Principles- Versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards: The Fasb's Standard Setting Strategy
24 Pages Posted: 12 Jun 2006
Abstract
In response to criticism of rules-based accounting standards and Section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC proposed principles-based (or objectives-oriented) standards. We identify several shortcomings with this approach and focus on two of them. First, the format (type) of a standard is dependent on the contents of what the standard regulates. Given the asset/liability approach combined with fair values, we argue that the combination of this measurement concept with principles-based standards is inconsistent because it requires significant guidance for management judgment. Second, we propose the inclusion of a true-and-fair override as a necessary requirement for any format that is more than principles-only to deal with inconsistencies between principles and guidance. We discuss the benefits of this override and present evidence from the United Kingdom's experience.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Behavioral Evidence on the Effects of Principles- and Rules-Based Standards
-
Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View
-
Principles vs Rules: True and Fair View and Ifrss
By Graeme Dean and Frank Clarke
-
By Erin Webster and Daniel B. Thornton
-
By Christopher P. Agoglia, Timothy Doupnik, ...
-
Reporting Entity Concept: A Case Study of the Failure of Principles-Based Regulation
By R. G. Walker
-
Evading Enron: Taking Principles Too Seriously in Accounting Regulation
-
The Impact of the Type of Accounting Standards on Judgments
By Jim Psaros and Ken Trotman