A benchmark for the adequacy of published financial statements

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of establishing a criterion against which auditors and others can judge the adequacy of financial reporting. Three types of criteria are considered: a general over-riding requirement (type A), an integrated coherent framework (type B), and detailed regulation (type C). Approaches, trends and arguments are presented from a number of contexts, such as UK, US and Europe. Where more than one type of criterion is present (all three exist in the UK for example) one must be superior to the others. There can only be one deciding benchmark of adequacy. It is argued that type B is inadequate as such a benchmark, as all attempted ‘conceptual’ frameworks are internally inconsistent. Types A and C are both theoretically possible, but it is argued that only Type A is consistent, as the ultimate benchmark of adequacy, with the provision of useful information in a dynamic economic world. The current IASC thinking as demonstrated in IAS1 (revised) (IASC 1977a) is discussed, and contrasted with the fundamentally different proposals in the earlier exposure draft E53 (IASC 1996). The arguments of the paper throw considerable light on this debate, and are consistent with the final content of IAS1 (revised).