of these uses reflect what should have happened under many national standards. The fourth use is, in practice, restricted to very few assets and liabilities. The article concluded with suggestions about the possible areas in which the IASB might extend the use of fair values.

No abstract

This paper brings together the comments made by the European Accounting Association's Financial Reporting Standards Committee to a discussion paper (DP) issued by European Financial Reporting Advisory Group/UK Accounting Standards Board (ASB). It analyses the content of the DP and then discusses what effects should be considered. It considers that all effects should be evaluated, irrespective of whether they normally fall within the standard-setter's purlieu, and provides a taxonomy of effects. It illustrates the difficulty of determining what effects should be considered by the standard-setter. The paper then discusses when effects should be reviewed. It agrees with the DP that effects need to be considered from inception of the project. It disagrees that the standard-setter should necessarily be responsible for all of the effects analysis. It argues that effects are likely to be different by geographical region and industry sector, and recourse should be had to national standard-setters and other organisations. While preparers may make representations about effects during the due process, these are not likely to be a representative sample. The paper suggests that in particular post-implementation reviews are better carried out independently. It observes that the DP does not address the practicalities of carrying out research in this area.