-

American financial accounting standards and financial reporting system have always been recognized as the most sound and effective in the world. In the global capital market, Wall Street is relatively mature and perfect. However, since the outbreak of the 200 1 Enron incident, the American capital market seems to have opened Pandora's box, and Wall Street was shocked and exposed financial scandals one after another. The outbreak of this series of events reflects the possible disadvantages of American accounting standards and triggers a profound reflection on its accounting standards formulation model in the United States. Accounting standards can be guided by specific rules or basic principles. At present, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has chosen the standard-setting mode based on specific rules, while the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has chosen the standard-setting mode based on basic principles. However, the specific rule-oriented standards easily give enterprises the opportunity to abuse the standards and make them escape the constraints of the standards. A series of accounting fraud incidents on Wall Street have triggered a debate on the formulation model of American accounting standards, so it is necessary to re-examine the formulation process of American accounting standards.

With the rapid development of China's securities market, China's accounting standards are changing regularly. Since 1997, the Ministry of Finance has issued and revised more than ten accounting standards for enterprises, and many more will be issued in the near future. When formulating China's accounting standards, the Ministry of Finance also referred to international accounting standards, but there are similarities with American accounting standards. In the process of gradually establishing and perfecting China's accounting standards system, it is particularly important to learn from international experience, especially to transform the current American standard-setting model. This paper invites Zhu Hailin and Xiaoqing Zeng, directors of the Accounting Department of the Ministry of Finance, to write this article, with a view to initiating in-depth discussion and research on the formulation of accounting standards in China.

First, the change of American standard-setting model and the background and reasons of convergence with international accounting standards.

The United States has always believed that its own GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) is the most perfect standard in the world, which excludes the standards of other countries from being used in the US capital market. FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Committee) has repeatedly stressed that "high-quality accounting standards should be maintained while internationalizing", implying that IAS (International Accounting Standards) is not a high-quality accounting standard. The SEC (American Securities and Exchange Commission) feels the pressure from all over the world, so it is willing to accept IAS, especially the core IAS, under certain conditions. However, FASB and AAA (American Accounting Association) cite many reasons against it.

However, after the Enron incident and a series of scandals in the American capital market, on July 30, 2002, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which completely rectified the accounting and auditing industries. Although the bill does not explicitly stipulate that the formulation of American accounting standards should adhere to the principle orientation, it requires the SEC to study the feasibility of adopting the principle orientation accounting system in the United States. Under this background, FASB issued the Proposal of American Principle-oriented Accounting Standards from June 5 to1October 38, 2002, soliciting public opinions on changing the current rule-oriented accounting standards. Its background and reasons mainly include the following aspects:

1, IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) is actively moving closer to the United States.

1996 10 In order to encourage more foreign companies to raise funds in the US capital market, and at the same time to reduce unnecessary expenses for adjusting statements, the US Congress requires the SEC to report on the progress of international accounting standards, hoping to successfully formulate a set of internationally recognized accounting standards for use by foreign companies planning to list in the US. After the dialogue with IASC, SEC announced its support for IASC to formulate a set of accounting standards applicable to the financial statements of multinational listed companies, but put forward three key conditions for the quality of these standards: (1) Standards must include a set of core accounting statements, which can form a comprehensive and recognized accounting basis; (2) Standards must be of high quality, reflect comparability and transparency, and provide adequate information disclosure; (3) The guidelines must be strictly interpreted and applied. 1 At the end of 1998, the IASC Strategy Working Group put forward the report "Shaping the Future of IASC", which made new provisions on the objectives of IASC: (1) To formulate a set of high-quality, understandable and effective global accounting standards in line with the public interest, so as to meet the demand of providing high-quality, transparent and comparable information in financial statements and help participants in the global capital market to be prudent. (2) promoting the use and strict application of the above standards; (3) Integrate national accounting standards to produce high-quality standards. IASC's Board of Directors and General Assembly approved the report in February 1999 and May 2000 respectively, and revised the IASC's constitution and basic objectives accordingly. In April of 20001year, IASC was reorganized into IASB because of extensive criticism and self-awareness. After the reorganization, IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) was actively promoted to the United States. The United States supports the reorganization of IASC and actively participates in the implementation of the reorganization plan. AuthurLevitt, chairman of the SEC, served as chairman of the nomination committee, and PaulVolker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, served as chairman of the first board of directors. Among the 14 members of the new board of directors of IASB, the United States accounts for 5, which shows that the United States occupies a very key position in the reorganized IASB. In June, 20001,when PaulVolcker, Chairman of IASB Board of Directors, testified at the hearing of the US Congress, IAS (now changed to IFRS) moved towards the political map of the United States. Volcker said: "The rapid development of global financial markets strongly requires international consistency of accounting standards."

2. Interest-driven capital market globalization.

IAS and American GAAP are the two most influential standards in the world at present. Whether it can be integrated into a set of global accounting standards is related to the further development of accounting internationalization and the efficiency of global capital market. Capital market integration plays an important role in the development of the world economy. Not long ago, the European Commission conducted a survey on the possible impact of a unified capital market. The survey report shows that the realization of a single capital market within the EU will bring significant growth to the European economy. Therefore, the benefit-driven effect of capital market globalization is enormous.

Economic globalization requires the integration of global capital market, and one of the important prerequisites for the unification of global capital market is the unification of global accounting standards. Unified accounting standards are the key basis for unifying the international capital market. Inconsistency of financial accounting standards has brought trouble to investors in different countries to compare financial instruments in different markets, which has increased the cost of financial instrument issuers, and financial regulators in various countries are also worried about this. After the unification of accounting standards, the company will save time and money and establish high-quality global accounting standards. At present, the accounting supervision departments in the United States and Europe have reached an agreement on unified accounting standards, confirmed the main differences before 2003, eliminated these differences before 2005, and established unified accounting standards. This means a major breakthrough in the movement of unifying international accounting standards.

3. Enron scandal triggered a profound reflection on American norm-setting model.

It has been 65 years since the United States formulated GAAP based on rules, and the capital market in the United States is also considered to be the most open and perfect market in the world. The prosperity of capital market is closely related to its high quality GAAP. However, a series of recent scandals of big companies in the American capital market show that the current standard-setting model in the United States has major defects. After the Enron incident, the United States made a profound reflection on its norm-setting model. In view of the defects and shortcomings of the rule-oriented method, various circles have criticized it. For example, GeorgeSoros, a famous financier, commented: "The American accounting system is based on accounting rules. But accounting rules alone are not enough, because it will lead to evasive behavior. " Taking Europe as an example, he pointed out that, unlike the United States, the accounting system in Europe is based on principles. Although there will be accounting scandals like those in the United States in Europe, "there will be no such systematic problems." MichaelSpence, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, pointed out: "Traditionally, the western economy is a system based on rules. As long as it conforms to the rules, it can play the' edge ball' and exploit the loopholes of the rules, causing losses to investors. Therefore, we must also return to some principles, that is, determine the principles while formulating rules, and the two should be used together to avoid the adverse results brought about by information asymmetry to the greatest extent. " May 2002 14, Robert g. Hedeman, the chief accountant of SEC, evaluated the rule-oriented model and the principle-oriented model at the congressional hearing. He pointed out that the rule-oriented accounting standards that try to make extremely detailed provisions on all aspects of the application of standards will encourage the "rummaging" mentality in financial reports, weaken the professional judgment in the application of standards, and are not conducive to financial statement preparers and certified public accountants to objectively evaluate the overall impact of specific standards on financial reports. He proposed that the ideal norm-setting model should be principle-oriented. The Financial Services Committee of the US House of Representatives, which is responsible for supervising the SEC, recently assumed the responsibility of supervising accounting issues and participated in the harmonization of accounting standards through hearings. Previously, the debate on international accounting standards was limited to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In a word, the accounting scandals of a series of large companies in the American capital market led to severe criticism of the rule-oriented model in the United States, and tried to consider the feasibility of the principle-oriented model.

Second, the reform of FASB brewing criteria: from rule-oriented to principle-oriented

There are two modes of standard setting: rule-oriented method and principle-oriented method. The advantage of the rule-oriented method in formulating standards lies in its rigor, integrity, strong operability and less professional judgment; The disadvantage is that it is too specific, and it is inevitably suspected of leaking everything. It is easy to be evaded by report preparers and other related groups, emphasizing form over substance. The advantages and disadvantages of the principle-oriented method are just the opposite. The main differences between the two accounting standards are reflected in the following three aspects:

1. In terms of accounting standards, the accounting standards under the rule-oriented method are too detailed and complicated, while the accounting standards under the principle-oriented method are more concise. FASB thinks that the accounting standards under the current rule-oriented method are too detailed and complicated, and they are demand-driven, which comes from the following reasons: (1) exceptions to the principle are often the result of a compromise between the demand for useful information in decision-making and the practical considerations of FASB, including: ① scope exceptions, such as some exceptions that allow transactions and events to be handled under one standard, but continue to be handled according to other existing standards; (2) the application of exceptions, some exceptions are to obtain specific accounting results; (3) transitional exceptions, some of which are used to mitigate the impact of the transition of accounting standards. (2) The number of explanatory guidelines and implementation guidelines formulated by 2)FASB and other institutions for applying these standards. The main function of accounting standards interpretation guide and implementation guide is to ensure a certain degree of comparability. The guide is also used for handling exceptional applications and as an educational tool. Others believe that it is very important to provide a detailed explanation guide and implementation guide for the answers to each question in an increasing litigation environment. Detailed guidance not only provides an effective implementation mechanism for the SEC, but also needs to provide detailed guidance for others (including report preparers and auditors), because it restricts the SEC and other institutions from making professional judgments again. Over the years, the formulation of explanatory standards and implementing standards has developed rapidly, which complicates the application of accounting standards.

Under the principle-oriented approach, we will continue to formulate principles that reflect the basic requirements of recognition, measurement and reporting standards according to the conceptual framework. The main difference between the standards formulated by the principle-oriented method and the current standards is that the (1) principle will be more widely used, thus providing fewer exceptions for this principle. Less exceptions will improve the comparability of information and reduce the complexity and complexity of standards caused by exceptions. FASB admits that as a practical problem, it is impossible to completely delete all scope exceptions and transitional exceptions. However, according to the fact that substance is more important than form, the principle-oriented method will delete all application exceptions. (2) The application of explanatory guide and implementation guide will be reduced (from various sources, not just FASB). FASB believes that the guide should focus on the important issues raised by the code, so as to make more use of professional judgments in line with the purpose and spirit of the code. Few explanatory guides and implementation guides are of great significance to all participants. FASB needs to formulate sufficient standards to confirm when explanatory standards and implementation standards are appropriate. Other standard setters, such as the Emergency Working Group and the Accounting Standards Research Group of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, will make corresponding changes to ensure that the same (or similar) guiding principles are used after the publication of the standards, and that the standards conform to the purpose and spirit of the standards. Report preparers and auditors need to use professional judgment more, while SEC, investors and other users of financial information need to accept the results of applying professional judgment. SEC's ability to deal with problems is the key factor for principle orientation to play its role.

2. In terms of conceptual framework, there are some defects in the conceptual framework used under the current rule-oriented method, and the principle-oriented method will require the revision and improvement of the conceptual framework. Under the rule-oriented method, the conceptual framework is applied to the formulation of standards, but it does not provide all necessary tools to solve accounting and reporting problems, because some aspects of the conceptual framework are incomplete, inconsistent and vague. The principle-oriented approach requires that the conceptual framework is complete, internally consistent and clear. Therefore, FASB will set up a project to improve the conceptual framework. FASB is also considering establishing an overall reporting framework similar to IAS 1 "Presentation of Financial Statements". The main goal of the reporting framework is to provide guidance for substantive evaluation, going concern evaluation, professional judgment, accounting policy, consistency and presentation of comparable information, and to explain the deviation between true and fair views.

3. From the perspective of cost and benefit, the benefit of changing from rule-oriented method to principle-oriented method will be greater than its cost. Under the rule-oriented method, it is difficult for people in the accounting industry to keep up with the latest development of the industry, accounting standards are difficult to use and the cost is high. Although the principle-oriented method will lead to the increase of cost and the abuse of professional judgment, it will make the standards easier to understand and implement, the increased use of professional judgment will better reflect the nature of transactions and events, and fewer exceptions will also enhance the comparability of financial information. FASB emphasizes that if the principle-oriented approach is adopted, all parties involved in financial accounting and reporting procedures-not just FASB and other standard setters-will change. Therefore, if all participants can make the changes required by the principle orientation, the benefits of adopting the principle orientation method will outweigh the costs.

Thirdly, the convergence of FAsB and IASB standards.

The change in the direction of American accounting standards has laid the foundation for the convergence of generally accepted accounting principles and international accounting standards. From June 5th to1October 30th, 2002, FASB and IASB signed a memorandum of understanding, promising to formulate high-quality and comparable accounting standards for the financial reports of domestic companies and multinational companies. Both parties promise to do their best: (1) make their current financial reporting standards completely comparable; (2) Coordinate its future work plan to ensure comparability of established standards.

In order to meet the requirements of comparability, FASB and IASB agree to give priority to (1) implementing short-term convergence cooperation projects, aiming at eliminating a large number of individual differences between GAAP and IFRS (including IAS) in the United States, and reflecting * * * the same solution to some specific differences that have been identified. FASB and IASB are expected to issue a draft for comments in the second half of 2003 to deal with some or all identified differences. Eliminating these differences and the commitment of both parties to eliminate or reduce the existing differences through the follow-up process of cooperation projects and the coordination of future work plans will improve the comparability of financial statements within the jurisdiction of national laws. (2) Through the future work plan, that is to say, through the adoption of independent and important cooperation projects agreed by both parties, eliminate other differences still existing between the international financial reporting standards and the US GAAP on June 5438+ 10/2005. (3) Continue the current cooperation project. (4) Encourage their own standard interpretation institutions to coordinate their actions.

Robert, chairman of FASB. H Hez commented: "FASB promises to formulate high-quality reporting standards on a global scale to support the healthy development of global capital markets. Through cooperation with IASB in short-term integration projects (including long-term problems), the possibility of success will be greatly improved. Our agreement provides a clear direction for achieving our common goals through cooperation. " IASB Chairman David. Sir Teddy said: "This agreement is another important step for us to obtain real global accounting standards through cooperation with national standards-setting institutions. Although we realize that there will be many challenges in the future, now I am confident that the main differences between national standards and international standards can be eliminated; Through the convergence of American GAAP, international financial reporting standards and other national standards, the world capital market will use a set of global accounting standards that investors can trust. "

Fourth, the reference and enlightenment of American accounting standards reform to China.

The convergence of American accounting standards and international accounting standards will greatly accelerate the pace of global capital market unification, and will urge accounting standard-setting institutions in other countries and regions to seriously consider the internationalization of standards. It can be predicted that the change of American accounting standards and the cooperation between FASB and IASB in the convergence of global accounting standards will make it possible for the global capital market to adopt the same accounting standards. This will be of great significance in the history of accounting development, and will certainly have a far-reaching impact on the formulation of accounting standards in all countries of the world.

The advanced form of economic globalization is the integration of capital market, which inevitably requires the unification of accounting as a common business language. However, in our country, there are still some disputes about whether accounting standards are developing in the direction of internationalization or localization, and there is no unity in theory and practice, which will affect the overall development of our economy. On this issue, the practice of the United States is particularly worth learning. With the strong comprehensive national strength of the United States, FASB has been leading the world accounting trend. After China's entry into WTO, the capital market, product market and labor market will be opened one after another. Like most domestic industries, the accounting industry is facing more and more urgent international requirements. Accounting internationalization includes two levels: first, the opening of domestic accounting service market; On the other hand, the internationalization of accounting standards. Regarding the opening of the domestic accounting service market, China has listed a specific opening timetable. In the internationalization of standards, we should learn from the experience of American standards reform and further converge with international accounting standards. China's top accounting leaders have realized this. At the16th World Congress of Accountants held in Hongkong at the end of last year, Feng Shuping, Assistant Minister of Finance, made it clear that China would "establish and improve the China accounting standards system in about three years. In the process of formulating accounting standards, we will continue to learn from international accounting standards. Unless the relevant international accounting standards conflict with China's laws and regulations or obviously do not conform to China's reality, we will be consistent with international accounting standards. " With the prospect that the global capital market is expected to adopt uniform accounting rules, especially at present, China has replaced the United States as the country with the highest foreign investment. In order to enhance the comparability of accounting information, improve the transparency of the capital market, and help domestic and foreign investors make reasonable economic decisions, we should speed up the internationalization of accounting standards in China on the premise of considering the specific national conditions of China.