Revenue Recognition: Current Practice, Historical Abuses and a Possible Solution

Users of financial statements consider revenue to be a key indicator of financial performance. Thus, proper revenue recognition is important. This paper provides a discussion of revenue recognition principles and practices. A discussion is provided of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) conceptual framework as it applies to revenue recognition. In addition, a discussion is provided on SEC guidance and specific applications of revenue recognition. According to the FASB, there are over 200 pieces of “ad hoc” guidance for revenue recognition. Because of inconsistencies in this guidance, the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have engaged in a project to create a single revenue-recognition standard. The current status of this project, which began in 2002, is analyzed in the final section of this paper

FASB: Making Financial Statements Mysterious

Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board has passed rules that it promises will make corporate accounting more transparent. In fact, its revised Generally Accepted Accounting Principles have made it difficult for investors -- or even CEOs -- to understand a company's financial report. The first step in the wrong direction came when FASB mandated that companies list "intangibles" such as "goodwill" as corporate assets, artificially inflating balance sheets. After that, FASB meddled with the revenue recognition rules, in some cases not allowing companies to report revenue from cash payments received from a customer for a delivered product. Finally, and worst by far, FASB mandated punitive and nonsensical rules for so-called expensing of stock options. These accounting burdens, combined with the onerous yet ineffective mandates of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, are starting to take a real toll on American businesses and markets. In 2007, only $8.5 billion or 7.7 percent of the total$109 billion in issuances of Initial Public Offerings were launched on U.S. stock exchanges, down from 60.8 percent a decade ago

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING MEASUREMENT: INSTRUMENTATION AND CALIBRATION

In its Conceptual Framework (CF), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has not identified the observable phenomena and was not able to identify a single measurement property in financial accounting. While identifying aspects of the observable phenomena in financial accounting, the FASB has indicated that there are five measurement attributes which are used in financial accounting and the result is a mixed-attributes model. Lacking a critical underlying theory, the FASB’s Conceptual Framework is feeble at best in providing guidance for accounting measurement. Devoid of the critical theory, the FASB focuses on prediction rather than explanation and, thereby, has adopted an ‘information perspective’ as opposed to a ‘measurement perspective’ for financial accounting standards. This condition has induced a very serious concern for legislative action on the part of the US Congress. In this paper, investments constitute the observable phenomena in financial accounting and recoverable cost, which is grounded in measurement and not prediction, is the measurement property. This measurement property, which is linked to investments and explicated by the capital budgeting model, provides the logical explanation of the apparent diverse rules in financial accounting and establishes a single attribute model.Conceptual framework; transaction costs; organizational activity; measurement attribute; present value; realizable value; lower of cost and market value; organizational efficiency; bank-centric financial system;

How does the market price pension accruals?

We use a cross-sectional valuation model that distinguishes between the operating and financial activities of the firm to examine the repercussions of three main alternative measures of pension expense. The GAAP Method recognizes a smoothed net pension expense, the NETCOST Method includes the excess of interest cost over the actual return on pension plan assets, if and only if this number is positive, and the FV Method substitutes the fair value in place of the smoothed pension expense. Three alternative fair value estimates of pension expense are examined: the first includes the expected return on plan assets and fair value other costs; the second includes the actual return on plan assets and net fair value other costs; the third includes the expected and the unexpected return on plan assets, along with net fair value other costs. Results from OLS regressions are consistent with the GAAP Method being relevant while the market appears to value the unexpected return included in the FV Method. Additional analyses from jack-knife (out-of-sample) regressions confirm the OLS findings. Further, we show that the multiples assigned to the alternative measures of pension expense differ based on the funding status of pension plans. The results are robust to various sensitivity checks

Measuring Operations: An Analysis of the Financial Statements of U.S. Private Colleges and Universities

As events in the business sector have highlighted, companies can play by the rules and yet produce misleading financial statements. This study examines the nongovernmental organizations that provide a substantial portion of higher education in the United States. We seek to determine whether private colleges and universities take advantage of the discretion available to them under accounting and auditing standards by presenting an operating measure in their statement of activities. We find that nearly 60 percent of schools report an operating measure but the items included or excluded from operations vary widely.This publication is Hauser Center Working Paper No. 17. The Hauser Center Working Paper Series was launched during the summer of 2000. The Series enables the Hauser Center to share with a broad audience important works-in-progress written by Hauser Center scholars and researchers

Financial Accounting Classification of Cryptocurrency

Currently, a large range of opinions exists regarding the appropriate classification and regulation of cryptocurrency. From the legal perspective, some suggest that cryptocurrency investments are too speculative. As a result of this, it is suggested that cryptocurrency should be more heavily regulated. This would be done to prevent speculators from losing vast wealth. Other legal analysts suggest that an increasing cryptocurrency regulation would have a detrimental effect on the state of cryptocurrency, and its use would cause long-term problems. From the accounting perspective, opinions vary. Some suggest an accounting classification that would make cryptocurrency cash equivalents; others suggest an accounting classification that would render cryptocurrency an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life. The “big 4” accounting firms that include Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and Young, and KPMG recommend that cryptocurrency should be classified as an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life. However, other companies currently using cryptocurrency through the general operations of the business have decided to classify it differently. The legal perspectives and the accounting perspectives will be analyzed to determine appropriate regulations for cryptocurrency and an appropriate classification for cryptocurrency. The results will show that cryptocurrency should be classified as an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life for accounting purposes and as property for tax purposes

GASB Statement No. 31: Why No Controversy?

Fair value reporting of investments in the financial statements of commercial enterprises is required under FASB Statement No. 115. The standard created much controversy when issued due to provisions that changes in fair values of certain investments were recognized in the operating statement. A major concern to many organizations was the volatility these recognized, but unrealized, changes in fair value would create in reported earnings. When the GASB issued Statement No. 31 requiring fair value reporting of investments there was little controversy concerning volatility to reported earnings of governmental entities, even though the standard required much broader application of fair value reporting. This study examined a possible explanation for the lack of controversy surrounding fair value reporting in the public sector. An analysis of the financial reports of the major U.S. municipalities provided empirical evidence of the significance of investments earnings to municipal revenues, investment assets to total assets, and the significance of changes in fair values of investments to investment earnings and total revenues. Financial reports and accompanying notes for fiscal years 1994 to 1998 were examined. Results indicate that overall, investments earnings were not a significant component of governmental fund revenues. However, investment earnings were significant for certain governmental fund types. The difference between costs and fair market values of investments also did not appear to be material to most governmental funds. The minimal impact of the fair value reporting on earnings offers a partial explanation for the lack of debate surrounding adoption of fair value reporting of investment by governmental entities

Value relevance of troubled debt restructurings and policy implications

This paper investigates the beneficial economic consequences and market and accounting based valuation effects of troubled debt restructurings (TDR) in financially distressed debtor firms. Relying on the implications of prior research and extant valuation theories, some empirical evidence on the beneficial outcomes and informativeness of TDR is first provided: significantly positive restructuring interval excess returns and higher excess returns to subsequently consummated restructurings and subsequent survivors. The market reaction to “full-settlement” and “modification of terms” types of TDR are also measured to evaluate the consistency of the FASB's binary classification and recognition criteria with the market participants' assessments. Finally, a valuation model conditional on book values and earnings is used to test the value relevance of the reported financial statement bottom lines and TDR related disclosure. The findings suggest that modifications are at least as beneficial and informative as full settlements. Hence, the recognition of the reduction in the liability and the related gain in the financial statements of firms that undertake modifications would be more congruent with the valuation effects assessed by market participants. Key words: Private workouts, Financial distress, Debt restructuring, Valuation, Capital markets, SFAS No.15. JEL: G14, G33, G38, M4

Whose Trojan Horse? The Dynamics of Resistance Against IFRS

The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) has been debated in the United States since at least the accounting scandals of the early 2000s. While publicly traded firms around the world are increasingly switching to IFRS, often because they are required to do so by law or by their stock exchange, the Securities Exchange Com-mission (“SEC”) seems to have become more reticent in recent years. Only foreign issuers have been permitted to use IFRS in the United States since 2007. By contrast, the EU has mandated the use of IFRS in the consolidated financial statements of publicly traded firms since 2005. In the United States, IFRS, which are promulgated by the London-based Inter-national Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”), are often seen as an at-tempt by Europeans to colonize U.S. accounting standard setting, and as an element of a foreign legal system alien to U.S. capital markets and securities law. In this article, we suggest that this perception is actually a myth, which we attempt to debunk. In fact, the introduction of IFRS in Europe, particularly Continental Europe, was far from controversial. IFRS were promoted by Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and strongly support-ed by the United States, particularly when capital markets internationalized in the 1990s. They were—and still are—in many ways at odds with the Continental European accounting cultures of countries such as France and Germany, on whose examples we draw. In spite of the EU mandate for publicly traded firms, accounting law in these jurisdictions has still not fully absorbed IFRS; nevertheless, for now a solution that reconciles traditional and international accounting has been found. In this article, we explore the problems and resistance of IFRS in Continental Europe and seek to draw lessons for the United States. We argue that given the shared heritage of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and IFRS as investor-oriented accounting standards, their introduction in the United States should be considerably easier than it was on the other side of the Atlantic