Financial Accounting Theory IFRS standards

Question: Discuss about the Financial Accounting Theory IFRS standards. Answer: Introduction IFRS standards can be made acceptable through several processes such as introduction of standard settler process, rubber-stamping each standard, endorsement of such standards, utilizing standards of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), etc. Besides, such adoption can play a key role in offering effective information because the financial year of different countries would not be distinct. Furthermore, in relation to Australia, whilst its financials based on IFRS was first issued in 2006, it had already adopted the IFRS standards in the year 2005. During the year of IFRS adoption, it was observable that only thirty percent of the top 500 Australian companies endeavored to report on matters related to sustainability (Goodwin Ahmed, 2008). This means Australian entities were bent on target from a very beginning implying that the major concern is always on reporting. Besides, reporting on such matter assures future success in the market, and therefore, disregarding such r eporting requirements cannot be accepted. Before the onset of the IFRS, Australia contained a strong reputation for the quality of its national accounting standards. This clearly emphasizes the fact that Australia adhered to the accounting principles and it is the sole reason why the corporate reporting was of high standards (Morris et. al, 2014). However, the advantage and the benefit of IFRS adoption is the enhancement of the reporting. In the present scenario, Australia is undergoing a huge harmonization process of the standards of accounting with the ones provided by the IASB so that the disparities are eliminated between the Accounting standards and the IASB. Literature Review The planner of Australian standard was committed to various international standards whose scope, nature, as well as content, were not finalized at the time of taking the decision. The decision was termed as in-principle and there was a strong demand for high-quality standards, enhanced comparison method of financial statements, and reduction in the cost of capital. It was predicted that compliance with the standard that was globally recognized will ensure strong advantages to the entities in Australia (Byard et. al, 2011). Previously, the Australian standard setter was positioned in a manner so that the IASB gets influenced in a positive manner at the early stages of the development and propagation of the international standards. It was anticipated by the FRC that the IFRS will influence the financial statements of the entities based in Australia. It was bound to happen that the new standards will lead to an immense influence on the recognition, measurement and items disclosures resu lting in economic influences of stakeholders. In the Australian context, the alterations in the standards gave way to lobbying from parties those are affected majorly in areas such as intangibles and financial instruments where the economic consequences were tagged as significant. As per Hanlon et, al. (2014) the new IASB financial reporting has repercussions pertaining to the public sector, not-for-profit, and SMES. In the case of Australia, the AASB has the mandate in a legislative manner to enhance standards and hence, IFRS influences all entities and not just larger entities. Therefore, the effect of IFRS can be attributed to overall entities and the reporting process. In short, it is highly beneficial from every aspect ranging from reporting to compliance. IFRS is a collective term that describes the pronouncements of authoritative basis issued by the IASB. The IFRS in Australia comprises of two series of standards that are the IFRS and the old series of accounting standards. Secondly, the two series of interpretations issues by the SIC and another issue by the IFRIC. Every sector of the Australian economy needs to adhere to the IFRS accounting standards that mean the standards are sector neutral. On the other hand, the same standards apply to all entities that include public, as well as not-for-profit entities (Landsman et. al, 2011). This is one of the major benefits of IFRS as the implementation is universal and not adhered to a group of companies. Public sector entities are different in comparison to the private sector in terms of ownership and organization goals. Such differences constantly stress whether the same accounting standard is apt for public sector organizations. The public sector of Australia comprises of three division s of the government that are the local government, state government, and the commonwealth government (IFRS, 2016). Before the introduction of the accrual accounting, cash-basis was used by the public entities to maintain their accounts. However, other division of public sector entities adopted accrual system through the introduction of AAS27. The public sector in Australia is guided by three standards that are the AAS27 that deals with the local government financial reporting, AAS29 that deals with financial reporting by the department of the government, and AAS 31 financial reporting done by the government. It needs to be noted that IFRS do not contain a separate accounting standard for public and not for profit entities, the AASB works in collaboration with the IFRS (Sunder, 2011). The current initiative aims at reduction of the duplication process in accounting standards and helps to compare the existing standard with the IFRS standard. The adoption of equivalent to Australia to IFRS by reporting entities for annual reporting commencing after 1st January 2015 has been a major challenge for the financial institutions in Australia. A change in the regulations and standards is needed from time to time and the adoption of new standards will be highly beneficial for the Australian economy (Deegan, 2005). The adherence to the new rules and adoption of policies that provides a boost to the reporting process is the need of the hour. The same has been realized by Australia from a very long time as it has always stressed on an enhanced level of reporting. However, the key areas have undergone an immense change. The area that needed the major boost was concerning the area of intangible assets. As the process of harmonization is in continuation, the Australian standard needs to be in tune with the International Standard and hence, the corporate world needs to adhere to it. In the present scenario, under AASB 103 the companies a mortize goodwill for more than 20 years, however, under the international standard IAS36 the good will treatment is done under a different scenario. When it comes to IAS 36 no need of amortization is done for such goodwill as the goodwill cannot be ascertained and might cover 20 years, therefore, IAS36 has a different perspective when it comes to the goodwill treatment. Uniform accounting standard paves the way for making accounting a language that is universal in nature and to reject any chances for manipulation (Xi et. al, 2016). The advantages of harmonization can be easily depicted from the process of reporting as the diversity is reduced. AASB has done a substantial process that has helped to merge the standards with that of the international standards that can be described as a method to assert that the Australian accounting standards are in conformity with the International standards (Meeks Swann, 2009). In simple words, although such disclosures are already available by the government, stakeholders find it difficult to obtain such information. Furthermore, even though the introduction of IFRS has made it compulsory to report on CSR activities in order to provide information regarding activities on climate change and environmental impacts, effective actions have not been implemented so that every company can adhere to it, thereby making its importance readily understood (Maria, 2016). In relation to Australia, since it has been incapable in reporting on such concern, more complications and problems have risen for it to remain globally competitive in the market. Therefore, although reporting requirements are in the present scenario, yet it can assist in saving the upcoming generation from the hazardous environmental impacts. Hence, if Australia can comply with the Australian analog of IFRS, it can easily comply with the IFRS standards issued by the IASB (IFRS, 2016). Besides, this was the scenario when IAS 7 had to be terminated by the board. Further, IFRS adherence cannot be achieved if companies do not produce non-regulatory statements. However, in relation to Australia, it opposes such requirement by changing the classification of such standards, making various kinds of textual changes, adding few more disclosure requirements, and terminating past options based on adoptions. Further, in the present situation, there prevails an obstacle between IASB standards and its exposure from Australias methods (Lai et. al, 2013). Hence, it is clearly presumable that such IFRS adoption is not an effective one, or completely misguiding in nature. In addition, the EUs model of IFRS depicts as adapted in place of as adopted, thereby adding another problem When it comes to Australia, the method used for implementation is fully converging with IFRS. The Australian Accounting Standard board considers the output of the IASB and alters in many ways giving a huge impetus to the system. This goes in favor of the process of harmonization and has enabled Australia to take a huge leap in the process of reporting (Nobes Parker, 2010). Going by the overall analysis, it can be said that the attitude of Australian corporate towards the adoption of IFRS has revealed less interest towards the benefits endowed by the adoption process. However, the benefits are manifold. It is cost beneficial in nature while the initial adoption was seen as a strong sign towards increment of compliance cost. As per Horton Serafeim (2010) IFRS are often viewed as standards that are complex in scenario and treatment of various areas such as income taxes, intangible assets are of great concern. Even before the application and adoption of IFRS, the Australian standard wa s harmonizing with the IFRS. Hence, the presence of IFRS and adoption in the Australian economy will bring growth and help in enhancing the result. Companies in Australia are adhering to the standards and this will be a clean guide for the companies. Moreover, it will lead to transparency and uniformity in the methods that are adopted. Ultimately a better projection can be visualized. As per IFRS (2016), the importance of harmonization in Australian accounting standards paves the way from the fact that there is a huge demand for information and importantly by the capital markets. The development of the accounting standards is highly influenced by the laissez-faire feature and the outward looking aspect. Hence, it needs to be efficient when it comes to the process of reporting. Moreover, Australia has a strong interconnection and integrates with other regional countries majorly in international trade and business thereby requiring a strong urge for comparable, as well as competent accounting standard in Australia (Goodwin et. al, 2008). The process of globalization is another vital point that requires Australia to gain from the process of harmonization by linking to the standards with the IASB. Further, the receipt of income from exports, payment of dividend to MNCs, listing disclosures by the directors; etc emphasizes the need for harmonization process. The proces s of harmonization will ensure that the system is equipped to deal with a variety of situation and intend to provide a quality report (Melville, 2013). Moreover, synchronization will be observed in the overall system leading to an effective result. The overall effect of harmonization and adhering to the regulations is manifold and the benefit is immense. Conclusion Harmonization can be described as a process where the differences occurring in practice between countries are curtailed. The process of harmonization practices has enabled to provide a strong boost to the accounting practice and principles. Further, IASC is interested in removing the differences that are unnecessary and practice throughout the world. It has been noticed in the above discussion that harmonization of the practices of accounting suffers from certain limitations and it happens between the standards issue at the national scenario and the standards formulation. At the same time, both successes, as well as failure persists in the harmonization process. Further, with the due passage of time, the initial hurdles in the harmonization process have been removed and progress has been made towards the merge of accounting principles and procedures. Harmonization tends to bring a reduction in the cost and helps in the facilitation of better comparison between the reports of differen t countries. It can be commented that international standard adoption in Australia was a major boost to the system in 2005. With the process of adoption, the disparities were removed between the International accounting standard and the GAAP of Australia. The report describes the fact that Australia is committed to the process of harmonization and it is a strong sign of achievement. For a country like Australia, harmonization can lead to strong projection and enhanced quality of reporting will be observed. Hence, it can be concluded that the process of harmonization will be observed in the near future and will help the reporting process of Australia in a positive manner. References Byard, D, Li, Y, Yu, Y. (2011). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial analysts information environment. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(1), 69-96. Deegan, C. (2005). Australian Financial Accounting. McGraw Hill, Sydney. Goodwin, J, Ahmed, K Heaney, R. (2008). The Effects of International Financial Reporting Standards on the Accounts and Accounting Quality of Australian Firms: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Contemporary Accounting Economics, 4(2), 89-119. Goodwin, J. Ahmed, K. (2006). The Impact of International Financial Reporting Standards: Does Size Matter?. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(5), .460- 475. Hanlon, D., F. Navissi G. Soepriyanto (2014). The value relevance of deferred tax attributed to asset revaluations. Journal of Contemporary Accounting Economics, 10(2): 87-99. Horton, J. Serafeim, G. (2010). Market reaction to and valuation of IFRS reconciliation adjustments: first evidence from the UK. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(4): 725-751. IFRS. (2016). IFRS Application around the world jurisdictional profile. Retrieved April 23, 2016 https://www.ifrs.org/Use-around-the-world/Documents/Jurisdiction-profiles/Australia-IFRS-Profile.pdf Lai, C., Lu, M Shan, Y. (2013).Has Australian financial reporting become more conservative over time?. Accounting Finance, 53, 731-761. Landsman, W. R, Maydew, E. L Thornock, J. R. (2011). The information content of annual earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(2), 34-54. Maria, W. (2016). The Big Consequences of IFRS: How and When Does the Adoption of IFRS Benefit Global Accounting Firms?.The Accounting Review, 91(4), 1257-1283 Meeks, G Swann, G.M. (2009). Accounting standards and the economics of standards, Accounting and Business Research. International Accounting Policy Forum, 39(3), 23-44 Melville, A. (2013). International Financial Reporting A Practical Guide, Pearson. Education Limited, UK Morris, R. D, Gray, S. J, Pickering, J Aisbitt, S. (2014). Preparers' perceptions of the costs and benefits of IFRS: Evidence from Australia's Implementation Experience. Accounting Horizons, 28(1), 143-173. Nobes, C Parker, R. (2010). Comparative International Accounting. FT Prentice Hall. Sunder, S. (2011). IFRS Monoply: Pried Piper of Financial Reporting. Accounting and Business Research, 41(3), 22-41 Xi, LiHolly I. Y. (2016). Mandatory Financial Reporting and Voluntary Disclosure: The Effect of Mandatory IFRS Adoption on Management Forecasts.The Accounting Review,91(3), 933-953.