ACCOUNTING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS:

A COMPARISON OF FASB AND IASB APPROACHES

Kathleen A. Kaminski
Jon R. Carpenter
The University of South Dakota

ABSTRACT
In 2002, the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International
Accounting Standards Board (IASB) formally agreed to work toward convergence of their
respective promulgated accounting principles. Both the FASB and IASB purportedly rely upon
their own respective conceptual frameworks to guide their standard-setting deliberations. This
study focuses on the conceptual frameworks previously issued by the FASB and IASB.
Specifically, this study examines the four active phases of the boards framework project:
objectives of financial reporting and qualitative characteristics of accounting information;
definitions of financial statement elements; measurement bases; and the reporting entity concept.
Results indicate that progress is being achieved in reconciling differences between the current
frameworks. While the joint project remains a work-in-process, the resulting new and improved
conceptual framework will be the foundation for development of principles-based standards that
are internally consistent and internationally converged.
Keywords: accounting conceptual framework, qualitative characteristics, FASB, IASB

INTRODUCTION
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) began development of an accounting
conceptual framework in the mid-1970s. Between 1978 and 2000, it issued seven
pronouncements entitled Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts (SFAC). These were
designed to prescribe the objectives and concepts that the FASB will use in developing
standards of financial accounting and reporting (FASB 1978, 6). The conceptual framework
was to be used as a guide in the development of consistent accounting standards, hopefully
leading to a more coherent set of accounting principles to aid practice. Components of the
framework included objectives of financial reporting, qualitative characteristics of financial
information and elements of financial statements, recognition criteria, measurement attributes,
financial statements, earnings, cash flows and liquidity.
This pioneering work was viewed favorably by international audiences and many of its
basic concepts influenced the development of similar frameworks by other accounting standard
setters. In 1989, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), the precursor to the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), issued their version of a conceptual
framework entitled Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.
While there are many similarities between the respective FASB and IASB frameworks, there are
differences as well. Given that the frameworks were to be the basis for the development of
accounting standards, the practical result has been that different standards have been
promulgated by the FASB and IASB.

16

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

In 2002, the Norwalk Agreement between the FASB and IASB called for convergence of
the respective organizations accounting standards. This, in turn, has led to a joint FASB/IASB
project . . . to create a sound foundation for future accounting standards that are principlesbased, internally consistent and internationally converged (IASB 2010a). Given that both
organizations frameworks were developed almost three decades ago, the project includes
updating the existing concepts to better reflect the current economic environment and business
practices of todays markets. The goal of both boards is to replace their existing frameworks and
adopt the new and improved framework. The project is to be conducted in eight phases, of
which the first four are currently active: Phase A objectives and qualitative characteristics;
Phase B definitions of elements, recognition and derecognition; Phase C measurement; Phase
D reporting entity concept; Phase E boundaries of financial reporting, presentation and
disclosure; Phase F purpose and status of the framework; Phase G application of the
frameworks to not-for-profit entities; and Phase G remaining issues. Phases A thru D are
currently active.
The purpose of this study is to discuss the similarities and differences between the
current frameworks and any resulting resolutions relating to the active phases of the joint
FASB/IASB conceptual framework project (i.e., Phase A through D).
HASE A, PART 1 OBJECTIVES OF FINANCIAL REPORTING
In July 2006, as part of Phase A of the project, the FASB/IASB issued a discussion paper
entitled Preliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting:
The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-useful
Financial Reporting Information. This was followed in May 2008 with an exposure draft
entitled An Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. Chapter 1 of the
exposure draft addresses the objective of financial reporting. The objective of general purpose
financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to
present and potential equity investors, lenders, and other creditors in making decisions in their
capacity as capital providers. Information that is decision-useful to capital providers may also be
useful to other users of financial reporting who are not capital providers (IASB 2008, par OB2).
In a May 2010 IASB/FASB Staff Paper, the boards recommended the following simplifying
revision: The objective of general purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information
about the reporting entity that is useful in making decisions about providing resources to the
entity through equity investments and loans or other forms of credit (IASB 2010b, par OB2).
The FASBs SFAC No. 1 focuses on financial reporting while the IASB Framework
focuses on financial statements. The boards concluded that the objective should be broad enough
to include financial information reported beyond financial statements. Both the boundaries of
financial reporting and where specific types of information are best placed within financial
reporting (e.g., financial statements, disclosure notes, management discussion, etc.) is deferred to
a later phase (Phase E) of the project (IASB, 2008).
Both frameworks discuss the importance of providing information useful to a wide
variety of existing and potential users (e.g., stockholders, creditors, employees, governmental
agencies.) Given that the majority of todays businesses have substance distinct from that of
their capital providers, the boards concluded that an entity perspective (rather than a proprietary
perspective) is more appropriate (IASB, 2008).

International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance , Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

17

With its emphasis on providing information for investment and credit decisions, SFAC
No. 1 focuses on existing and potential investors and creditors as its primary user group. The
Framework instead focuses on investors as the providers of capital and presumes that meeting
their informational needs also meets the needs of other users. The boards concluded that a
broader primary user group consisting of a full range of capital providers (i.e., shareholders and
creditors) is more appropriate (IASB, 2008). In a March 2009 IASB meeting memorandum, it
was proposed that the term resource providers be used instead of capital providers so that
language applicable to both businesses and not-for-profits could be used whenever possible
within the conceptual framework (IASB, 2009a). This new language was later incorporated in
the May 2010 revised objective statement quoted earlier in this paper.
Providing information for the assessment of managements stewardship responsibility is
addressed in both frameworks. The boards concluded that this should remain part of the overall
objective of providing useful information. Since decisions made by capital providers include the
protection of their investment, the boards concluded that information regarding stewardship
responsibility was already addressed and did not need to be explicitly stated (IASB, 2008).
SFAC No. 1 states that the primary focus of financial reporting is information about an
enterprises performance provided by measures of comprehensive income and its components
(FASB 1978, par 43). Such information is particularly useful for assessing net cash flows. The
Framework does not rank information about performance higher than other financial reporting
information. The boards concluded that, in order to assess a firms ability to generate net cash
inflows, information about a firms economic resources, claim on those resources, and changes
in them should be provided (IASB, 2008).
The boards discussion of the underlying objectives of financial reporting is important for
a number of reasons. First, the boards have tried to avoid the criticism of being too highly
abstract. By narrowing the focus away from the broad and vague wide variety of present and
potential users to a more restricted group of resource providers, they have set the stage for a
financial reporting system that can be operationalized. Second, clarification of the objectives of
financial reporting has important implications for other parts of the framework. For example,
objectives have a direct effect on the definitions of specific financial elements. If the objective is
to provide information useful to shareholders, equity will be narrowly defined and dilution
becomes a significant concept since it impacts the value of investments. In contrast, if the
objective is broadened to include other users, focus is redirected to reporting the effects on the
entity, not on the financial position of a particular user group (FASB, 2004).
PHASE A, PART 2 QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCOUNTING
INFORMATION
Chapter 2 of the exposure draft addresses the qualitative characteristics and constraints of
decision-useful financial reporting information. To be useful, financial information must possess
two fundamental qualitative characteristics relevance and faithful representation. Relevance
was addressed in both frameworks. According to SFAC No. 2, relevant information is that
which is capable of making a difference in a decision. The Framework defines relevant
information as that which influences the decisions of the user. This is a more restrictive
definition since information may be capable of making a difference in a decision and the user
may simply ignore it. Such information would then be deemed not relevant. To mitigate such a
possibility, the boards concluded that, to be relevant, information must be capable of making a

18

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

difference in a decision (IASB 2008). The resulting language is thus consistent with SFAC No.
2.
SFAC No. 2 identifies three qualities of relevance: timeliness, predictive value and
feedback value. The Framework identifies predictive value and confirmatory value as the
components of relevance. Since confirmatory value means confirming the validity of prior
predictions or correcting them and is the equivalent of feedback value, the boards decided to use
the single term confirmatory value (IASB 2008). While SFAC No. 2 includes timeliness as an
ingredient of relevance, the Framework discussed timeliness as a constraint that limits the
relevance of information. Given that timely reporting provides more useful information, the
boards concluded that timeliness enhances both relevant and faithfully represented information
and is therefore an enhancing qualitative characteristic (IASB, 2008).
Per the exposure draft, faithful representation is the second fundamental qualitative
characteristic. In both current frameworks, the term reliability is used. SFAC No. 2 identifies
three components of reliability: representational faithfulness, verifiability and neutrality.
Representational faithfulness is then broken down into completeness and freedom from bias
(FASB 1980). Per the Framework, information has the quality of reliability when it is free from
material error and bias and can be depended upon by users to represent faithfully that which it . .
. purports to represent . . . (IASB 1989 par 31). Aspects of faithful representation include
substance over form, neutrality, prudence and completeness. Both boards acknowledge that the
existing frameworks do not adequately convey the meaning of reliability, thus resulting in
confusion, misunderstandings and inconsistencies. The boards sought a new term, faithful
representation, to convey this fundamental quality. Faithful representation the faithful
depiction in financial reports of economic phenomena is essential if information is to be
decision-useful. To represent economic phenomena faithfully, accounting information must be
complete, neutral and free from material error (IASB 2008, par BC2.15). Thus, all the key
qualities of the current frameworks are incorporated in the new term.
While SFAC No. 2 does not include substance over form, the Framework includes it as a
component of reliability. The boards concluded that faithful representation necessitates the
substance of an economic phenomenon rather than its legal form and identifying it as a
component of faithful representation would be redundant (IASB, 2008).
Neutrality is a component of both frameworks. SFAC No. 2 discusses the convention of
conservatism while the Framework uses the term prudence. It is a commonly held belief that,
given uncertainty and possible errors in measurement, there is a preference for the
understatement of net assets and net income. Both frameworks do not advocate such a preference
and disallow a deliberate understatement. The convention of conservatism is in direct conflict
with the component of neutrality which encompasses freedom from bias. The boards concluded
that the terms conservatism and prudence are not qualitative characteristics and should not be
part of the framework (IASB, 2008).
Complementary to the fundamental qualitative characteristics, the exposure draft
identifies four enhancing qualitative characteristics: comparability, verifiability, timeliness and
understandability. They enhance relevant and faithfully representative information by
distinguishing the usefulness of information (i.e., more useful vs. less useful). SFAC No. 2
denotes comparability as secondary to relevance and reliability while the Framework denotes
that it is of equal importance. The boards concluded that comparability logically follows
relevance and faithful representation and should therefore be an enhancing characteristic (IASB,
2008).

International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance , Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

19

SFAC No. 2 includes verifiability as a component of reliability while the Framework

does not. It does state that users should be able to depend upon the reported information which
implies the need for assurance of the information. Verifying information provides such assurance
and provides more useful information and, in the boards view, is an enhancing qualitative
characteristic (IASB, 2008).
Both frameworks include understandability as a qualitative characteristic. The more
understandable the information is, the more useful the information is to decision-makers thereby
classifying understandability as an enhancing characteristic. The exposure draft explains that
users must provide reasonable diligence in the study of reported financial information, possibly
seeking professional assistance to understand some complex economic phenomena (IASB,
2008).
In preparing the exposure draft, the boards also addressed whether other qualitative
characteristics should be added. Items explored included transparency, true and fair view,
credibility, internal consistency, and high quality. While important concepts in their own right,
after careful review and discussion, the boards decided that they were not qualitative
characteristics (IASB, 2008).
Both frameworks discuss the need for tradeoffs among the qualitative characteristics.
SFAC No. 2 has a hierarchy of accounting qualities, depicting some as primary, others as
secondary, and others as components of these. The boards wanted a better way to explain the
relationships among the characteristics. Since relevance and faithful representation work
together to make decision-useful information, the boards identified these as fundamental and
recommended a sequential application, with relevance being the quality to be considered first. If
deemed relevant, then faithful representation of the information should follow. Next, the
enhancing qualitative characteristics (i.e., comparability, verifiability, timeliness, and
understandability) should be considered (IASB, 2008).
Materiality is addressed in both frameworks and defined similarly. SFAC No. 2
considers materiality as a threshold that must be looked at together with the other qualitative
characteristics. The Framework considers materiality as an aspect of relevance and not a
primary qualitative characteristic for information to be useful. The boards concluded that
materiality affects both relevance and faithful representation and is therefore a pervasive
constraint on financial reporting (IASB, 2008). However, in a May 2010 IASB Staff Paper, the
Board recommends that materiality not be classified as a constraint but rather be included as an
aspect of relevance. Materiality does not constrain a reporting entitys ability to report
information. Given that the determination of materiality is entity-specific, it does not affect
standard setters decisions (IASB, 2010b).
Both frameworks identify the need to balance the benefits of financial reporting with the
costs of providing such information. The boards concluded that cost is a pervasive constraint
(IASB, 2008).
The discussion of the qualitative characteristics of accounting information has attempted
to standardize definitions and characterizations of the relative degree of importance of various
information qualities. While many of the terms are used in both frameworks, their meanings,
connotations, and level of importance are not consistent. For example, the FASB establishes a
hierarchy of the characteristics with some as primary (relevance and reliability) and others as
secondary (e.g., comparability). In contrast, the IASB Framework treats all of these as primary
attributes (FASB, 2004).

20

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

The FASB/IASB exposure draft rejects the hierarchical approach and restricts the
primary qualitative characteristics to two (relevance and faithful representation). Many of the
other terms in the current frameworks are subsumed in these two terms or are described as
enhancing qualitative characteristics (IASB, 2008).
As of August 2010, the FASB/IASB plan to issue the final chapters on Phase A during
the third quarter of 2010.
PHASE B FINANCIAL STATEMENT ELEMENTS AND RECOGNITION
Phase B of the joint project, Elements and Recognition, has three objectives: (1)
revise/clarify the definitions of asset and liability; (2) resolve differences regarding other
elements and their definitions; and (3) review the recognition criteria concepts (FASB, 2010a).
Regarding the current frameworks existing definitions of assets, the boards agreed on
several shortcomings. Use of the term probable by the FASB and expected by the IASB
result in misinterpretations by some users. For example, is the definition met only when there is
a high likelihood of future economic benefit? How high is high? Control is another term that
causes confusion. The focus should be on whether the entity has rights or privileged access to
the economic resource, not necessarily control of that resource. The boards are also concerned
that too much emphasis is placed on identifying future economic benefits. The focus should
instead be placed on the economic resource that currently exists. Rather than emphasizing
identification of the past transactions/events, focus should be on whether the entity has access to
the economic resource at the balance sheet date (FASB, 2010a). As of October 2008, the boards
have adopted the following tentative working definition: an asset of an entity is a present
economic resource to which the entity has a right or other access that others do not (FASB,
2010a). Further descriptions of the terms present, economic resource, and right or other access
are given for clarification.
The boards also agreed on several shortcomings with the existing definitions of liability.
Similar to assets, use of the terms probable and expected bring into question the level of
likelihood for a future outflow of economic benefits. Too much emphasis is placed on both
identifying these future outflows and identifying the past transactions/events that resulted in the
liability. Focus should be on the economic obligation that currently exists as of the balance sheet
date (FASB, 2010a). As of October 2008, the boards adopted the following tentative working
definition: a liability of an entity is a present economic obligation for which an entity is an
obligor (FASB, 2010a). Further descriptions of the terms present, economic obligation, and
obligor are given for clarification. Currently there is another joint project, Financial Instruments
with Characteristics of Equity, which is considering improvements to the working definitions of
assets, liabilities and equity. Additional elements and the criteria for recognition and
derecognition are to be developed at future meetings of the FASB and IASB.
PHASE C MEASUREMENT BASES
Phase C of the project addresses the issue of measurement, an area of tremendous
importance but of limited development within the current conceptual frameworks. SFAC No. 5
Recognition and Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises simply lists and
describes the various measurement bases used in practice. Similarly, the Framework lists
examples (e.g., historical cost, realizable value) and techniques (e.g., present value) for

International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance , Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

21

consideration of standard setting. The objective of the Measurement phase is to provide

guidance for selecting measurement bases that satisfy the objectives and qualitative
characteristics of financial reporting (FASB, 2010b). The boards designed a building-block
model comprised of three milestones:
Milestone I: Measurement Bases Definitions and Properties
Milestone II: Measurement Bases Evaluation Using Qualitative Characteristics
Milestone III: Measurement Bases Conclusions and Applications
In 2007, the boards held roundtable discussions and prepared a summary report on
Milestone I. Regarding the objective of identifying and defining potentially suitable
measurement bases, the boards finally agreed on nine candidates, having started with a
preliminary list of 19 items (See Table 1).
Table 1
Phase C: Milestone I Measurement Bases Project
As of August 1, 2010
Measurement Basis

Price vs. Value

1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

price
price
n/a
price
price
price
value
price
price

Past entry price

Past exit price
Modified past amount
Current entry price
Current exit price
Current equilibrium price
Value in use
Future entry price
Future exit price

Time Orientation Historical Cost

vs. Fair Value
past
HC
past
HC
past
HC
present
FV
present
FV
present
FV
present
FV
future
n/a
future
n/a

In their discussions, the boards quickly discovered that there were significant language
problems of inconsistency and imprecision. Multiple terms were being used for a single
measurement basis or a single term was being used for what was in actuality various alternative
bases. In an attempt to avoid vagueness, the boards have identified only one term for each
concept. Note that the terms historical cost and fair value are not among the measurement bases
listed. While very popular terms, there is no common understanding of their meanings, often
leading to miscommunication and confusion. For comparison purposes only, Table 1 includes a
classification of the proposed measurement bases and their historical cost/fair value equivalent
(FASB, 2007).
The boards also identified basic properties for each of the measurement bases. First, the
measurement basis could be either a price or a value, both of which assess the economic worth of
the item. Prices are determined by markets while values are specific to an individual or entity.
Second, each measurement basis has a time orientation, relating to the past, present or future
(See Table 1). The board also concluded that all basis candidates could be considered from both
an asset and liability perspective. It was determined that none of the candidates should be
excluded prior to the evaluation process to be undertaken in Milestone II (FASB, 2007).

22

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

In 2009, the IASB released a staff paper with a sample measurement chapter that . .
considers the primary qualitative characteristics relevance and faithful representation
together with three of the enhancing qualitative characteristics comparability, verifiability, and
understandability and the cost constraint in selecting financial measures (IASB, 2009b, par
ME10). There are five factors that might be considered when selecting the measurement base:
value realization, confidence level, consistent measures, separability of income components and
cost/benefit. Value realization refers to the conversion of the economic value of an asset or
liability into cash, other assets, services, or release from obligations (IASB 2009b, par ME 29).
Such realization would be very relevant to financial statement users. A relatively high level of
confidence that a measure is a faithful representation of an economic phenomenon is also highly
valued by users. Using consistent measures allows for comparability and understandability and
suggests that the number of measures used within asset/liability categories should have limited
exceptions. Changes in measures of assets and liabilities that are reported in comprehensive
income can be made more relevant and understandable when disaggregated into their component
parts and should be considered in choosing a measurement base. Finally cost/benefit issues
should be factored in as well (IASB, 2009b).
In May 2010, rather than producing a neutral Discussion Paper, the boards decided to
continue their development of preliminary views. As discussed previously, the objective of
financial reporting is to maximize information for investment and credit decisions. The boards
identified three possible views of the implications for measurement.
View A is the balance sheet view whereby measurements for assets and liabilities should
be selected that faithfully represent the reporting entitys wealth with respect to those assets and
liabilities (FASB, 2010c). This view would support using current prices or values for
measurement and supplementing these with disclosures of historical cost or other measurements
in the notes.
View B is the income statement view whereby measurements for assets and liabilities
should be selected that result in persistent information about accrual-basis cash flows in the
statement of comprehensive income (FASB, 2010c). This view would support using some form
of historical cost for measuring assets and liabilities while disclosing other fair value-type
measurements in the notes.
View C is the holistic view whereby measurements for assets and liabilities should be
selected that would result in maximizing information for investment and credit decisions in both
the statement of financial position and the statement of comprehensive income. This view would
support more than one type of measurement both on the face of the statements and in the notes
(FASB 2010c). As of July 2010, the boards seem to favor View C, tentatively concluding that,
since the financial statements are complementary, one should consider the effect of a particular
measurement selection on all of the statements (i.e., View C) (FASB, 2010c).
As the above discussion indicates, Phase C is very much a work-in-progress and still in
its early stages. As of August 2010, there was no estimated publication date for a discussion
paper, exposure draft, or chapter for this phase of the project.
PHASE D DEFINING THE REPORTING ENTITY
In May 2008, in reference to Phase D of the project, the FASB/IASB issued a discussion
paper entitled Preliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial
Reporting: The Reporting Entity. This was followed in March 2010 with an exposure draft

International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance , Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

23

entitled Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting The Reporting Entity. The following
definition is proposed: A reporting entity is a circumscribed area of economic activities whose
financial information has the potential to be useful to existing and potential equity investors,
lenders and other creditors who cannot directly obtain the information they need in making
decisions about providing resources to the entity and in assessing whether management and the
governing board of that entity have made efficient and effective use of the resources provided
(IASB 2010c, par RE2). The current FASB conceptual framework does not define reporting
entity nor does it even address how one should be identified. The Framework does provide a
definition: an entity for which there are users who rely on the financial statements as their major
source of financial information about the entity (IASB, 1989, par 8).
Per the exposure draft, a reporting entity is not limited to a legal entity. It can include
several entities as well as a portion (or portions) of a single entity. The exposure draft also
addresses the concept of control of an entity. The boards concluded that for conceptual
framework purposes, control should be defined in very general terms with more specific
determinations being decided at the standard-setting level. An entity controls another entity
when it has the power to direct the activities of that other entity to generate benefits for (or limit
losses to) itself (IASB, 2010c, par RE7). Both boards have existing standards which utilize the
concept of significant influence. These standards agree that, if one entity has only significant
influence over another entity, it does not have control over that entity (IASB, 2010c). The
boards concluded that consolidated financial statements should be prepared if an entity controls
one or more other entities. Parent-only financial statements may be presented as supplemental
information. Both boards have undertaken a consolidations project and are currently developing
common standards applicable to all entities. Since the conceptual framework is to be an aid to
the development of standards, the boards concluded that completion of the consolidations project
does not preclude progression on the reporting entity phase of the conceptual framework project
(IASB, 2010c).
As of August 2010, the FASB/IASB planned to issue the final chapter for Phase D during
the fourth quarter of 2010.
AUTHORITATIVE STATUS OF THE FRAMEWORKS
This concludes the discussion of the active phases of the joint conceptual framework
project. One additional topic, however, remains to be addressed regarding the status of the
conceptual framework within the GAAP hierarchy. This matter is to be discussed later in Phase
F, which is not currently active. SFACs, which comprise the U.S. conceptual framework, do not
establish GAAP. They were developed by the FASB to help guide the Board in setting
accounting standards. In contrast, the IASB Framework was designed not only for the standard
setters but for practitioners, auditors and users as well. It holds an elevated status in the IASB
GAAP hierarchy. Companies are required to consider the Framework for resolution of
accounting issues for which there is no existing standard or interpretation (IASB, 1989). As of
August 2010, the boards did not reach a common conclusion on the authoritative status of the
joint conceptual framework. The FASB has decided that this matter should not be considered
until the framework is substantially completed (IASB, 2008).

24

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

CONCLUSION
In October 2004, the FASB and IASB agreed to add to their respective agendas a joint
project to develop a common conceptual framework. The goal was to converge the existing
frameworks and ultimately replace them with a new and improved single framework. The project
was divided into eight phases, four of which have been active but none of which are complete.
As of August 2010, the current plan of the boards was to publish final chapters for Phase A in the
third quarter of 2010 and Phase D in the fourth quarter of 2010. While Phase B and C are
currently active, both could best be described as being in the preliminary stage of development.
The boards have been working on this project for almost six years and, while significant progress
has been made on some phases, much still remains to be done. The boards should be
commended for their progress to date and encouraged to continue their efforts to develop a new
and improved conceptual framework. Such creation should provide the necessary foundation for
standard setting that is principles-based, internally consistent and internationally converged.
REFERENCES
FASB. (1978). Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1. Stamford, CT: FASB.
FASB. (1980). Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2. Stamford, CT: FASB.
FASB. (2004). Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, Joint Conceptual Framework
Project. Retrieved from www.fasb.org.
FASB. (2007). Conceptual Framework Project Phase C:Measurement Milestone I Summary
Report. Retrieved from
http://www.fasb.org/project/CF_Milestone_I_Summary_Report.pdf.
FASB. (2010a) Project Update Conceptual Framework Elements and Recognition. Retrieved
from www.fasb.org.
FASB. (2010b) Project Update Conceptual Framework Measurement. Retrieved from
www.fasb.org.
FASB. (2010c). Staff Paper Conceptual Framework, July 2010. Retrieved from www.fasb.org.
IASB. (1989). Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.
London, United Kingdom: IASCF.
IASB. (2008). Exposure Draft of An Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting:
Chapter 1,2. London, United Kingdom: IASCF.
IASB. (2009a). IASB Meeting Memorandum. Retrieved from www.iasb.org.
IASB. (2009b). Staff Paper Conceptual Framework Sample Measurement Chapter. Retrieved
from www.iasb.org.

International Journal of Business, Accounting, and Finance , Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

25

IASB. (2010a). Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from

http://www.ifrs.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/Conceptual+Framework/Conceptua
l+Framework.htm.
IASB. (2010b). IASB/FASB Meeting 5/18/10 Staff Paper. Retrieved from www.iasb.org.
IASB. (2010c). Exposure Draft Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Reporting
Entity. London, United Kingdom: IASCF.
About the Authors:
Kathleen A. Kaminski received her Ph.D. from Oklahoma State University in 2002. She is an Assistant Professor
of Accounting in the Beacom School of Business at The University of South Dakota. She has published in several
scholarly journals, including the Journal of Forensic Accounting, Managerial Auditing Journal, Advances in Public
Interest Accounting and Journal of College Teaching & Learning.
Jon R. Carpenter received his Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1981. He is a
Professor of Accounting in the Beacom School of Business at The University of South Dakota. He has published in
several scholarly journal and books including the Journal of Accounting and Finance Research, College Student
Journal, International Journal of Business and Public Administration, International Journal of Education Research,
Journal of Business Disciplines, Business Journal, Ethics and Critical Thinking Journal, Contemporary Business
Readings, Expert Systems with Applications An International Journal.

26

International Journal of Busines, Accounting, and Finance, Volume 5, Number 1, Winter 2011

Copyright of International Journal of Business, Accounting, & Finance is the property of International Academy
of Business & Public Administration Disciplines (IABPAD), LLC and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.