Repository logo

Masters Degrees (Accounting)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10413/6934

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Accounting) by Subject "Accounting--Standards."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Responses to the IASB’s discussion paper on the proposed amendments to fair value measurements.
    (2011) Kenga, Francois Cibadika.; Stainbank, Lesley June.
    The study examines responses to the proposed amendments to fair value measurements by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in its discussion paper (DP) of 30 November 2006. The study describes lobbyists and their responses in terms of their nature or type, geographic backgrounds and professions, and provides additional understanding of the responses to the DP, contributes new knowledge of the standards-setting process and confirms similar research (Larson, 1997; MacArthur, 1999; Langendijk et al., 2003, Schipper 2005; Laux and Leuz, 2009) with regards to fair value reporting and due processes. The study has found that 90.78% of respondents were organisations and 9.22% were individuals. Amongst them, 3.55% were from Africa, 9.93% were from America, 9.22% were from Asia, 65.96% were from Europe and 11.35% were from Oceania. Professions represented were: Academics (6.38%), Accounting Professional Bodies (24.82%), Banks (9.22%), Companies (11.35%), Financial Analysts (0.71%), Financial Markets (4.26%), Insurance (6.38%), Investors (6.38%), Regulators (23.40%) and Others (7.09%). Seventy-seven (75,49%) lobbyers (out of 102) needed a single source of guidance for all fair value measurements in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and International Accounting Standards (IASs). Sixty-two (63.92%) respondents (out of 97), amongst whom (23.40% or 33/141) regulators and other national accounting standards-setters, wanted the term fair value to be replaced by other relevant terms such as current exit price and current entry price. Europe had the highest participation rate (65.96%), which was expected (Langendijk et al., 2003; Schipper, 2005). European positions were harmonious. Few academics participated, which rate confirms prior lobbying studies (Kenny and Larson, 1995). Subsequent to the DP, the IASB implemented its proposals in the new IFRS 13 (IFRS, 2011b).