IntroductionGlobalisation has resulted in the instigation of global trade techniques that facilitate trade without boarder restriction. This paper focuses on the accounting segment of this trade. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is the international body that is responsible for setting global accounting standards which aims at breaking accounting barriers between distinct states by designing mutual standards. The adoption of the standards set by IASB has being slow which is attributable to hitches such as lack of permanent funding that discourage some states (Thorne, 2010). The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is economic hardships that have afflicted the global economies-particularly the western world- for the last five years commencing in 2008.
There are many causes of the crisis with regards to the viewpoint: some may cite irresponsible leadership since other economies like the Asian Pacific economies are growing at high paces. Since this paper focuses on international accounting, the perceptions expressed are accountancy underpinned when assessing possible contribution of accounting in the crisis. The assessment covers distinct regions and accountancy bodies around the globe (Bloomer, 2005). This paper particularly aims at analysing the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2012, its impacts around the world and actions taken by disparate economies to tackle the crisis.
It also assesses the efficacy of some standards set by IASB to govern accountancy. PART AFair-value Accounting Role in GFCAccounting standards are hardly perceived as a field of infatuation and debate. Nonetheless, heated speculation in the upshot of the GFC over whether or not fair-value accounting techniques exacerbated the disintegration and heightened market instability has grasped the profession. Economists, politicians, professional associations, and business leaders have exchanged perspectives in a dialogue that appears set to posses long-term repercussions for financial controllers, auditors, and organisational directors as they partake their respective corporate obligations.
It is timely to elucidate the disposition of fair-value accounting to historical costs? (Cascini & DelFavero, 2011)Comparison to Historical cost AccountingIn essence, fair-value accounting encompasses utilising accessible market information to approximate the likely selling value of an asset or charge to foot a liability. The conjecture goes that employing present market figures in valuing assets and liabilities is the best technique to give investors contemporary information about the economic conditions of organisations.
In contrast, historical cost accounting is a technique whereby assets are priced at their initial cost and leaves out modifications for inflation. However, they factor in alterations such as impairment and depreciation. Both accounting standards are in broad utilization and have their exponents and antagonists. Proponents of fair-value contend that it imparts more relevant and timely market information regardless of the surged use of approximates and judgments, while antagonists argue that it impart inaccurate and undependable market information. Supporters of historical-cost accounting technique believe it is more reliable as asset prices are based on real transactions, but antagonists maintain that acquisition prices under this technique are often outdated and may thus provide little or no relevance to investors. AccusationsIn the pursuit for culprits responsible for the GFC, some industrial and political pundits have indicted fair value accounting.
A relapsing allegation in some quintiles is that it hastens undue influence in boom markets and comparably exaggerated write-downs of entities during a bust. One setting which commentators advance is that financial institutions are compelled to dispose distressed securities at low prices, draining their capital and shooting asset values through the ground.
This can result in a downward curl that adversely afflicts the institutions and investors.