IFRS digest : what U.S. practitioners and entities need to know now

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/1553/thumbnail.jp

Cancer Health Empowerment for Living without Pain (Ca-HELP): study design and rationale for a tailored education and coaching intervention to enhance care of cancer-related pain

Abstract Background Cancer-related pain is common and under-treated. This article describes a study designed to test the effectiveness of a theory-driven, patient-centered coaching intervention to improve cancer pain processes and outcomes. Methods/Design The Cancer Health Empowerment for Living without Pain (Ca-HELP) Study is an American Cancer Society sponsored randomized trial conducted in Sacramento, California. A total of 265 cancer patients with at least moderate pain severity (Worst Pain Numerical Analog Score >=4 out of 10) or pain-related impairment (Likert score >= 3 out of 5) were randomly assigned to receive tailored education and coaching (TEC) or educationally-enhanced usual care (EUC); 258 received at least one follow-up assessment. The TEC intervention is based on social-cognitive theory and consists of 6 components (assess, correct, teach, prepare, rehearse, portray). Both interventions were delivered over approximately 30 minutes just prior to a scheduled oncology visit. The majority of visits (56%) were audio-recorded for later communication coding. Follow-up data including outcomes related to pain severity and impairment, self-efficacy for pain control and for patient-physician communication, functional status and well-being, and anxiety were collected at 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Discussion Building on social cognitive theory and pilot work, this study aims to test the hypothesis that a brief, tailored patient activation intervention will promote better cancer pain care and outcomes. Analyses will focus on the effects of the experimental intervention on pain severity and impairment (primary outcomes); self-efficacy and quality of life (secondary outcomes); and relationships among processes and outcomes of cancer pain care. If this model of coaching by lay health educators proves successful, it could potentially be implemented widely at modest cost. Trial Registration [Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT00283166

An Interview with Sir David Tweedie, Chair, International Accounting Standards Board

At their first meeting in June 2000, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Trustees selected Sir David Tweedie to serve as chairman of the newly restructured IASB. Tweedie held several significant positions prior to assuming the Chairmanship of the IASB. Tweedie was appointed Technical Director of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland in 1978 and moved from there in 1982 to the position of national Technical Partner of the then Thomson McLintock & Co. In 1987, his firm merged with Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. at which time he was appointed national Technical Partner of KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock. Tweedie was the UK and Irish representative on the International Auditing Practices Committee from 1983 to 1988 and Chairman of the UK’s Auditing Practices Committee from 1989 to 1990. In 1990, Tweedie was appointed as the first Chairman of the UK’s Accounting Standards Board. In 1995, he became a UK representative on the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). Tweedie was also influential in the formation of the G4+1 and served as the G4 working group’s first Chairman

An Interview with Sir David Tweedie: Reflections on Ten Years as the IASB’s First Chair

In a prior paper published in the Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, Donna Street (2002) focused on a March 28, 2001 interview where Sir David Tweedie reflected on his outlook for the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and his forthcoming role as the Board’s first Chair. During a May 21, 2013 inter- view, Sir David and I met again. This time, Sir David looked back on his ten years as the IASB’s first Chair. The interview, summarized in this paper, began with a discussion of the Board’s greatest achievements and Sir David’s biggest regrets. We went on to discuss a range of issues including the benefits of IFRS adoption, changes to the IFRS constitution, working with national accounting standard setters, IASB board composition, IFRS endorsement models, the IASB standing its ground in the face of lobbying and the consequences of compromise, convergence including the US GAAP convergence project, the failure of the U.S. to adopt IFRS and the challenge of IFRS enforcement. We also covered the unfinished Reporting Financial Performance Project and the importance of completing the more recent Framework project. Finally, Sir David discussed the role of the International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER), the need for IASB to be informed by academic research and accounting education

IFRS in the United States: If, When and How

This paper provides an overview of the convergence efforts of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It begins with their 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and traces developments up to the December 2011 announcement by the IASB Chair that convergence has come to a close, and it is now time to incorporate IFRS into the US financial reporting system. The paper then assesses approaches being considered by the SEC for incorporating IFRS into the US financial reporting model. The conclusion calls on the SEC to ‘make a decision’ and set a date for US adoption of IFRS. Otherwise, the SEC effectively will have abandoned its goal of a single set of high quality global accounting standards

The G4\u27s Role in the Evolution of the International Accounting Standard Setting Process and Partnership with the IASB

Between 1992 and 2001, representatives of the G4 national accounting standard setting bodies and the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) participated in a working group known as the G4+1. Immediately following the formation of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the G4 announced that the working group would no longer meet. Alternatively, the G4 national standard setters would form a partnership with the IASB via liaison representatives. This paper focuses on the objectives and mission of the G4+1, the G4\u27s relationship with the IASC, the impact of the G4 on the restructuring of the IASC to establish a quality independent global accounting standard setter, former G4 participants’ perceptions of the IASB, and the significance of the IASB\u27s current partnership with the G4 national accounting standard setters. The paper additionally discusses recent changes to the IASC Foundation Constitution and considers now modifications to the liaison structure may impact the IASB\u27s partnership with its G4 national standard setting partners. Portions of a monograph published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales entitled Inside G4+1: The Working Group\u27s Role in the Evolution of the International Accounting Standard Setting Process provide the background for the paper

Large Firms Envision Worldwide Convergence of Standards

Currently, the largest accounting firms1 are working diligently in conjunction with their partners in the International Forum on Accountancy Development (IFAD) to achieve their vision of raising national accounting and auditing standards worldwide to meet or exceed internationally recognized benchmarks. An awareness of the ongoing activities of the firms and their IFAD partners to improve financial reporting, accountability, and transparency worldwide is crucial if other members of the accounting community, including educators, are to support and, more importantly, actively participate in these efforts. IFAD was formed in 1999 on “the premise that the expertise of the accounting profession and the financial resources of the World Bank and other international financial institutions when combined…could be harnessed in the interests of enhancing accounting capacity and capabilities in developing and emerging nations” (http:// www.ifad.net). IFAD’s objectives were eventually broadened to focus on common worldwide issues. Today more than 30 international institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER), are working with the firms to support reform programs designed to raise the quality of financial reporting and auditing worldwide

Compliance with Disclosure Requirements at Germany\u27s New Market: IAS Versus US GAAP

This research examines compliance with both International Accounting Standards (IAS) and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) for companies listed on Germany\u27s New Market. Based on a sample of 100 firms that apply IAS and 100 that apply US GAAP, we investigate the extent to which companies comply with IAS and US GAAP disclosure requirements in their year–2000 financial statements. Compliance levels range from 100% to 41.6%, with an average of 83.7%. The average compliance level is significantly lower for companies that apply IAS as compared to companies applying US GAAP. This study provides the first systematic evidence regarding the enforcement of US GAAP outside the US, and accordingly not subject to Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) review. The results unveil a considerable extent of non–compliance. The overall level of compliance with IAS and US GAAP disclosures is positively related to firms being audited by Big 5 auditing firms and to cross–listings on US exchanges. Compliance is also associated with references to the use of International Standards of Auditing (ISA) or US GAAS in the audit opinion. The findings add to the growing concerns regarding the lack of effective supervision in the German capital market