THE CLAMOUR for the IASB to re-insert a specific reference to the concept of prudence in its conceptual framework is now such, that one has to question the wisdom in the IASB's resistance to these calls.
A specific reference to the concept of prudence was dropped by the IASB in 2010 in favour of the concept of neutrality. The IASB has been berated for that decision ever since.
European politicians have urged the IFRS setter to stick the word back into the framework that underpins the way it sets global accounting rules. They have even gone as far as to suggest that EU funding - which represents about a third of the body's total contributions - should be contingent on them putting the word back in.
Indeed, the FRC believes it should be explicitly acknowledged in the framework, while Lord Lawson, the former UK chancellor, described the decision to "abandon the touchstone of prudence and replace with neutrality" in order to drive forward accounting convergence with the US, was "with the wisdom of hindsight at the very least was a stupid thing to do".
Yet the greater the calls for the IASB to row back on its decision, the more it seems to dig its heels in. Hans Hoogervorst, chairman of the IASB, remains adamant that the basic tenets of the concept of prudence remain intact and visible throughout IFRS.
He has since said, in riposte to the EU's position, that as long as the discussion is "tied in to a political discussion" around funding, it is something the IASB "cannot accept".
But with the national standard setters of the UK, France (ANC), Germany (ASCG), Italy (OIC), and with European standard setters' advisory group Efrag all suggesting that it "remains open to question...whether the framework should specifically refer to prudence" you have to ask how long the IASB can face down such opposition.
If prudence is inherent in everything they do, you have to wonder why it is such a wrench to reintroduce. Perhaps acquiesence would be the start of ceding control.
The overriding duty of any UK professional body is to serve the public interest. The IASB also has a public interest mandate in its constitution. This public interest objective is best met by forcing entities, through their statutory reporting function, to adopt accounting policies that help ensure their long-term financial stability. This in turn helps to maintain economic stability in the public interest.
As it reviews its Conceptual Framework, the IASB should align its underlying principles with its overriding mission of serving the public interest. The interests of short-term decision takers - including individual members - are secondary to that primary objective. Accounts drawn up from the entity's own perspective - and hence from the perspective of its ultimate controlling mind and will (usually it's equity members as a body) - tend to deliver economic stability in the wider public interest by helping to sustain the entity itself. The prudence concept was vital to this public interest mandate. It was not for self-appointed supposed 'experts' to toss aside because they knew no better.
Posted by: IFR Sabotage, 25 Oct 2013 | 20:44
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.