This paper seeks to compare and contrast the use of IFSRs and US GAAP on the quality of earnings, by discussing how the similarities and differences in the two standards influence reported earnings. Use relevant examples to support your argument.
The quality of earnings in both two sets of accounting standard is being defined in this paper as reliability of amounts or figures reported in the financial statement and may be considered overstated or understated depending of what point of reference is being used as basis comparison between the two sets of accounting standards. For the purpose of this paper, figures from the IFRS are used as initial basis while being compared with computed figures using the US GAAP.
In accounting parlance earnings is basically computed by deducting expenses from revenues (Meigs and Meigs, 1995). Revenues could include all increases in assets that is not matched by a decrease in other assets or increases in liabilities under the double entry bookkeeping system. This could include sales or service revenues, gain on sale of assets, interest income, dividend income an all other nominal accounts not representing expenses. To get however the net earnings, expenses are deducted from revenues, and these are decrease in assets that is not matched by increases in another assets or decrease in liabilities under the double entry bookkeeping system.
This paper will therefore identify some of difference between the two standards in terms of what could affect the revenues and expenses accounts under either. In regard to IFRS 2, on modification of an award by change in performance condition, expenses, under the IFRS are determined based on the grant date fair value, while expenses, under the US GAAP are determined based on fair value at the modification date (IFRSs and US GAAP: A Pocket Comparison by Deloitte, 2007). Based on this difference, it could not be conclusively inferred which standard will reflect a higher earnings since fair values at grant date could be different from values at modification date. However, since grant date will come earlier than modification, it may be deduced that IFRS will reflect higher expense earlier than under US GAAP. Since more expenses would mean less earnings then, it could be stated that there will be less earnings under IFRS than that of GAAP.
Another difference between the two is in regard to IFRS 3 about the date on which contingent consideration is recorded as part of consideration. Under IFRS, liability which carries a corresponding expense, is recognized on acquisition date, if the amount is probable and can be measured reliably, whereas under the US GAAP, liability is generally recognized when contingency is resolved (IFRSs and US GAAP: A Pocket Comparison by Deloitte, 2007). This confirms again the first finding that earnings under IFRS are less conservative than under US GAAP.
Despite the difference between the two it could still be stated that both standards still adopt the accrual basis of accounting where revenues are recognized as they are earned without being collected for meantime while expenses are recognized while incurred without being paid in the meantime.
It could be concluded that using IFRS over that of the US GAAP will result to less earnings because of timing of recognition of expenses. Under IFRS, the is a great chance that expenses are recognized earlier than under the US GAAP. There is therefore basis to conclude that earnings under the IFRS are more conservative than that under the US GAAP. Decision makers using either or a combination of the set two separate standards will be best benefited if they understand the difference between two since they may mistakenly consider something as correct when it fact the figures could actually be less conservative than the other. If not guarded upon, wrong appreciation of the earnings under the US GAAP could amount to manipulation of earnings (Lev, 2003).
References
- IFRSs and US GAAP: A Pocket Comparison by Deloitte, 2007.
- Lev, B. (2003) Corporate Earnings: Facts and Fiction, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 2, Pages 27–50
- Meigs and Meigs, (1995) Financial Accounting, McGraw-Hill, UK