Connect with us

Accounting

IASB unveils financial performance standard

Published

on

The International Accounting Standards Board has introduced a new standard to give investors more readily comparable information about companies’ operating profits in one of the biggest changes to International Financial Reporting Standards in decades, making it harder for businesses to manipulate their financial results.

The new standard, IFRS 18, “Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements,” aims to help investors make better investment decisions and will affect all companies using IFRS accounting standards. 

“IFRS 18 represents the most significant change to companies’ presentation of financial performance since IFRS accounting standards were introduced more than 20 years ago,” said IASB chair Andreas Barckow in a statement Tuesday. “It will give investors better information about companies’ financial performance and consistent anchor points for their analysis.”

Barckow-Andreas-IASB.jpg

Andreas Barckow

The new standard introduces three sets of new requirements to improve companies’ reporting of financial performance and give investors a better way to analyze and compare companies and how they’re doing. It’s seen as an alternative to metrics such as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which can be prone to manipulation when reporting on profit and loss.

The changes won’t necessarily affect U.S. companies, which mainly use U.S. GAAP, but multinationals that have operations abroad could be required to report their financial results using the new standard, especially if their shares trade on foreign exchanges. They will still be able to report on EBITDA, but only in the footnotes, according to Reuters.

The new standard aims to improve comparability in the statement of profit or loss on the income statement. The IASB noted that currently there’s no specified structure for the income statement, so companies can just pick their own subtotals to include. Companies will often report that they have an operating profit, but the way operating profit is calculated varies from company to company, and that reduces comparability. ‘

IFRS 18 introduces three defined categories for income and expenses — operating, investing and financing — with the goal of improving the structure of the income statement and requiring all companies to provide new defined subtotals, including operating profit. The improved structure and new subtotals aim to give investors a consistent starting point for analyzing corporate performance and make it simpler to compare one company to another.

The new standard also aims to improve the transparency of management-defined performance measures. Many companies report company-specific measures, which are often referred to as alternative performance measures (similar to non-GAAP metrics in the U.S.). Investors can find such information useful, but most companies don’t currently offer enough information to allow investors to understand how those measures are calculated and how they relate to the required measures in the income statement. IFRS 18 will require companies to disclose explanations of those company-specific measures that are related to the income statement. The new requirements aim to improve the discipline and transparency of management-defined performance measures, and make them subject to audit.

The new standard will also require a different kind of grouping of information within the financial statements. IFRS 18 includes enhanced guidance on how to organize information and whether to provide it in the primary financial statements or in the notes. The changes are expected to supply more detailed, useful information to investors. IFRS 18 also requires companies to offer more transparency about their operating expenses to help investors find and understand the needed information.

IFRS 18 takes effect for annual reporting periods starting on or after Jan. 1, 2027, although companies can apply it earlier. The IASB noted that changes in companies’ reporting resulting from the new standard will depend on their current reporting practices and IT systems.

The board has posted a short video on YouTube with Barckow explaining some of the changes. Support to implement IFRS 18 will be available via the implementation webpage, and additional resources are available on the project pages.

Continue Reading

Accounting

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Published

on

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.

The proposed narrow-scope amendments involve minor changes to several IAASB standards:

  • ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert;
  • ISRE 2400 (Revised), Engagements to Review Historical Financial Statements;
  • ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information;
  • ISRS 4400 (Revised), Agreed-upon Procedures Engagements.

The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.

In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.  

Continue Reading

Accounting

Tariffs will hit low-income Americans harder than richest, report says

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings. 

Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.

Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.

Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed. 

The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.

Continue Reading

Accounting

At Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs

Published

on

Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition. 

Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time. 

“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said. 

One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load. 

“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai. 

Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies. 

“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.

However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area. 

“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai. 

As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales. 

“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai. 

While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves. 

“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”

Continue Reading

Trending