IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/injbaf/v11y2020i4p545-587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did removing prudence from the conceptual framework impact accounting conservatism?

Author

Listed:
  • Elaine Conway

Abstract

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) removed explicit reference to the concept of prudence within the conceptual framework (CF) with effect from September 2010. This paper examines whether practitioner concerns that the removal of prudence might lead to a decrease in accounting conservatism and an increase in earnings management or overstated results were justified. It takes a sample of firms from the UK FTSE350, Australian ASX 300 and the South African JALSH (Johannesburg All Share) and evaluates three popular measures of accounting conservatism over the fourteen-year period of 2003-2016 (seven years pre and post the removal of prudence from the CF). The measures of accounting conservatism used were asymmetric timeliness of earnings, market-to-book ratio and total/non-operating accruals. Using all three measures, there was no evidence that the level of accounting conservatism has reduced during the period following the removal of prudence in the CF in those countries using IFRS. Despite this, the debate around prudence has continued and the IASB has since decided to reinstate it in the 2018 revised CF, effective 1 January 2020.

Suggested Citation

  • Elaine Conway, 2020. "Did removing prudence from the conceptual framework impact accounting conservatism?," International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(4), pages 545-587.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:injbaf:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:545-587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=110309
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:injbaf:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:545-587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=277 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.