5ACCN004W: Critically Discussing Prudence in IFRS Conceptual Framework

This essay critically discusses the debate surrounding the inclusion of the prudence concept within the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) conceptual framework. It explores arguments both for and against its inclusion, noting that proponents believe prudence restrains exuberance in financial reporting and aligns with cautious auditing practices, while opponents argue that prudence is vague, impractical, and compromises comparability and neutrality. The essay references the 2008/9 GFC, IASB guidelines, and the views of professional investors. It concludes that while prudence is seen as a necessary caution by some, others view it as potentially undermining the transparency and reliability of financial statements, which could lead to manipulation. The essay provides a balanced analysis, referencing various academic sources and real-world examples to support its claims.

Running head: FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
Financial Accounting and Reporting
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:
Course ID:

1FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
Introduction:
Over the past decade, the European nations have encountered significant financial
reporting changes. There has been considerable debate whether “International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS)”, as the significant international standards, need to include prudence
and its significance in the conceptual framework. However, prudence has been eliminated after
the global financial crisis as a part of the conceptual framework introduced in 2010. Prior to that
period, prudence has been included in the framework of IASB in the description of the
qualitative characteristics of reliability (Accaglobal.com, 2018). However, in 2015, the prudence
concept has been reinitiated in 2015, which has further aggravated the debate. Therefore, the
current paper aims to discuss the arguments for and arguments against the inclusion of prudence
in the conceptual framework.
Arguments for and against the inclusion of prudence in the conceptual framework:
Arguments for the inclusion of prudence in the conceptual framework:
The arguments in favour of the prudence theory are seen among various types of the
users (accountants) who should be restrained on anticipated increased exuberance in the results
of an entity. This is further depicted to be closely attached to the expectation of both audited and
reported figures which are difficult to be ascertained for certainty and need to be exercised with
caution. This is identified to be exercised as per referring to former framework of the accounting
standards and supporting the viewpoints of the same. This view is not only depicted to be opined
by the public but also by the professional investors those which are particularly linked with
paying the bonuses and dividends (Tracey, 2015).

2FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
This is identified as the area in which the assets and profits are seen to be overstated as
per the various types of the considerations which are understood with accounting standards,
accounts, accountants and criticisms. The asymmetrical risk aspect has further led to addressing
the significant problems of GFC 2008/9. The benefits of this are further identified with the
application of the standards which are widely agreed upon. For instance, IASB chairperson has
defined prudence in terms of former framework of IASB as sheer common sense (Watts and
Zuo, 2016).
The different types of the arguments which are against the concerns of prudence needs to
be identified with comparability and neutrality which are having a specific impact on the
financial statements. The different types of the professional investors such as CFA desire the
management to report the actual results to be revealed in a more transparent manner which is not
biased to both bad and good news. In addition to this, there are several types of the uncertainties
arising as a result of the disclosures made by the management. At the time of evaluating the
challenges such as desirability and restraint in profit recognition after pointing out the prudence
concerns, which held back the profits showing exaggerated results (Sutton, Cordery and Van
Zijl, 2015). The restatements of Daimler Benz’s have shown several types of the profit records
which were prudent from the German accounting to other accounting standards such as US
GAAP. The overall depictions of the results revealed that the there is significant smoothing
effect in terms of prudence. The Spanish banks are further depicted to be having a dynamic
effect on defining the provision at the time of the crisis and this can be cited as the underlying
weakness with the changing conditions (Zhang and Andrew, 2014).
Arguments against the inclusion of prudence in the conceptual framework:

3FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
Prudence is not a valuable concept from the practical perspective, as it is too vague. More
precisely, it does not assist with the issue of the amount of prudence to be applied in any
particular situation. This is because there is no scale of measuring relevance. In addition, it needs
to be kept in mind that the prudence case takes place during uncertainty and for this reason; it
would be inconsistent conceptually for dismissing prudence, as it is not precise in application
(Barker, 2015). Instead, it is a vague concept and this uncertainty is the reason behind its
existence initially. In reality, determining the technique and the way of applying prudence
becomes a judgemental matter at the level of standards and the framework’s role is to develop
the underlying concept.
Secondly, it is not possible to apply prudence in all the standards of accounting; rather it
could be applied only in particular circumstances (Bauer, O'Brien and Saeed, 2014). Therefore, it
need not be included in the framework; instead, it could be applied at the standards level, when
necessary. However, all component frameworks are pertinent to considering all aspects of
various standards. Moreover, the steady application of a concept through any provided number
of accounting standards needs a clear yardstick against which it becomes possible to ascertain
and analyse consistency and the place for that conceptual yardstick is the framework.
Finally, if there is understatement of net assets in the existing period, there is chance of
overstating the financial performance in upcoming periods, which could not be adjudged as
prudent. In case, gains are not considered at the time of uncertainty, they would then be reported
in an upcoming period after gaining certainty (Macve, 2015). If the prudence test is that there is
recognition of gains only after verification, then it could be explained as prudent. It is
noteworthy to mention that at no point, there is overstatement of net assets. The main question
here is whether the investors would like a financial performance measure they could trust in

4FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
contrast to the ones that could not be trusted. Thus, if there is scope of bias and shift from
neutrality in the conceptual framework, it could pave the path for abusing and manipulating the
financial statements.
Conclusion:
It can be depicted that arguments in favour of the prudence theory are seen to be closely
attached to the expectation of both audited and reported figures which are difficult to be
ascertained for certainty and need to be exercised with caution. This is depicted to be exercised
as per referring to former framework of the accounting standards and supporting the viewpoints
of the same. On the other hand, the different types of the arguments which are against the
concerns of prudence needs to be identified with comparability and neutrality which are having a
specific impact on the financial statements.

5FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
References:
Accaglobal.com. (2018). [online] Available at:
https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/financial-reporting/tech-tp-
prudence.pdf [Accessed 12 Nov. 2018].
Barker, R. (2015). Conservatism, prudence and the IASB's conceptual framework. Accounting
and Business Research, 45(4), 514-538.
Bauer, A. M., O'Brien, P. C., and Saeed, U. (2014). Reliability makes accounting relevant: a
comment on the IASB Conceptual Framework project. Accounting in Europe, 11(2), 211-217.
Macve, R. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Financial Accounting and Reporting: Vision,
Tool, Or Threat?. Routledge.
Sutton, D. B., Cordery, C. J., and Van Zijl, T. (2015). The purpose of financial reporting: The
case for coherence in the conceptual framework and standards. Abacus, 51(1), 116-141.
Tracey, E. (2015). Discussion of ‘Conservatism, prudence and the IASB's conceptual
framework’by Richard Barker (2015). Accounting and Business Research, 45(4), 539-542.
Watts, R. L., and Zuo, L. (2016). Understanding practice and institutions: A historical
perspective. Accounting Horizons, 30(3), 409-423.
Zhang, Y., and Andrew, J. (2014). Financialisation and the conceptual framework. Critical
perspectives on accounting, 25(1), 17-26.