Hicksian Income in the Conceptual Framework

Abstract

In seeking to replace accounting conventions by concepts in the pursuit of principles-based standards, the FASB/IASB joint project on the conceptual framework has grounded its approach on a well-known definition of income by Hicks. We welcome the use of theories by accounting standard setters and practitioners, if theories are considered in their entirety. Cherrypicking parts of a theory to serve the immediate aims of standard setters risks distortion. Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the selected elements of a theory increase the distortion even more. We argue that the Boards have selectively picked from, misquoted, misunderstood and misapplied Hicksian concepts of income. We explore some alternative approaches to income suggested by Hicks and by other writers, and their relevance to current debates over the Boards' conceptual framework and standards. Our conclusions about how accounting concepts and conventions should be related differ from those of the Boards. Executive stock options (ESOs) provide an illustrative case study.

‘Deprival value’ vs. ‘fair value’ measurement for contract liabilities: how to resolve the ‘revenue recognition’ conundrum?

“…Macve 1997;Bromwich et al 2010), before they are likely to make any progress in going beyond 'revenue recognition' issues to the appropriate measurement and presentation of the corresponding reported performance. Solution #: Table BI).…”

“…I' concept (cf. Bromwich et al, 2010). Under the assumption of no expected change in the interest rate, the approach to income measurement adopted by standard setters could therefore still produce persistent earnings.…”

“…Bromwich et al 2010;Macve, 2010b). Under the 2010 ED it is proposed that the initial measurement of the performance obligation should normally be at the transaction price, with revenue (and thereby related profit) recognized when the promised goods or services are transferred to the customer.…”

“Trading Places”: A UK (and IFRS) Comment

“…Macve, 1997;Bromwich, Macve, & Sunder, 2010). But any idea that accounting can report objectively the true financial position and financial performance (and thereby prospects?)…”

Moving the Conceptual Framework Forward: Accounting for Uncertainty

“…To develop this argument, we accept the “top‐down,” deductive approach embodied in the Framework, notwithstanding that in practice such an approach is inevitably partial, fluid, and, to a degree, grounded in convention (Dopuch and Sunder ; Macve , , 2015; Bromwich et al ); in short, we take as given that the Framework forms part of the modus operandi of the IASB, and our conceptual analysis is conducted within that frame.…”