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 ...
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.
Altmetric