IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acceur/v15y2018i1p134-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on the Proprietary and Entity Perspectives in Financial Statements: The Implications for two Current Controversial Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Schmidt

Abstract

Financial statements can portray the financial position and performance of an entity from different perspectives. Two dominant perspectives are the proprietary and entity perspectives. These perspectives also feature in recent discussions by the IASB and the FASB in relation to their conceptual framework project. The adopted perspective will yield different presentations for a number of issues. This paper illustrates the implications for two controversial issues currently under discussion by the IASB and the FASB: accounting for changes in a reporting entity’s own credit risk when liabilities are measured at fair value, and the classification of certain obligations as either equity or liabilities. The paper explains why the adoption and consistent application of one perspective are important for standard setting and financial reporting to ensure the consistent presentation of an entity’s performance and financial position that can be correctly interpreted by users of financial statements against the background of the chosen perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Schmidt, 2018. "A Note on the Proprietary and Entity Perspectives in Financial Statements: The Implications for two Current Controversial Issues," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 134-147, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acceur:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:134-147
    DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2018.1430368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17449480.2018.1430368
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17449480.2018.1430368?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Agency Problems and Residual Claims," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 327-349, June.
    2. Merino, Barbara D., 1993. "An analysis of the development of accounting knowledge: A pragmatic approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 163-185, April.
    3. Young, Joni J., 2006. "Making up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 579-600, August.
    4. Ravenscroft, Sue & Williams, Paul F., 2009. "Making imaginary worlds real: The case of expensing employee stock options," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 770-786, August.
    5. David Alexander & Eva Jermakowicz, 2006. "A true and fair view of the principles/rules debate," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 42(2), pages 132-164, June.
    6. Merton, Robert C, 1974. "On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 29(2), pages 449-470, May.
    7. Stephen Penman, 2007. "Financial reporting quality: is fair value a plus or a minus?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(S1), pages 33-44.
    8. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    9. Gaynor, Lisa Milici & McDaniel, Linda & Yohn, Teri Lombardi, 2011. "Fair value accounting for liabilities: The role of disclosures in unraveling the counterintuitive income statement effect from credit risk changes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 125-134, April.
    10. Moores, Ken & Steadman, G. T., 1986. "The comparative viewpoints of groups of accountants: More on the entity -- Proprietary debate," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 19-34, January.
    11. Lachmann, Maik & Stefani, Ulrike & Wöhrmann, Arnt, 2015. "Fair value accounting for liabilities: Presentation format of credit risk changes and individual information processing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 21-38.
    12. Carien van Mourik, 2014. "The Equity Theories and the IASB Conceptual Framework," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 219-233, December.
    13. Susan Newberry, 2001. "Reciprocal and Non‐Reciprocal Transactions: The FASB’s Stock‐Based Compensation Project," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(2), pages 177-187, June.
    14. Young, Joni J., 2003. "Constructing, persuading and silencing: the rhetoric of accounting standards," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 621-638, August.
    15. Janice A. Loftus, 2003. "The CF and Accounting Standards: The Persistence of Discrepancies," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 39(3), pages 298-309, October.
    16. Ricchiute, David N., 1979. "Standard setting and the entity-proprietary debate," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(1-2), pages 67-76, January.
    17. Carien van Mourik, 2010. "The Equity Theories and Financial Reporting: An Analysis," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 191-211, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Kaumanns, 2019. "“Some fuzzy math”: relational information on debt value adjustments by managers and the financial press," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 755-794, December.
    2. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    3. Kelton, Andrea Seaton & Montague, Norma R., 2018. "The unintended consequences of uncertainty disclosures made by auditors and managers on nonprofessional investor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 44-55.
    4. Barker, Richard & Schulte, Sebastian, 2017. "Representing the market perspective: Fair value measurement for non-financial assets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 55-67.
    5. Christoph Pelger & Nicole Spieß, 2017. "On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 64-90, January.
    6. Erb, Carsten & Pelger, Christoph, 2015. "“Twisting words”? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 13-40.
    7. Pennington, Robin R. & Kelton, Andrea Seaton, 2016. "How much is enough? An investigation of nonprofessional investors information search and stopping rule use," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 47-62.
    8. Murphy, Tim & O’Connell, Vincent, 2017. "Challenging the dominance of formalism in accounting education: An analysis of the potential of stewardship in light of the evolution of legal education," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-29.
    9. Macve Richard, 2013. "“Trading Places”: A UK (and IFRS) Comment," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 27-40, April.
    10. Hayoun, Shaul, 2019. "How fair value is both market-based and entity-specific: The irreducibility of value constellations to market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-82.
    11. Zhang, Ying & Andrew, Jane, 2022. "Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework: An update," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Ryan McDonough & Argyro Panaretou & Catherine Shakespeare, 2020. "Fair value accounting: Current practice and perspectives for future research," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 303-332, March.
    13. Chou, Hsin-I & Li, Hui & Yin, Xiangkang, 2010. "The effects of financial distress and capital structure on the work effort of outside directors," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 300-312, June.
    14. La Torre, Matteo & Dumay, John & Rea, Michele Antonio & Abhayawansa, Subhash, 2020. "A journey towards a safe harbour: The rhetorical process of the International Integrated Reporting Council," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    15. Koonce, Lisa & Mongold, Cassie & Quaid, Laura & White, Brian J., 2024. "Experimental research on standard-setting issues in financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Chin Yee Gan & Lee Lee Chong & Zauwiyah Ahmad, 2023. "The effects of presentation of unrealized gain or loss of equity instruments on investing decision of investors," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(1), pages 265-279.
    17. Durocher, Sylvain & Picard, Claire-France & Dugal, Léa, 2024. "Giving sense to and making sense of OCI: When each component makes sense, but the whole does not," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Xiaomeng Chen & Andreas Hellmann & Safdar R. Mithani, 2020. "The Effect of Fair Value Adjustments on Dividend Policy Under Mandatory International Financial Reporting Standards Adoption: Australian Evidence," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(3), pages 436-453, September.
    19. Kothari, S.P. & Ramanna, Karthik & Skinner, Douglas J., 2010. "Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 246-286, December.
    20. Baghdadi, Ghasan A. & Nguyen, Lily H.G. & Podolski, Edward J., 2020. "Board co-option and default risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:acceur:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:134-147. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAIE20 .

    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.