Disclaimer: This assignment offers been submitted by students. This is not a good example of the work written by our professional assignment writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or suggestions expressed in this material happen to be those of the authors , nor necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

Why did the united kingdom change their accounting requirements from UK GAAP to IFRS, and its own effect on UK companies

The gathering rate of globalisation is evident in numerous areas, like the expansion of europe; the execution of the Euro as the single currency in lots of member states, and ever increasing levels of global trade (Aisbitt, 2005). As such, the wearing down of overseas barriers and improvements in communication technology have enabled any businesses to get competitive benefits by accessing low cost labour and other resources of qualified labour from outside their domestic economies. In addition, the opening up of capital market segments has managed to get possible for investors to make investments in corporations and projects around the world. Lehman (2005) argues that this globalisation of businesses and markets has resulted in increased levels of political and public pressure on regulators to raise the levels of transparency in their financial reporting standards, in addition to making them much easier for global users to interpret. This is what ultimately led to your choice by the UK, within the wider European Union, to adopt International Financial Reporting Benchmarks rather than their own, different national standards. Aisbitt (2005) argues that trend towards harmonisation in addition has included a drive towards convergence onto the highest possible set of criteria. As such, the UK’s Accounting Standards Table, previously in charge of setting UK GAAP, has been strongly focused on dealing with the International Accounting Requirements Board, and its own counterparts in other countries, to develop a more coherent global group of accounting standards.

However, Aisbitt (2006) argues that the authorization of europe Regulation www.testmyprep.com which required all listed businesses in the EU to present their annual reports according to IFRS was only another step in a wider global move towards convergence. Aisbitt (2006) argues that this move was partly motivated by the necessity to move towards principles centered accounting, after scandals such as for example Enron showed how hazardous it was to keep using narrow rule based regulations. However, you see, the move had were only available in the 1990s, when the International Group of Securities Commissions commenced moving towards a global set of benchmarks for listing on recognised inventory exchanges. Part of the standards required that businesses present their accounts in an accepted and very well recognised format to aid international currency markets users. Further more momentum behind this switch was influenced by the Norwalk contract, that was agreed by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Plank in 2002. Such agreements created an evergrowing trend towards the utilization of IFRS, and Aisbitt (2006) reported that by 2005 over 100 countries either allowed or needed their corporations to use IFRS while preparing financial statements.

The ultimate data for all listed businesses in the EU to switch to International Financial Reporting Expectations was set as being the 1st January 2005; however companies whose economical year began after this time only needed use IFRS for the fiscal year which were only available in 2005. There has been a substantial debate over the effects of intro of IFRS, with Walton (2004) declaring that IAS 39 would create significant issues for some companies and KPMG (2005) claiming that many companies and analysts had been unprepared for the transformation. In addition, some people, especially Jacques Chirac in 2003, complained that the high use of market ideals encouraged by IFRS would help to make the European economies extra volatility. However, since the international requirements were introduced over the EU in 2005, there’s been little proof these concerns having significant impacts. One of the most significant impacts was that the method for calculating the year-end balance changed, meaning that some companies got to restructure their finances to make sure that they still fulfilled some of their loan covenants following the move (Ormrod and Taylor, 2004).

However, given that a lot of the literature around IFRS just before the harmonisation tended to focus on the necessity for convergence (Flower, 1997) and the level to which companies complied with IFRS (Sucher and Alexander, 2002), it is clear that there is insufficient focus paid to the extent to which companies would need to adjust to handle the new regulations. Indeed, prior to 2005, the literature contained very few types of how companies had managed to change their accounting functions to make the transition to IFRS, with HÈ•tten (2005) being mostly of the examples of an in depth study of such procedures. As such, the professional companies (KPMG, 2005) and trade journals (Accountancy, 2003) essentially represent better sources compared to the academic journals on the impression. Indeed, it is somewhat informing that Ormrod and Taylor’s (2004) study into the extent to that your increased use of market values in the economic statements, and the potential influence this may include on volatility, was published in a trade journal, instead of an educational journal. Although that is arguably a natural consequence of the fact that changes in accounting requirements have more of a cosmetic effect on company performance, and therefore are not as relevant to academic study as factors which have an impact on a company’s actual performance.

Indeed, as reviewed above, Ormrod and Taylor (2004) argue that one of the major changes of the switch to IFRS is certainly that the resultant alterations in the balance sheet figures will in actuality end up being on contractual obligations, rather than on earning or valuations. This is based on the fact that the necessity to mark assets to advertise value, and the necessity to better account for items such as for example goodwill, may imply that companies will violate mortgage loan covenants which need them to keep up certain asset to personal debt ratios or additional accounting based actions. As such, Ormrod and Taylor (2004) argue that many companies might need to increase certain factors on the balance sheet, including the provision made for deferred tax if buildings are revalued, something which could then have an impact online asset value and various accounting. To avoid such anomalies, where the change in regulations caused an insignificant result but this is magnified due to contractual obligations or various other accounting factors, the Committee of European STOCK MARKET Regulators argued that businesses should explain the way the transition has afflicted their reports (CESR, 2003), This recommendation was hence persuasive that it was made a mandatory condition of listing on the London Stock Exchange. Whilst this could have helped analysts and investors to utilize the financial accounts to handle an impartial, ongoing examination of any afflicted company, it will have increased the burden for the company in question, who may have to create two models of accounts and compare both to fulfil this need.

Another significant affect was that the latest IFRS, IFRS 3, expected a much stronger level of transparency for companies making acquisitions (Stevenson and McPhee, 2005). Under UK GAAP, whenever a company acquired another the total amount paid over and above the net asset value was basically termed ‘goodwill’ and amortised evenly over a period of around twenty years. This enabled companies to easily predict the effects on earnings, as well as to be quite elusive about you see, the source of benefit obtained from acquisitions. Even so, under IFRS 3, businesses will need to be more specific and transparent around the type of any obtained intangible assets. Furthermore, instead of amortising for goodwill on a right line basis, businesses are required to determine their goodwill at least one time a season, and amortise it to its current reasonable value. This allows shareholders and investors to raised know very well what value has truly been received from an acquisition, and how an acquisition provides performed every year (Stevenson and McPhee, 2005). Viner (2006) argues that this will have significant impact on media businesses, where huge amounts of goodwill are usually associated with each deal. As such, whilst these businesses took contingent and diverse approaches to accounting for goodwill under GAAP, these were forced to make significant changes under IFRS, which imposed sizeable accounting burdens (Viner, 2006).

One of the few academic journals which is definitely of interest in deciding the effect of the move to IFRS on UK businesses is usually that of Tarca (2004). This study is based on determining the extent to which listed corporations from the united kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Australia chose to use international criteria when declaring their effects when they had the choice. As this research was executed in the work up to the united kingdom, France and Germany’s mandatory move to IFRS, it offers useful information regarding the extent to which companies voluntarily applied IFRS before these were forced to use it. The analysis also differentiated between your choice to use the United States’ GAAP, as a extensively accepted regular, or the IFRS. This study revealed that the companies which were probably to use a global accounting normal, either supplementary to or

instead of their domestic common, tended to be large, with revenue from many countries, and were posted on more than on stock exchange. Therefore that the difficulties associated with switching to IFRS were more likely to affect larger businesses, and hence these firms opted to generate a voluntary switch earlier in order to become accustomed to the brand new expectations, and the accounting variations they represent (Tarca, 2004).

However, relating to Shearer (2005), there is another reason behind this choice; that staying that IFRS is nearly entirely intended to support global capital markets. As such, their single aim is to permit investors to create informed decisions predicated on usage of complex and comparable accounting info incorporating a universal fair value measurement. This leads to another main impact on UK companies: the need to report the majority of possessions and liabilities at ‘reasonable value’ as identified by the IASB. This normally requires companies to make more detailed disclosures and undertake quite a lot of data gathering. Nevertheless, Shearer (2005) argues that, out of the almost two million companies in the united kingdom, IFRS would probably be appropriate for less than five thousand, as they are the only types which rely upon international capital markets. Furthermore, Shearer (2005) argues that the IASB’s demand for intercontinental accounting convergence is generally based on generating a convergence with the US GAAP, and fails to incorporate the benchmarks of additional countries. As such, smaller sized companies will have a tendency to have a problem with the switch to a far more complicated standard which does not value their existing strategies. It really is worth noting that this is purely an view piece; and that it’s written by a partner at Grant Thornton, the accounting firm, who formerly supported this move. As such, it might not exactly be completely factually accurate or reliable.

However, it is worthwhile noting that the ICAEW argued highly in favour of continuing to permit unlisted companies in the UK to use GAAP if they wished (Accountancy, 2006). This argument again acknowledges that IFRS will be intended to be utilized in global capital market segments by listed companies. Certainly, this argument could be seen as one of the key explanations why unlisted UK businesses can even now choose whether to employ IFRS or UK GAAP for his or her accounts, and only listed firms are forced to use IFRS. As part of this switch, certain requirements of UK GAAP were aligned with those of IFRS, with some disclosure reductions, implying that there are nonetheless impacts on unlisted businesses, but these are less significant that the impacts on stated businesses. Accountancy (2003) supplies more detail on some of the minor impacts on detailed businesses, by analysing the GAAP requirements which would not get permitted under IFRS. Some of these include accounting for post harmony sheet events and government grants, and participating in foreign currency translation. In addition, accounting for pension costs, research and production and deferred tax, that have been optional under UK GAAP, are not permitted under IFRS.

The change to IFRS also had a significant impact on the ASB in the UK, whose traditional position was placed under danger by the proceed to IFRS, which are determined by the IASB. As such, the ASB was pressured to balance its classic role of creating accounting standards which are applicable to the united kingdom context, whilst also looking to make UK GAAP considerably more appropriate for IFRS (Wilson, 2002). Wilson’s (2002) reporting on the ASB’s publication of eight innovative exposure drafts, and its stated intention to produce more in the future, tended to indicate that the ASB was unwilling to accept these impacts and have a backseat to the IASB, as many of these drafts centered on addressing UK only issues. However, Wilson (2002) raised problems over whether these different standards were actually useful for British businesses, many of which would need to abandon them when the transition to IFRS occurred, or if they were just a political attempt to maintain the ASB’s importance. This implies that, not only did businesses need to cope with using the switch to IFRS, nevertheless they also needed to cope with the political manoeuvring and debate in the build-up to the switch.

Aisbitt (2005) focuses on a somewhat even more unorthodox influence of the switch on businesses: the fact that the teaching options for new financial accountants in the UK are actually split between GAAP and IFRS suitable training. Not only does this impact on businesses involved in accountancy training, but it can also help to make it harder for firms to find accountants who have been trained in the specific accounting methods they would like to use, particularly listed firms which need to produce both pieces of accounts to illustrate the variations between them. Thankfully, accountancy education was fairly quick to respond to these demands, with different accounting classes emerging which drew on both IFRS and UK GAAP, and helped trainee accountants to comprehend the difference. Comparing modern day accounting training to previous accounting classes indicates that one of the key impacts has can be found in the International Accounting area, which has seen a significant upsurge in importance over the last ten years, predicated on Laidler and Pallett’s (1998) coverage of the subject. As such, businesses which specialised in foreign accounting training have observed a surge in interest in the subject, and thus have observed significant beneficial impacts with their important thing (Aisbitt, 2005).

Management accountants have also seen a substantial rise in the value given to IFRS and both US and UK GAAP. Specifically, Financial Analysis (2007) especially draws the focus on college students of the Chartered Institute of Supervision Accounting, CIMA, to the value of the convergence between US GAAP and IFRS, and the alterations implies versus UK GAAP. That is arguably more of a reactive little bit of advice, and is based on the fact that the majority of CIMA college students tended to be unaware of the extent of this convergence and its effect on operations accounting. As such, Financial Examination (2007) argue that both students and businesses would have to be alert to the implications of the Norwalk contract, and the likely future developments in IFRS and US GAAP to be able to better respond to them.

In conclusion, your choice of the UK, as part of the EU, to go towards IFRS was intended to travel global accounting convergence, and increase the performing of European and global capital markets. It has meant that UK businesses have had to adjust to several new accounting strategies and implications, especially the impact of fair value on items such as goodwill and contractual obligations. Whilst unlisted businesses contain not really experienced as significant a direct effect as their detailed counterparts, the improvements to UK GAAP to support the shift may also experienced some impacts on them. As such, given having less any general academic studies of the change, or clear habits of impact, it seems that most adjustments and impacts will rely upon individual company instances and strategies.


  1. Accountancy (2003) Implications for UK corporations of switching from compliance with current UK GAAP to compliance with current and proposed IFRS. Accountancy; Vol. 131, Concern 1316, p. 85-88.
  2. Aisbitt, S. (2006) Assessing the result of the Changeover to IFRS on Collateral: The Case of the FTSE 100. European Accounting Analysis; Oct2006 Supplement 3, Vol. 15, p. 117-133.
  3. Aisbitt, S. (2005) International accounting books: Publishers’ wish, authors’ nightmare and educators’ actuality. Accounting Education; Vol. 14, Concern 3, p. 349-360.
  4. CESR (2003) European regulation for the use of IFRS in 2005: recommendation for additional guidance about the transition to IFRS. CESR/03-323e; December, 2003.
  5. Financial Management (2007) Financial Examination. Financial Supervision; Dec2007 / Jan2008, p. 53.
  6. Flower, J. (1997) The future form of harmonization: the EU versus the IASC versus the SEC. European Accounting Assessment; Vol www.testmyprep.com. 6, Issue 2, p. 281–303.
  7. HÈ•tten, C. (2005) Financial reporting challenges in a worldwide regulatory environment – the case of SAP. Workshop on Accounting in Europe Beyond 2005; University of Regensburg, Germany, September.
  8. KPMG (2005) Introduction of IFRS: Analyst Research Survey. KPMG IFRG Ltd.
  9. Laidler J. and Pallett S. (1998) Accounting Education. Vol. 7, Concern 1, p. 75-86.
  10. Lehman, G. (2005) A critical perspective on the harmonisation of accounting in a globalising globe. Vital Perspectives on Accounting; Vol. 16, Concern 7, p. 975-992.
  11. Ormrod, P. and Taylor, P. (2004) The effects of the modification to International Accounting Benchmarks on debts covenants: a UK perspective. Accounting in Europe; S. 1, p. 71–94.
  12. Shearer, B. (2005) In support of a GAAP gap. Accountancy; Vol. 136, Concern 1345, p. 96-97.
  13. Stevenson, H. and McPhee, D. (2005) Acquiring companies: knowing your IAS from your elbow. Accountancy; Vol. 136, Concern 1343, p. 82-83.
  14. Sucher, P. and Alexander, D. (2002) IAS: Problems of Region, Sector and Audit Firm Compliance in Emerging Economies. London: Centre for Business Efficiency of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
  15. Tarca, A good. (2004) International Convergence of Accounting Methods: Choosing between IAS and US GAAP. Journal of International Financial Administration and Accounting; Vol. 15, Issue 1, p. 60-91.
  16. Viner, A good. (2006) Media savvy. Accountancy; Vol. 138, Issue 1359, p. 80-81.
  17. Walton, P. (2004) IAS 39: where diverse accounting models collide. Accounting in Europe; S. 1, p. 5-16.
  18. Wilson, A good. (2002) This should be the wrong approach. Accountancy; Vol. 130, Issue 1308, p. 77.