Understanding Financial Accounting Systems And Issues In Financial Reporting: A Study On IFRS 2 And Positive Accounting Theory

Theoretical foundation and content of financial accounting systems

Question:

Discuss about the Advanced Financial Reporting and Theory.

The current study analytically examines theoretical foundation and content of financial accounting systems that can provide financial information for the communication to different users. In addition to this, the current segment also presents a research on current issues in financial reporting and explains the effect of the issues on the overall regulatory structure within the purview of UK. The section also presents specific guidance of IFRS 2 that is related to the manner share based payments have the need to be accounted and reported in the financial assertions. Moving further, the study also states about Positive Accounting Theory that indicates towards altering accounting policies, handling discretionary accruals, timing of implementation of novel accounting standards, altering real variables and many others. The study also helps in relating important application of the notion in the current case.

The current section intends to analyse the theoretical basis as well as content of financial accounting system with special reference to article “Get Grips with IFRS 2” accounting standard. The utilization of the grant dated alternative to enumerate the fair value of particularly the equity settled remuneration can be considered as an important component of IFRS 2. However, critics are of the opinion that it can necessarily lead to inaccuracy in the process of reporting (Brigham and Ehrhardt 2013). Analysis of prior reports reveal the fact that share based payment in IFRS 2 presently sits on the list of diverse research projects designed by the International Accounting Standards Board  and is also one of more intricate of IFRS directives.

The standard IFRS 2 mainly calls for entities to detect diverse awards of share based payment in different financial assertions founded on fair value (Leuz and Wysocki 2016). This happens at the time when both goods as well as services are accepted and that is presently determined at specific grant date for particular share based payments that are issued to different members of the staff. IASB also settled on grant date model. Under this specific model, a specific entity enumerates fair value of particular share based payment award issued to a specific worker on the grant date (Zeff et al. 2016).

The scope of IFRS 2 mainly includes equity based share based payment deal; cash settled share based payment deal and share based payment deal with cash alternatives (Lusardi and Mitchell 2014). However, the IFRS 2 also does not include the transactions counting transfers of particularly equity instruments that are evidently not disbursement for products as well as services. In addition to this, IFRS 2 also does not include transactions/deals with shareholders that are essentially at the time when shareholders act solely in the capability as shareholders (Zeff 2013). Again, transactions that are within the scope of the regulation IAS 32 as well as IAS 39 are also not included within the purview of IFRS 2.

Current issues in financial reporting and the impact on regulatory structures

the requirements of the directives of IFRS 2 essentially requires business entities to recognize the expends or else an asset in case if the goods as well services accepted satisfy the criteria for detecting a specific asset (Sunder 2016). In addition to this, an enhancement in equity (that mainly refers to transactions that are settled in various equity instruments) or else in liabilities (that primarily refers to cash settled deals). Nevertheless, IFRS mentions that for specifically awards to diverse employees, a particular entity have the need to utilize fair value of instruments of equity enumerated particularly at the grant date. Furthermore, according to the regulation, for awards to different non-employees, there remains a rebuttable supposition that the fair value of goods as well as services can be considered to be more consistently determinable, enumerated at the time when  these goods and services are accepted.

Valuation Techniques refers to the fact unless a specific option with the same or else comparable terms is listed, a business entities cannot acquire fair values externally. Thus, it is important to approximate the fair value of mainly share based payment utilizing an option pricing model (Lee 2014).

Thus, it can be mentioned that structural plans are somewhat identical to the regulations of IFRS 2 and the associated expend ramifications. Vesting conditions exert immense influence on the expense charged to the earning assertion in a different manner. In case if an option has market vesting situation or else a non-vesting circumstances, a specific unit might help in recognizing expends though a condition is not attained and the option does not necessarily vest. In contrast, an award subject to specific non-marketing vesting situation does not lead to IFRS 2 expense only if the condition is not satisfied (Vernimmen et al. 2014). Finally, it can be said that decision makers also need to take into consideration diverse hidden awards of share based payments that again might be within the purview of IFRS 2 in specific situations. For instance the cases include non-corporate shareholder of a specific business entity providing shares to members of the staff of the business entity. Again, employees also accept a cash payout that is equal to the enhancement in the share index. Furthermore, a business entity also provides a specific employee a restricted recourse loan for the purpose of acquiring shares.

Based on the current article, it can be mentioned that part of the intricacy stems from the utilization of the grant date fair value measurement model. Essentially, this can be utilized in the process of arrangements that can be settled in specific shares else wise in share options. However, in order to comprehend potential issues behind the causes. As per Merz (2015), potential issues mainly stems up from two diverse transaction types that can be utilized for remunerating employees. As rightly indicated by Cascino and Gassen (2015), the equity settled schemes refers to the ones where employee receives the advantage specifically in the form of equity, namely shares or else share options.  Again, the cash settled schemes refer to the fact that employees accept cash associated to the price of share of a business entity at a specific period. As per IFRS 2, diverse share based payments need to be identified in financial assertions utilizing fair value over a specific period of time.  

IFRS 2 and its specifications on share-based payments in financial assertions

In addition to this, there are also certain issues associated to the grant date fair value. In essence, it generates less relevant information as the same is not properly updated to represent the alterations in the value of the option. Again, issues also stem at the time of dealing with particular share options that is underwater (Christensen et al. 2013). Also, the grant date is also very inconsistent with the treatment of cash that refers to cash settled plan and other employee based system of accounting.

IASB addresses diverse issues at the time of deciding the model that is to be implemented at the time of introduction of particularly IFRS 2. This necessarily represents value of service, instead of option. Essentially, the fair value of particularly services accepted is not affected by alterations in the fair value of specific equity instruments accepted in exchange. Alteration in option value in second year is unrelated to the service value delivered by members of staff in first year (DeFond et al.  2014).

This necessarily represents the service value instead of option. In this case, the fair value of particularly services accepted is not influenced by consequent alterations in the equity represented in fair value.  The equity that is being relocated is theoretically different from cash payment. IASB thereafter started the use of specific principles that implement to equity transactions under Conceptual Framework for purpose of Financial Reporting. Again, utilization of the grant date fair value system thereafter initiates less volatility particularly in the financial assertions than utilizing reporting date system in a fair value framework., since the fair value remains fixed and thus generates a more predictable annual expenditure (Brigham and Ehrhardt 2013). In addition to this, challenges of the grant date fair value model also lead to displacement of the same. Present accounting exercises implemented in IFRS 2 as well as IAS 19 also deliver two alternatives that are already present. A specific alternative that can be implemented include introducing reporting date fair value system as is utilized in cash settled plans. Another alternative that can be implemented include introduction of service date measurement system in a particular manner identical to IAS 19.

The corporations might take into consideration the necessity of good predictions of real world incidents and translate the same into accounting deals as per Positive Accounting Theory. As per PAT, management of firms can think about optimizing their prospects for the survival and thereby organize them effectively. For this, the challenges due to the current issues in regulations need to be identified and rectified at the same time (Brigham and Ehrhardt 2013). In addition to this, as per this theory altering situations also calls for the need of the managers to have adequate flexibility in selecting accounting policies. However, this reflects the opportunistic behaviour that takes place at time when the actions are for the better of personal interests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that the above mentioned study helps in understanding key concepts of advanced financial reporting and associated theoretical foundation.  The above study thereby assists in understanding the fact that the utilization of the grant date option for the purpose of measuring the fair value of particularly equity settled remuneration is an important component of IFRS 2. Nonetheless critics are of the view that this can lead to inaccurate ways of reporting.

References

Brigham, E.F. and Ehrhardt, M.C., 2013. Financial management: Theory & practice. Cengage Learning.

Cascino, S. and Gassen, J., 2015. What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption?. Review of Accounting Studies, 20(1), pp.242-282.

Christensen, H.B., Hail, L. and Leuz, C., 2013. Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2), pp.147-177.

DeFond, M.L., Hung, M., Li, S. and Li, Y., 2014. Does mandatory IFRS adoption affect crash risk?. The Accounting Review, 90(1), pp.265-299.

Lee, T.A., 2014. Evolution of Corporate Financial Reporting (RLE Accounting). Routledge.

Leuz, C. and Wysocki, P.D., 2016. The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation: Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), pp.525-622.

Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O.S., 2014. The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), pp.5-44.

Merz, A., 2015. Expensing Performance-Vested Executive Stock Options: Is There Underreporting Under IFRS 2?. Browser Download This Paper.

Sunder, S., 2016. Rethinking financial reporting: standards, norms and institutions. Foundations and Trends® in Accounting, 11(1–2), pp.1-118.

Vernimmen, P., Quiry, P., Dallocchio, M., Le Fur, Y. and Salvi, A., 2014. Corporate finance: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Zeff, S.A., 2013. The objectives of financial reporting: a historical survey and analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 43(4), pp.262-327.

Zeff, S.A., van der Wel, F. and Camfferman, C., 2016. Company financial reporting: A historical and comparative study of the Dutch regulatory process. Routledge.