Connect with us

Accounting

CFA Institute urges better accounting for intangible assets

Published

on

The CFA Institute released a paper Wednesday urging the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board to require more detailed disclosures of intangible assets before companies can recognize them on the balance sheet.

The paper from the financial analyst group pointed out that, in terms of GDP, investments in intangible assets have eclipsed investments in tangible assets in developed markets, and there have been significant increases in price-to-book ratios of major equity indices, partly because of unrecognized intangible assets. The biggest companies in the world now tend to be intangible-intensive, and companies receiving venture-capital financing or going public through IPOs also tend to skew toward intangible-intensive sectors.

“The increasing importance of intangibles is not only a characteristic of listed and VC-backed companies but a hallmark of major advanced economies,” said the report. “In contrast with financial accounting standards that treat most intangible expenditures as expenses, national income accounting rules used to calculate gross domestic product (GDP) treats firms’ expenditures on R&D, software and artistic originals as investments, analogous to the other components of capital investment included in GDP, such as residential structures and buildings, nonresidential structures and buildings, and machinery and equipment.”

The report noted that both FASB and the IASB are broadly re-examining accounting for intangible assets. Under the current accounting rules, intangible assets (such as patents, brands and software) acquired in a business combination are often capitalized as assets, while the costs associated with intangible assets generated internally by a company are expensed as incurred. But beyond the lack of recognition, only minimal disclosures are required — or voluntarily provided — for intangible assets, often leaving investors in the dark about the exact nature of these significant investments.

“The central message emerging from our work is that improved disclosures and better disaggregation are necessary to understand the investments made in the creation of intangible assets before considering their recognition on financial statements,” said Sandra Peters, senior head of global advocacy at the CFA Institute, in a statement. “When we look back at standard-setting over the last 30 years, disclosures are what led the way to productive conversations and finally to recognition for stock-based compensation, fair value accounting, and pension measurement. Without more information, investors do not have insight into the specific intangible assets they know exist, and standard-setters lack insight on how to best approach changes to recognition. Without better disclosures, neither investors nor standard-setters can properly define and scope the issue they are trying to solve.” 

The CFA Institute surveyed a group of over 800 investors for the paper and received a variety of responses and comments that are included in the report. Overall, more than 70% of the respondents agreed that for many companies the most valuable assets don’t appear on the balance sheet; the accounting model does not, but should, recognize important intangibles; and the unrecognized intangible assets are a significant driver of the difference observed between the book and market values of equity for many listed companies.

Only 39% of the respondents found current intangible disclosures useful. The biggest level of agreement (more than 80%) in the survey was for better disclosures and for more disaggregation of investments in intangibles across the financial statements. Investors widely agreed with a menu of disclosure improvements, with most receiving over 80% support. Respondents saw improving disclosures as a path forward to achieving better valuation, measurement and ultimately recognition of such intangibles.

Over 70% of the respondents agreed with continuing to separately recognize identifiable intangibles in an acquisition but a similar proportion of respondents expressed concerns with the transparency and timeliness of impairment testing. 

Many of the survey respondents would like to see internally generated, identifiable intangibles recognized on the balance sheet. A significant plurality disagreed, however, seeing the potential for earnings management and believing that deferred recognition may not provide any more useful information than expensing. Their comments suggest that this potential for earnings management stems from a lack of transparency regarding the investment in intangibles.

Nearly equal numbers of respondents supported cost and fair value models for measuring internally generated intangible assets, if they were to be recognized on the balance sheet.

Investors see the financial statements as at risk of losing their relevance without action by FASB and the IASB on intangibles, but they don’t have a strong appetite for radical change such as an entirely new balance sheet that shows the fair value of acquired or created intangibles.

“In the current environment, where the prevailing mood tends toward fewer, not more, disclosures, the debate around the accounting of intangibles is controversial, despite clear evidence that financial statements are missing important assets,” said Matthew Winters, senior director of global advocacy at the CFA Institute, in a statement. “Many of the stakeholders — mostly investors — who try to solve this conundrum want broader capitalization of intangibles to properly reflect companies’ sources of value on balance sheets and to treat intangibles more consistently with tangible assets. However, others disagree. They believe that capitalization would not provide more useful information than expensing, and that the conservatism and uniformity of the current rules are good things. Opponents also argue that granting companies more flexibility in capitalization could have the perverse effect of greater earnings management.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

Published

on

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

In a decisive move toward standardized environmental financial reporting, accounting standards boards issued updated implementation guidance during the week ending July 25, 2026, regarding the formal recognition and valuation of corporate carbon offsets and environmental credits. The revised frameworks establish precise rules for how enterprises must measure, record, and disclose carbon credits on balance sheets, eliminating years of inconsistent reporting practices across public capital markets.

Under the finalized accounting standard, purchased carbon offsets can no longer be categorized under vague administrative expenses or unstandardized intangible asset accounts. Instead, organizations must classify environmental credits based on underlying operational intent—distinguishing between credits held for immediate compliance compliance obligations, long-term offset obligations, or active market trading. Furthermore, companies are required to evaluate carbon holdings for fair value impairment at the end of each reporting period, ensuring that depreciated or low-quality environmental credits do not distort corporate asset values.

The standardized rules carry significant implications for corporate audit committees and chief accounting officers. External audit firms are implementing rigorous verification protocols to validate the physical legitimacy, legal ownership, and scientific permanence of carbon credits claimed on balance sheets. Inaccurate or overstated carbon accounting claims now carry substantial financial litigation risk, alongside potential regulatory enforcement for misleading ESG disclosures.

To remain fully compliant, corporate accounting departments must establish centralized carbon tracking systems integrated into primary standard ERP ledgers. Accounting teams that proactively adopt standardized environmental reporting protocols will build investor credibility, streamline annual audit processes, and insulate their organizations against evolving regulatory scrutiny.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

Published

on

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

Corporate tax departments reached a critical juncture in automated operational management. With nations worldwide rapidly enacting digital service taxes, localized value-added tax (VAT) mandates, and real-time electronic invoicing requirements, manual tax calculations have become obsolete. Modern corporate tax divisions are aggressively deploying AI-driven tax engine software to automate complex cross-border indirect tax calculations in real time.

The imperative for automated tax compliance stems from the sheer complexity of current trade policies and multi-jurisdictional commerce. E-commerce platforms, software vendors, and global manufacturers face constantly changing regional tax rates, statutory exemption rules, and cross-border tariff structures. Automated tax engines embed directly into enterprise enterprise resource planning (ERP) architectures, automatically applying correct tax codes at the point of sale, calculating real-time withholding amounts, and generating compliant e-invoices.

Automated audit trail generation represents another key advantage of modern tax tech integration. Advanced compliance platforms log every transactional tax determination on immutable digital ledgers, providing tax authorities with transparent, self-verifying audit trails. This capability drastically reduces the operational duration and administrative cost of corporate tax audits, protecting enterprises against severe penalties resulting from calculation errors or missed reporting deadlines.

For chief financial officers and tax directors, investing in automated tax compliance is a vital operational risk mitigation strategy. Automating routine tax calculations frees high-level accounting professionals to focus on strategic tax planning, transfer pricing optimization, and risk management in an increasingly complex global economic environment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Trending