IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/suvges/v25y2015i2p81-107n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standard-Setters Versus Big4 Opinion, Concerning Iasb Revision Project of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. the Case of Presentation and Disclosures Chapter

Author

Listed:
  • Burca Valentin

    (PhD Student West University of Timisoara)

  • Mates Dorel

    (PhD Professor West University of Timisoara)

  • Puscas Adriana

    (PhD Lecturer Vasile Goldis University, Arad)

Abstract

On the last decades the accounting system haven‘t been able to follow the dynamics of the economic systems generated by the globalization process. In order to reduce the lag between the demand of financial information and the offer of financial information, IASB has started numerous initiatives aiming the increase on the quality of the financial information. Among the current list of current IASB major projects there is also the project of revising the actual conceptual framework for financial reporting. This study is designed to give some directions that will be considered on the exposure draft of this project, analyzing the comment letters submitted by the members of ASAF and the Big4 as well. The study reveals the increasing importance the preparers and users give to the disclosures included on the notes to the primary financial statements. Moreover, on this study we emphasize several challenges that IASB has to face on issuing the exposure draft for this important project. Some of the main challenges refer to the narrow scope of the financial statements, the criteria used on classification, aggregation and offsetting, or the use of the materiality concept

Suggested Citation

  • Burca Valentin & Mates Dorel & Puscas Adriana, 2015. "Standard-Setters Versus Big4 Opinion, Concerning Iasb Revision Project of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. the Case of Presentation and Disclosures Chapter," Studia Universitatis „Vasile Goldis” Arad – Economics Series, Sciendo, vol. 25(2), pages 81-107, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:suvges:v:25:y:2015:i:2:p:81-107:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/sues-2015-0014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/sues-2015-0014
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/sues-2015-0014?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
    ---><---

    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:vrs:suvges:v:25:y:2015:i:2:p:81-107:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.