Evolution Of Conceptual Framework Accounting

Table of Content

Conceptual Framework by and large serves as the anchor against which elaborate accounting criterions and fiscal elements are set up or qualified. In footings of set uping a reasoned conceptual model, coherency is one of the intents required to be achieved, which would ease to decrease the differentiations when different sectors are covering with similar accounting issues. To be more professional, as defined by FASB ( Financial Accounting Standard Board ) , conceptual model is a consistent system of interconnected aims and basicss that can take to consistent criterions and that prescribes the nature, map and bounds of fiscal accounting and fiscal statements. ( Lecture-4 )

In the visible radiation of the above, it is believed that when developing conceptual model, regulative organic structures fundamentally aim at bring forthing a widely accepted rule system of fiscal and accounting constructs to which different parts within economic relationship will hold. Normally, when developing a system, the precedence is to calculate out the basic aims and so travel specifically to cover the issues by giving exact definition, measuring and rating. And the development of conceptual model evidently follows the regulation by first finding the aims it seeks to accomplish. Following that is to do proper options and give clear definitions to basic accounting points in conformity with the set aims. Since the 2nd measure merely accomplishes qualitative designation and categorization for different accounting points, concluding measure for governments is to use an incorporate quantitative measuring system.

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

Obviously, FASB follows an antique ante mode on the manner to develop the conceptual model.

Objective? Definition ( Recognition ) ? Measurement? Real figure

However, as aims are usually set by users of accounting information, we should foremost place the users and their demands.

The procedure goes as follows:

User? Objective? Definition ( Recognition ) ? Measurement? Real figure

Users of fiscal information vary, including present investors, creditors, possible investors and etc. And their outlooks from the fiscal statements of course differ. As IASB ( International Accounting Standards Board ) indicates, stockholders by and large focus on the dividends and the grasp ability of a company while venture capital suppliers are more concerned about the hazard inherent in the return ( Lecture-4 ) . Besides, creditors usually care about the repayment ability of a company to avoid default. Besides, the utility of the information can be judged from the undermentioned facets, viz. relevancy, comprehensibility, dependability, completeness, objectiveness, seasonableness and comparison ( Bromwich, 1992 ) . Overall, the aim of conceptual model is to supply fiscal information that satisfies the users ‘ decision-making intents.

Following that, conceptual model focuses on what to include in fiscal statements and how much. For one portion, the acknowledgment involves the determination that whether an point should be recorded and incorporated in fiscal statements ( Bromwich, 1992 ) . Basically, balance sheet is made up of three parts-assets, liabilities and equity equal to the extra value of assets over liabilities. Income statement consists of grosss, disbursals, additions, losingss and comprehensive income which will be mentioned subsequently in Part 3. In this sheet, comprehensive income peers to the amount of grosss and additions minus the amount of disbursals and additions. After that, we have definitions for assets, liabilities, equity, gross, disbursals and etc. harmonizing to different aims. For the other portion, measuring is chiefly about the pick from historic value, just value or a mix of them to enter a fiscal point with a certain numerical value.

Part Two

Income rating under different fortunes

IASB/FASB attack, as a joint conceptual model, gives income an economic definition that the income of an person or an entity is objectively determined by the alterations in capital value in a certain period plus the hard currency flow received or the sum consumed during that period ( M. Bromwich, R. Macve, S. Sunder, 2008 ) .

As looking back to Hicks ‘ version income measurings, Hick No.1 is based on the premise of keeping the capital value intact at the terminal of a period as at the beginning. As to keep integral the value of an plus, the shutting value should be no less than the gap value in footings of present value of future hard currency flows. And the income under Hicks ‘ No.1 is, as a consequence, the upper limit of ingestion an person could hold during a certain period with the outlook that the plus wo n’t deprecate. Put into the state of affairs of an entity, income is the maximal sum that can be distributed to the stockholders at the terminal of a period while the shutting monetary value wo n’t fall below the gap monetary value at the beginning of that period. In this manner, we see that the income under articulation of FASB/IASB is the indistinguishable to that under Hick No.1.

However, the other facet of economic experts ‘ sentiment about income is Hick No.2, which defines income as the sum of money that could be consumed during one period in the outlook of having the same sum at the terminal of each of the undermentioned periods. Hick No.2 measures the income of one period with the consideration of sustained buying power in the long tally. The chief difference is that IASB/FASB attack does n’t take into history the possibility of involvement rate alterations. It is based on the premise of changeless involvement rate. And if the involvement rate alterations from period to period, the shutting value ( in footings of the sum of future hard currency flows ) of an plus can non be assured to be every bit good off as the gap monetary value, particularly when the involvement rate additions. ( Lecture-1 )

As both income-measurement systems involve the rating of opening value and shuting value or even future hard currency flows, the consequences of taking different value measuring systems vary. Basically, the issue of rating system most relevant to the conceptual model focuses on the influence of value relevancy research to fiscal criterion scene. Harmonizing to FASB, relevancy and dependability are the two chief standards that identify if a certain accounting scene is capable plenty to to the full reflect the relevant alterations in equity value ( Barth, M.E. , Beaver, W. H. , Landsman, W.R. , 2001 ) . Normally, more relevant of an accounting figure to the existent alterations in capital value, more possible its attempt will be reflected in capital pricing and therefore used by fiscal statement users. Given to the high relevancy of income and capital value under both Hicks ‘ and the joint FASB/IASB system, the mode that accounting criterions are set could be influential to parts of fiscal statements. An illustration of value relevancy is the execution of just value measuring system in which just value can be defined as a monetary value at which an plus could be sold or a liability could be transferred between market anticipators at a certain measurement clip point ( FASB, 2006 ) .

Part Three

Contribution of assorted conceptual models to comprehensive income

Comprehensive income statement is a theoretical account that incorporates the alteration in equity attributive to events or minutess irrelevant to proprietors ‘ investings into traditional net income. Therefore, comprehensive income consists of two parts, viz. net income and other comprehensive income. Other comprehensive income usually includes noncommercial addition and loss out of foreign exchange, alterations in market value of future contracts, unfulfilled loss and addition on available-for-sale securities and etc.

Here, I invited what Newberry included in “ Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components ” . In FASB, one conceptual model is cost-based, that begins with income being treated as a measurement tool for the public presentation of one or more specific undertakings. As for depreciation of an plus, it could be viewed as the cost of maintaining an plus or holding the right to maintain others from this plus. As the depreciation is a quantitative loss in term of the value of the plus, it should be deducted from the corresponding income. In this construct, alterations in the quantitative value of an economic object should be eliminated from the income. By and large talking, this measuring construct focuses on lucifer the costs with matching value input and this is relevant to historical cost rating systems, which evaluate the value input and end product of an point consequently.

Another conceptual model set by FASB as tabulated above dainties income as the increase in capital value, which in other words is the divergence from the investing to the distribution the investor can achieve in the hereafter. Under this circumstance, the alteration in equity attributive to the stockholders should be incorporated into the entire income. However, notably, grosss can barely fit with the relevant costs, as it is ever ill-defined how the net incomes will be generated. So the cardinal point under this model is capital rating based on future hard currency influxs and escapes.

As indicated by Newberry in his article, IASB was trying to construct up a construct model so by a combination of the two models from FASB, in conformity with the comprehensive income method. So far as I am concerned, the rules of enhancement construct set by FASB is of the highest relevancy with comprehensive income statement. And the ground goes into three facets. First, both these two rules focus on the consequence of fluctuation in ownership to existent income. Second, the difference of investing and dividends in FASB ‘s model includes both the alterations from proprietors ‘ investing and irrelevant unnatural events. Third, public presentation measuring construct indicates clearly that unrelated losingss and additions should non be included by the income under that rule, that makes comprehensive income statement system barely executable.


  1. Bromwich M. ( 1992 ) , Financial Reporting, Information and Capital Markets, Pitman, pp.278-304.
  2. Bromwich M. , Macve R. , Sunder S. ( 2008 ) , The Conceptual Framework: Revisiting the Basics, A remark on Hicks and the construct of ‘income ‘ in the conceptual model.
  3. Prof. Horton, J. BEAM024 Lecture 1, “ Economic Income and Wealth ” .
  4. Prof. Horton, J. BEAM024 Lecture 4, “ Conceptual Model ” .
  5. Prof. Horton, J. BEAM024 Lecture 9, “ Value Relevance Research and Fair Values ” .
  6. FASB
  8. Barth, M. E. , Beaver, W.H. , Landsman, W. R. ( 2001 ) , The relevancy of the value relevancy literature for fiscal accounting standard scene: another position, Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 77-104.
  9. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.answers.com/topic/comprehensive-income-1
  10. Newberry, S. , ‘Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components ‘ , Abacus, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2003.

Cite this page

Evolution Of Conceptual Framework Accounting. (2016, Nov 26). Retrieved from


Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront