I’ve been thinking about the “adjustments” that the CFAI recommends be made to financial statements to reflect the “true” condition of the B/S and P&L, etc. I guess the main beef I have is that when FASB and IASB put together their statements on accounting treatments, they’re effectively trying to establish a system of accounting that best reflects the true economic reality behind a business. When the CFAI says to make certain adjustments to GAAP and IFRS, they state it matter-of-factly, as if it is self-evident that these adjustments should be made. Aren’t all the adjustments they require simply amount to a difference of opinion on the best way to present the economic reality of a business? Why does the CFAI necessarily think that it knows better than FASB or IASB (who are obviously pretty smart on the topic of accounting in their own right) on what the best way to present the financials of a firm? The accounting adjustments we are to make are sensible; however, I don’t believe the CFAI recommendations are necessarily any better at representing a firm’s financials than GAAP or IFRS. It comes down to the questions: why and how does the CFAI know better than FASB and/or IASB?
FASB and IASB goals are not just the true economic reality. If it was, then we would see everything as mark to market. remember back in level 1, accounting principles are based on trade offs. such as reliability and relevance etc. CFAI is mainly focused on relevance, they need the data to show as accurately the value of the business, so they take liberties in suggesting changes. Like you said, most are reasonable, if you have one that you don’t agree with … go ahead and we’ll discuss it. Also we do adjustments because we need to compare firms, … GAAP and IFRS give slack on certain areas, we need to compare apples to apples. It makes perfect sense to adjust statements so that you can compare.