Disclaimer: This assignment features been submitted by a student. This is not a good example of the work written by our professional assignment authors.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or tips expressed in this material are those of the authors and don’t necessarily reflect the sights of UK Essays.
Why did the UK change their accounting expectations from UK GAAP to IFRS, and its effect on UK companies
The gathering tempo of globalisation is evident in numerous areas, including the expansion of the European Union; the execution of the Euro as the one currency in lots of member states, and increasing degrees of global trade (Aisbitt, 2005). As such, the breaking down of foreign barriers and advances in communication technologies have allowed any businesses to get competitive gain by accessing low priced labour and other resources of experienced labour from outside their domestic economies. In addition, the opening up of capital markets has made it possible for investors to make investments in businesses and projects around the world. Lehman (2005) argues that this globalisation of functions and markets has led to increased degrees of political and social pressure on regulators to improve the levels of transparency in their financial reporting standards, as well as making them much easier for global users to interpret. This is what ultimately led to your choice by the UK, as part of the wider European Union, to look at International Financial Reporting Criteria rather than their own, different national standards. Aisbitt (2005) argues that this trend towards harmonisation has also included a get towards convergence onto optimum set of specifications. As such, the UK’s Accounting Standards Board, previously in charge of setting UK GAAP, features been strongly centered on dealing with the International Accounting Benchmarks Board, and its counterparts in other nations, to develop a more coherent global group of accounting standards.
However, Aisbitt (2006) argues that the authorization of europe Regulation which expected all listed businesses in the EU to present their annual reports regarding to IFRS was simply another step in a wider global approach towards convergence. Aisbitt (2006) argues that move was partly influenced by the necessity to move towards principles founded accounting, after scandals such as Enron showed how harmful it was to keep using narrow rule based regulations. However, some of the move had started in the 1990s, when the International Company of Securities Commissions began moving towards a global set of specifications for listing on recognised share exchanges. Part of these standards required that businesses present their accounts within an accepted and well recognised format to aid international stock market users. Even more momentum behind this transformation was driven by the Norwalk contract, that was agreed by the US Financial Accounting Standards Plank and the International Accounting Standards Board in 2002. Such agreements created a growing trend towards the use of IFRS, and Aisbitt (2006) reported that by 2005 over 100 countries either allowed or expected their corporations to use IFRS when preparing financial statements.
The ultimate data for all listed corporations in the EU to switch to International Financial Reporting Specifications was set as being the 1st January 2005; however companies whose financial year began after this time only needed employ IFRS for the fiscal year which were only available in 2005. There’s been a substantial debate over the effect of introduction of IFRS, with Walton (2004) claiming that IAS 39 would create significant issues for a few companies and KPMG (2005) claiming that many companies and analysts had been unprepared for the switch. Furthermore, some people, especially Jacques Chirac in 2003, complained that the excessive use of market values encouraged by IFRS would produce the European economies even more volatility. However, because the international benchmarks were introduced across the EU in 2005, there has been little proof these concerns having significant impacts. One of the most significant impacts was that the technique for calculating the year-end balance changed, and therefore some companies had to restructure their finances to make certain that they still fulfilled a few of their loan covenants following the change (Ormrod and Taylor, 2004).
However, given that a lot of the literature around IFRS just before the harmonisation tended to focus on the necessity for convergence (Flower, 1997) and the degree to which firms complied with IFRS (Sucher and Alexander, 2002), it is clear that there was insufficient focus paid to the extent to which companies would need to adjust to cope with the new regulations. Indeed, ahead of 2005, the literature contained very few examples of how companies had were able to change their accounting techniques to make the changeover to IFRS, with HÈ•tten (2005) being one of the few examples of an in depth study of such techniques. As such, the professional organizations (KPMG, 2005) and trade journals (Accountancy, 2003) essentially represent better sources compared to the academic journals on the impression. Indeed, it is relatively telling that Ormrod and Taylor’s (2004) study into the extent to that your increased utilization of market ideals in the personal statements, and the potential effects this may contain on volatility, was released in a trade journal, rather than an academic journal. Although this is arguably an all natural consequence to the fact that changes in accounting standards have more of a cosmetic influence on company performance, and therefore are not as relevant to academic study how to write a synthesis essay faultlessly as elements which have an impact on a company’s actual performance.
Indeed, as discussed above, Ormrod and Taylor (2004) argue that among the major alterations of the change to IFRS is usually that the resultant improvements in the balance sheet figures will actually end up being on contractual obligations, instead of on earning or valuations. That is based on the actual fact that the need to mark assets to advertise value, and the need to better take into account items such as for example goodwill, may mean that companies will violate loan covenants which need them to maintain certain asset to credit debt ratios or various other accounting based steps. As such, Ormrod and Taylor (2004) argue that lots of companies may need to increase certain factors on their balance sheet, like the provision made for deferred tax if properties are revalued, something which could then impact on the net asset value and different accounting. In order to avoid such anomalies, where the change in restrictions caused an insignificant result but this was magnified due to contractual obligations or other accounting factors, the Committee of European Stock Exchange Regulators argued that firms should explain how the transition has affected their reports (CESR, 2003), This recommendation was hence persuasive that it had been made a mandatory condition of listing on the London STOCK MARKET. Whilst this could have helped analysts and traders to utilize the financial accounts to handle an impartial, ongoing evaluation of any afflicted company, it will have increased the responsibility for the company in question, who www.testmyprep.com may have to create two units of accounts and compare the two to fulfil this requirement.
Another significant affect was that the latest IFRS, IFRS 3, expected a much stronger level of transparency for companies making acquisitions (Stevenson and McPhee, 2005). Under UK GAAP, whenever a company acquired another the amount paid in addition to the net asset value was merely termed ‘goodwill’ and amortised evenly over an interval of around twenty years. This enabled corporations to easily predict the effects on earnings, as well concerning be quite elusive about some of the source of benefit obtained from acquisitions. However, under IFRS 3, businesses will need to be more particular and transparent around the nature of any acquired intangible assets. In addition, rather than amortising for goodwill on a right line basis, companies are required to examine their goodwill at least once a yr, and amortise it to its current reasonable value. This allows shareholders and investors to raised know very well what value has truly been obtained from an acquisition, and how an acquisition features performed each year (Stevenson and McPhee, 2005). Viner (2006) argues that will have significant impact on media businesses, where huge amounts of goodwill are typically associated with each transaction. As such, whilst these businesses took contingent and varied methods to accounting for goodwill under GAAP, these were forced to make significant adjustments under IFRS, which imposed sizeable accounting burdens (Viner, 2006).
One of the few academic journals which is normally of interest in deciding the influence of the change to IFRS on UK firms is normally that of Tarca (2004). This study is based on determining the level to which listed firms from the united kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Australia chose to use international criteria when declaring their outcomes when they had the decision. As this analysis was carried out in the run up to the united kingdom, France and Germany’s mandatory move to IFRS, it offers useful information regarding the extent to which businesses voluntarily used IFRS before these were forced to utilize it. The analysis also differentiated between the choice to use the United States’ GAAP, as a broadly accepted standard, or the IFRS. This analysis revealed that the firms which were probably to use a global accounting regular, either supplementary to or
instead of their domestic regular, tended to be large, with earnings from many countries, and were detailed on a lot more than on stock exchange. Therefore that the difficulties associated with switching to IFRS were much more likely to affect larger organizations, and hence these firms opted to make a voluntary switch earlier to be remembered as accustomed to the brand new expectations, and the accounting dissimilarities they represent (Tarca, 2004).
However, relating to Shearer (2005), there is another reason behind this choice; that staying that IFRS is almost entirely intended to support global capital marketplaces. As such, their sole aim is to permit investors to make informed decisions predicated on access to complex and similar accounting info incorporating a universal reasonable value measurement. This contributes to another main impact on UK companies: the necessity to report the majority of property and liabilities at ‘reasonable value’ as identified by the IASB. This naturally requires companies to create more detailed disclosures and undertake quite a lot of data gathering. Even so, Shearer (2005) argues that, out from the practically two million companies in the united kingdom, IFRS would probably be appropriate for significantly less than five thousand, as they are the only ones which rely upon international capital markets. In addition, Shearer (2005) argues that the IASB’s demand for intercontinental accounting convergence is mostly based on driving a vehicle a convergence with the united states GAAP, and fails to incorporate the requirements of additional countries. As such, small companies will have a tendency to have a problem with the switch to a more complicated standard which will not value their existing methods. It really is worth noting that is purely an view piece; and that it is written by somebody at Grant Thornton, the accounting company, who at first supported this change. As such, it may not be totally factually accurate or trusted.
However, it is worth noting that the ICAEW argued highly towards continuing to permit unlisted companies in the UK to use GAAP if they wished (Accountancy, 2006). This argument again acknowledges that IFRS happen to be intended to be utilized in global capital marketplaces by listed companies. Certainly, this argument could possibly be seen as one of many key explanations why unlisted UK businesses can nonetheless choose whether to work with IFRS or UK GAAP because of their accounts, and simply listed firms are forced to employ IFRS. As a part of this switch, the requirements of UK GAAP had been aligned with those of IFRS, with some disclosure reductions, implying there are nonetheless impacts on unlisted businesses, but these are less significant that the impacts on posted businesses. Accountancy (2003) provides more detail on a number of the minor impacts on outlined businesses, by analysing the GAAP requirements which would not end up being permitted under IFRS. A few of these include accounting for post harmony sheet events and federal government grants, and engaging in foreign currency translation. In addition, accounting for pension costs, research and creation and deferred tax, that have been optional under UK GAAP, are not permitted under IFRS.
The move to IFRS also had a significant impact on the ASB in the UK, whose traditional position was placed under risk by the move to IFRS, which are dependant on the IASB. As such, the ASB was forced to balance its classic role of creating accounting standards which can be applied to the united kingdom context, whilst also looking to make UK GAAP extra compatible with IFRS (Wilson, 2002). Wilson’s (2002) reporting on the ASB’s publication of eight new exposure drafts, and its own stated intention to produce more down the road, tended to indicate that the ASB was unwilling to accept these impacts and have a backseat to the IASB, as much of these drafts centered on addressing UK only concerns. Even so, Wilson (2002) raised inquiries over whether these latest standards were actually beneficial for British businesses, a lot of which would need to abandon them when the transition to IFRS occurred, or whether they were simply a political attempt to maintain the ASB’s importance. Therefore that, not only did businesses need to cope with the actual switch to IFRS, but they also needed to cope with the political manoeuvring and debate in the build up to the switch.
Aisbitt (2005) focuses on a somewhat more unorthodox effect of the activate businesses: the actual fact that the teaching options for new financial accountants in the united kingdom are now split between GAAP and IFRS suitable training. Not only does this have an impact on businesses involved in accountancy training, nonetheless it can also help to make it harder for firms to find accountants who’ve been trained in the precise accounting methods they wish to use, particularly listed businesses which have to produce both models of accounts to illustrate the distinctions between them. Luckily, accountancy education was rather quick to respond to these demands, with fresh accounting classes emerging which drew on both IFRS and UK GAAP, and helped trainee accountants to understand the difference. Comparing contemporary accounting training to previous accounting training indicates that one of the key impacts has can be found in the International Accounting area, which includes seen a significant upsurge in importance during the last ten years, predicated on Laidler and Pallett’s (1998) coverage of the topic. As such, businesses which specialised in worldwide accounting training have observed a surge in curiosity in the subject, and thus have seen significant beneficial impacts to their important thing (Aisbitt, 2005).
Management accountants have also seen a substantial rise in the value directed at IFRS and both US and UK GAAP. Specifically, Financial Analysis (2007) specifically draws the focus on pupils of the Chartered Institute of Supervision Accounting, CIMA, to the value of the convergence between US GAAP and IFRS, and the improvements implies versus UK GAAP. This is arguably even more of a reactive piece of advice, and is dependant on the fact that nearly all CIMA college students tended to be unacquainted with the extent of the convergence and its effect on management accounting. As such, Financial Evaluation (2007) argue that both students and businesses needed to be aware of the implications of the Norwalk arrangement, and the likely potential advancements in IFRS and US GAAP in order to better respond to them.
In conclusion, your choice of the UK, within the EU, to go towards IFRS was intended to drive global accounting convergence, and enhance the working of European and global capital marketplaces. It has meant that UK businesses experienced to adjust to many new accounting strategies and implications, especially the impact of reasonable value on items such as goodwill and contractual obligations. Whilst unlisted businesses contain certainly not experienced as significant an impact as their shown counterparts, the changes to UK GAAP to support the shift may also experienced some impacts on them. As such, given the lack of any general academic research of the change, or clear habits of impact, it seems that most improvements and impacts will depend on individual company instances and strategies.
- Accountancy (2003) Implications for UK firms of switching from compliance with current UK GAAP to compliance with current and proposed IFRS. Accountancy; Vol. 131, Concern 1316, p. 85-88.
- Aisbitt, S. (2006) Assessing the Effect of the Transition to IFRS on Collateral: The Circumstance of the FTSE 100. European Accounting Assessment; Oct2006 Supplement 3, Vol. 15, p. 117-133.
- Aisbitt, S. (2005) International accounting books: Publishers’ desire, authors’ nightmare and educators’ certainty. Accounting Education; Vol. 14, Concern 3, p. 349-360.
- CESR (2003) European regulation for the use of IFRS in 2005: suggestion for additional guidance regarding the transition to IFRS. CESR/03-323e; December, 2003.
- Financial Control (2007) Financial Analysis. Financial Control; Dec2007 / Jan2008, p. 53.
- Flower, J. (1997) The future shape of harmonization: the EU versus the IASC versus the SEC. European Accounting Review; Vol. 6, Issue 2, p. 281–303.
- HÈ•tten, C. (2005) Financial reporting challenges in a global regulatory environment – the case of SAP. Workshop on Accounting in European countries Beyond 2005; University of Regensburg, Germany, September.
- KPMG (2005) Introduction of IFRS: Analyst Research Study. KPMG IFRG Ltd.
- Laidler J. and Pallett S. (1998) Accounting Education. Vol. 7, Concern 1, p. 75-86.
- Lehman, G. (2005) A critical perspective on the harmonisation of accounting in a globalising world. Critical Perspectives on Accounting; Vol. 16, Concern 7, p. 975-992.
- Ormrod, P. and Taylor, P. (2004) The affect of the transformation to International Accounting Standards on debt covenants: a UK perspective. Accounting in European countries; S. 1, p. 71–94.
- Shearer, B. (2005) In support of a GAAP gap. Accountancy; Vol. 136, Concern 1345, p. 96-97.
- Stevenson, H. and McPhee, D. (2005) Acquiring firms: knowing your IAS from your own elbow. Accountancy; Vol. 136, Concern 1343, p. 82-83.
- Sucher, P. and Alexander, D. (2002) IAS: Issues of Region, Sector and Audit Organization Compliance in Emerging Economies. London: Center for Business Efficiency of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
- Tarca, A good. (2004) International Convergence of Accounting Procedures: Choosing between IAS and US GAAP. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting; Vol. 15, Issue 1, p. 60-91.
- Viner, A. (2006) Media savvy. Accountancy; Vol. 138, Issue 1359, p. 80-81.
- Walton, P. (2004) IAS 39: where different accounting styles collide. Accounting in Europe; S. 1, p. 5-16.
- Wilson, A good. (2002) This should be the wrong approach. Accountancy; Vol. 130, Issue 1308, p. 77.