Global, Practical Financial Reporting Conceptual Framework

Both the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) for United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) for International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) publish conceptual frameworks.

The FASB and IASB both say they publish the conceptual frameworks to help them write financial reporting and accounting standards and to help the public better understand the standards that are written.

But the thing is, the conceptual frameworks provided by the FASB and IASB are (a) not very practical or useful to everyday accountants, (b) not organized to be practical, (c) are not consistently described between US GAAP and IFRS, and (d) are not completely specified. Further, the conceptual frameworks are written in "books" effectively as contrast to being created in the form of a UML model or ontology or theory.

One example of something missing from both the US GAAP and IFRS conceptual frameworks is the "parts" of the "whole" notion of an economic entity.  Here on page 27 I point out that the Wiley GAAP Guide points out the inconsistencies related to the ASC use and definitions of the parts of an economic entity and goes as far as creating their own "taxonomy" to describe those parts.  Why would it not be a good thing that both the FASB and IASB (a) provide such breakdown of the part of an economic entity and (b) have consistent breakdowns of those parts given the global nature of many economic entities?

But pretty much the general ideas are the same and both US GAAP and IFRS follow the double-entry bookkeeping mathematical model and the accounting equation.

Here are some additional similarities:
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of a "general purpose financial statement".
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of a "fair" and "true" representation of reported financial information.
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of a reporting "economic entity" that creates such general purpose financial statements.
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of different categories of economic entities (a.k.a. industry sectors, sectors).
  • A general purpose financial statement is made up of the following financial statements:
    • Statement of financial position (a.k.a. balance sheet) describes the financial status or state of an economic entity.
    • Statement of financial performance (a.k.a. income statement, statement of profit and loss, statement of operations, statement of comprehensive income) describes the net income or comprehensive income of an economic entity.
    • Statement of changes in equity.
    • Statement of cash flows.
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of "nature of business".
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of "policies".
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of "notes to the financial statements".
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of "intermediate components" (a.k.a. the use of different totals and subtotals when aggregating reported information.
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of "articulation" or the mathematical interrelationships between the different statement.
  • Both US GAAP and IFRS have the notion of fundamental "accounting principles" which they follow.
While neither US GAAP nor IFRS provide a complete, practical, unambiguous description of the general purpose financial report system in machine-readable form that is also readable by humans; that does not mean that such a description cannot be created.

The purpose of developing a machine-readable, global oriented, practical, financial reporting conceptual framework is to facilitate the development of computer systems that behave as if they "understand" the meaning of the language of business.  The framework provides what system developers need to provide what accountants, auditors, and analysts need from the software.

The objective is to remove brutal detailed work or "dirty-work" and other “friction” from accounting, reporting, auditing, and analysis enabling accountants to spend more time adding value and minimize the time doing what amounts to “grunt work”.  It is very possible to create a justifiable framework of financial reporting that is useful for constructing financial reports using artificial intelligence.

Additional Information:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Getting Started with Auditchain Luca (now called Luca Suite)

Image
(Note that a newer, production version as opposed to only the development version , of Luca Suite is available) The Innovator's Dilemma points out that disruptive innovations often look like toys that are doing everything wrong. Auditchain Luca , which is part of the Auditchain Suite , is a unique approach to creating a knowledge graph .  To experience using Auditchain Luca, have a look at the Getting Started with Auditchain Luca instructions. Be sure to grab the Excel and JSON import files used for this getting started exercise.   This getting started exercise uses one of several different approaches to getting information into a tool for constructing and viewing professional quality knowledge graphs .  Additional getting started guides will be made available over time. Auditchain Luca might not make sense to you if you don't understand the paradigm shift that is occurring and if you have not shifted your mental map. For the next step in your journey, consider t...
Read more

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There...
Read more

Professional System for Creating Financial Reports Leveraging Knowledge Graphs

Image
The document Professional System for Creating Financial Reports Leveraging Knowledge Graphs explains a new approach, a new paradigm, for creating financial reports.  The document provides a practical, nontechnical description of a professional system for creating provably high-quality financial reports where the report creator is using financial reporting schemes (such as US GAAP and IFRS) where report creator is permitted to modify the report model which leverages global standard knowledge graphs represented using XBRL. This new approach is useful, it is highly novel, and the details were highly complicated to pull together.  This is certainly not an incremental innovation.  It is definitely a disruptive innovation and it could very well be a foundational innovation. You can decide which for yourself. Foundational technologies have two dimensions that need to be considered: novelty and complexity. The more novel the technology is, the more effort needed to ensure users ...
Read more