Search

SYNOPSIS: Diversity in views about the existence, nature, and extent of the "intangibles problem" in financial reporting and various proposed solutions is well represented among national accounting standard setters. This paper summarizes the varying perspectives on these issues by a group of national accounting standard setters from Canada, Germany, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. The paper strives to deliver a balanced discussion of the alternative perspectives to provide fodder for further consideration by the accounting community and to stimulate additional academic research relevant to these issues. JEL Classifications: M410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current accounting practice expenses many investments in intangible assets to the income statement, confusing earnings from current revenues with investments to gain future revenues. This has led to increasing calls to book those investments to the balance sheet. Drawing on relevant research, we evaluate solutions for intangible asset accounting that contrast with balance sheet recognition, and we compare these with current practice under IFRS. Key is acknowledging that an accounting solution comes from a double-entry system, which produces both an income statement and a balance sheet, and which has features that both enable and limit the information that can be conveyed about intangible asset value. In this system, asset recognition in the balance sheet must consider the effect on measurement in the income statement, for the income statement conveys value added to investment on the balance sheet. A determining feature is uncertainty about investment outcome and how that affects the income statement, so our solutions centre on accounting under uncertainty. Two other accounting features are added: there has to be an investment expenditure for balance sheet recognition, and that expenditure must be separately identifiable from transactions. These features, rather than the tangible-intangible asset dichotomy, lead to the prescribed solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2010.00308.x Byline: ANDREW LENNARD (1) Author Affiliation: (1)U.K. Accounting Standards Board Article note: A ndrew L ennard (a.lennard@frc-asb.org.uk) is Director of Research, U.K. Accounting Standards Board.

Abstract Background Notch plays a wide-ranging role in controlling cell fate, differentiation and development. The PI3K-Akt pathway is a similarly conserved signalling pathway which regulates processes such as differentiation, proliferation and survival. Mice with disrupted Notch and PI3K signalling show phenotypic similarities during haematopoietic cell development, suggesting functional interaction between these pathways. Results We show that cellular responsiveness to Notch signals depends on the activity of the PI3K-Akt pathway in cells as diverse as CHO cells, primary T-cells and hippocampal neurons. Induction of the endogenous PI3K-Akt pathway in CHO cells (by the insulin pathway), in T-cells (via TCR activation) or in neurons (via TrKB activation) potentiates Notch-dependent responses. We propose that the PI3K-Akt pathway exerts its influence on Notch primarily via inhibition of GSK3-beta, a kinase known to phosphorylate and regulate Notch signals. Conclusion The PI3K-Akt pathway acts as a "gain control" for Notch signal responses. Since physiological levels of intracellular Notch are often low, coincidence with PI3K-activation may be crucial for induction of Notch-dependent responses.

The European Accounting Association (EAA) Financial Reporting Standards Committee (FRSC) provided a response to the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB's) 2013 Discussion Paper (DP) on completing and revising its Conceptual Framework. The response consisted of a literature-based discussion of the issues raised in the IASB paper and responses to the questions asked. The following paper has omitted the responses to specific questions but otherwise sets out the arguments made to the IASB, together with introductory material to indicate the context. The FRSC paper follows the order of the IASB DP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the question of whether the objective of financial reporting should be based solely on 'decision-usefulness' or whether stewardship should be recognised as a separate objective. This question is not new, but has recently come to the fore through the publication by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) of their 'Preliminary Views' (PV) paper setting out a draft of the first chapters of their proposed improved conceptual framework. The PV paper proposes a decision-useful objective, and argues that information relevant to assessing stewardship will be encompassed in that objective. However, two IASB members have set out an 'Alternative View' which argues that stewardship and decision-usefulness are parallel objectives with different emphases that should therefore be defined as separate objectives. The present paper argues that, as suggested by the Alternative View, stewardship contributes an important dimension to financial reporting, which should be reflected by specific acknowledgement in the objectives of financial reporting. However, it suggests that stewardship should not be characterised simply as information to assist an assessment of the competence and integrity of 'stewards' (i.e. management, directors) but as the provision of information that provides a foundation for a constructive dialogue between management and shareholders. Seen in this way, stewardship provides a direct support for many of the propositions advanced in the PV paper. For example, it highlights the importance of historical information and that information should be complete. It would, however, be easier to make a compelling case for this information if a major role for stewardship were identified in the framework, rather than being placed merely in a supporting role. But other consequences would also follow. Exclusive focus on a decision-usefulness objective has led to an excessive emphasis on the forecasting of future cash flows, and insufficient emphasis on reliability, which seems to be an essential qualitative characteristic of financial statements. The substitution of 'verifiability', as proposed by the PV paper, is not adequate. There is no conflict between decision-useful and stewardship objectives, since the information required to meet the objective of stewardship is required by decision-usefulness: however, the exclusion of stewardship incurs the risk that those who argue for the inclusion of information required for an assessment of stewardship will be placed at a disadvantage. They will have to frame their arguments in an indirect and convoluted way, and it is accordingly unlikely that they will always succeed. So accounting standards might permit the exclusion of information, or the presentation of information in a suboptimal way, whilst superior alternatives could be compellingly supported by appeal to an explicit objective of stewardship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]