IFRS Standards & Financial Reporting Analysis

The Role of IFRS Standards in Financial Reporting

Answered

To analyse and evaluate the role of regulation in financial reporting and the calculation and presentation of detailed company accounts.

Write a report to address the following issues:

1)Define and explain what â€˜IFRS Standardsâ€™ are with reference to supporting academic references;

2)Identify and explain who sets IFRS Standards, with reference to supporting academic references;

3)Describe and explain how IFRS Standards â€˜help create trustâ€™ using supporting academic references and real-life examples from your research for this assignment.

4)Critically evaluate whether investors are given â€˜confidenceâ€™ by the existence and implementation of IFRS standards with reference to academic sources and real-life examples.

5)Critically analyse and conclude on whether or not IFRS Standards improve the â€˜quality, robustness and the completeness of the financial information provided by companies.â€™ Please use relevant academic references and specific examples to support your answer.

Your analysis will follow a critical analytical approach by engaging with relevant academic literature and should include relevant quantitative and qualitative data. You are expected to provide evidence of critical assessment of a range of sources. The exploration of relevant source materials should be clearly evidenced to support your arguments. A list of references is required.

Honours Degrees	1^st	2.1	2.2	3^rd	Fail
Foundation Degrees	Distinction	Merit	Pass	Pass	Fail
Â Knowledge and under-standing	Excellent command of highly relevant, extensively-researched material; very sound understanding of complexities.	Clear, sound understanding of subject matter; breadth and depth of material, accurate and relevant.	Basic knowledge sound but may be patchy; reasonable range of source material.	Limited consistency of depth and accuracy of detail; background material relevant but over-reliant on few sources. Â	Content may be thin or irrelevant; scant evidence of background investigation.
Â Cognitive skills	Convincing ability to synthesise a range of views or information and integrate references sophisticated perception, critical insight & interpretation; logical, cogent development of argument.	Ability to synthesise a range of views or information and incorporate references; perceptive, thoughtful interpretation; well-reasoned discussion; coherent argument.	Evidence of drawing information together; ideas tend to be stated rather than developed; attempt made to argue logically with supporting evidence, although some claims may be unsubstantiated.	Limited perspective or consideration of alternative views largely descriptive; some ability to construct an argument but may lack clarity or conviction, with unsupported assertion.	Superficial use of information; explanations may be muddled at times; poorly structured, little logic; may have unsubstantiated conclusions based on generalisation.
Â Practical or professional skills	Expert demonstration, andÂ accomplished and innovative application of specialist skills; very high level of professional competence.	Good performance; capable and confident application of specialist skills; substantial level of professional competence.	Mostly competent and informed application of specialist skills; sound level of professional competence.	Sufficient evidence of developing specialist skills; satisfactory level of professional competence.	Little evidence of skill development or application; questionable level of professional competence.
Â Communic-ation skills	Very clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and style; near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax.	Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style; high standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax.	Clearly written, coherent expression; reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style; overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax.	Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication; inaccuracies in spelling, syntax and punctuation do not usually interfere with meaning.	Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology; many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax.

Knowledge & understanding	90â€“100 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction	80â€“89 (1^stÂ class/ FD Distinction)	70â€“79 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	60â€“69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50â€“59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40â€“49 (third class/FD Pass)	30â€”39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20â€“29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10â€“19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0â€“9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Range and relevance of reading and research	Far-reaching investigation and insight Â	Comprehensive research and coverage of topic integrating wide range of academic sources	Excellent command of highly relevant, extensively-researched material	Wide range of core and background reading, effectively used	Reasonable range of reading; references to relevant but not wide variety of sources	Background reading mostly relevant but over-reliant on few sources Â	Scant evidence of background reading; weak investigation	No evidence of relevant reading Â Â Â	No evidence of reading Â	No use of sources Â
Breadth and depth of knowledge	Develops new knowledge or novel perspective going beyond the literature Â	Extensive subject knowledge with detailed insight into and understanding of relevant theory Â	Extensive, thorough coverage of topic, focused use of detail and examples	Breadth and depth of coverage, accurate and relevant in detail and example	Content generally relevant and accurate, most central issues identified; basic knowledge sound but may be patchy	Fairly basic knowledge, limited consistency of depth and accuracy of detail; not all aspects addressed, some omissions	Contains very slight detail; content may be thin or irrelevant; issues poorly identified Â	Little relevance of content; unacceptably weak or inaccurate knowledge base Â	Knowledge base extremely weak; content almost entirely irrelevant or erroneous Â	Material not relevant or correct; no evidence of knowledge Â
Understanding of subject matter and theory	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Sophisticated understanding of complexities of key theoretical models, concepts and arguments	Excellent, very sound understanding of complexities of key theoretical models, concepts and arguments	Clear, sound understanding of subject matter, theory, issues and debate	Reasonable level of understanding of subject matter, theory and ideas; main issues satisfactorily understood	Partial understanding of subject matter, core concepts and relevant issues; basic reference to theory	Very little understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues; may be issue of misreading/ misinterpretation of question	Significant weaknesses and gaps in understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues; misunderstanding of question	Devoid of understanding of subject matter, ideas and issues Â	No relevant understanding evident; response to question virtually nil Â
Textual studies	Outstanding engagement with text	Sophisticated engagement with text	Excellent, consistent engagement with text	Good, careful engagement with text	Reasonably good Â ability to respond to text	Some ability to respond to the text	Inadequate familiarity with the text	Little awareness of text	Misunderstanding of text	No reference to text
Contextual studies	Outstanding understanding of artistic or critical context	Sophisticated understanding of artistic or critical context	Comprehensive understanding of artistic or critical context	Good understanding of artistic or critical context	Sound, but may be limited, understanding of artistic or critical context	Adequate but partial understanding of artistic or critical context	Weak understanding of artistic or critical context	Lack of understanding of artistic or critical context	Inaccurate reference to artistic or critical context Â	No awareness demonstrated of artistic or critical context

Cognitive Skills	90â€“100 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	80â€“89 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	70â€“79 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	60â€“69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50â€“59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40â€“49 (third class/FD Pass)	30â€”39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20â€“29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10â€“19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0â€“9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Selection and use of information	Outstanding level of original synthesis, analysis, argument and evaluation	Creative, innovative synthesis of ideas Â	Convincing ability to synthesise a range of views or information and integrate references	Ability to synthesise a range of views or information and incorporate references	Evidence of drawing information together	Little discrimination in use of material; limited perspective or consideration of alternative views	Superficial use of information, minimal association; references not integrated	Incorrect use of material or information Â	Little or no use of material or information Â	Little or no use of material or information Â
Interpretation of information	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Sophisticated perception, critical insight and interpretation	Excellent perception, critical insight and interpretation	Perceptive, thoughtful interpretation	Sound explanation; this may be partly descriptive and factual; Â ideas tend to be stated rather than developed	Some interpretation or insight; may be largely descriptive, or superficial; over-reliance on narrative or anecdote for explanation	Little attempt to interpret material, or merely descriptive; explanations may be muddled at times	Purely descriptive; very limited discussion Â	Any attempt at discussion limited to personal view; no discernible insight	No interpretation of information
Critical analysis using theory	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Challenging, comprehensive critical analysis sustained throughout Â	Very good depth and breadth of critical analysis; sustained, thorough questioning informed by theory	Consistent development of critical analysis and questioning, using theory	Some attempt at critical analysis using theory; Â may be limited and lack consistency or conviction	Some evidence of rationale; minimal attempt to examine strengths and weaknesses of an argument	Limited breadth and depth of analysis, inadequate critical skills; shallow and superficial	Lacking or erroneous analysis; negligible evidence of thought Â	Isolated statements indicating lack of thought Â	Isolated statements indicating lack of thought Â
Structure and argument	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Authoritative and persuasive argument	Excellent organisation of ideas; clear, coherent structure and logical, cogent development of argument	Logically structured; good organisation of ideas; well-reasoned discussion; coherent argument	Reasonable structure; organisation may lack some logical progression; attempt made to argue logically with supporting evidence, although some claims may be unsubstantiated	Basic structure; may be some repetition or deviation; some ability to construct an argument but may lack clarity or conviction, with unsupported assertion	Poorly structured, little logic; may have unsubstantiated conclusions based on generalisation	Structure confused or incomplete; poor if any relationship between introduction, middle and conclusion; lack of evidence to support views expressed	Lack of recognisable structure or reference to argument; no related evidence or conclusions	Lack of evidence of reasoning
Awareness of self-development, and /or personal engagement	Thorough and sophisticated appreciation of learning gained and impact on self; Â pertinent personal analysis; imaginative, insightful, creative	Thorough and sophisticated appreciation of learning gained and impact on self; Â pertinent personal analysis; imaginative, insightful, creative	Thorough appreciation of learning gained and impact on self; pertinent personal analysis; imaginative, insightful, creative	Good awareness of learning and self-development; pertinent personal comment; some freshness of insight, some creative thinking and imagination	Reasonable awareness of learning and self-development; may show a little indication of originality or personal engagement	Some awareness of learning and self-development; personal engagement only very slight	Little or muddled awareness of learning and self-development; minimal appraisal	Discussion of own learning and development incoherent ; issues are not appraised	Very little evidence of self-awareness Â	No evidence of self-awarenessÂ
Practical or Professional Skills	90â€“100 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	80â€“89 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	70â€“79 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	60â€“69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50â€“59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40â€“49 (third class/FD Pass)	30â€”39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20â€“29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10â€“19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0â€“9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Specialist skills	Outstanding expertise and flair in the application of specialist skills Â	Sophisticated expertise and flair in the application of specialist skills Â	Expert demonstration,Â accomplished and innovative application of specialist skills	Good performance; capable and confident application of specialist skills	Mostly competent and informed application of specialist skills	Sufficient evidence of developing specialist skills	Little evidence of skill development or application	Very little evidence of specialist skill development	Minimal evidence of specialist skill development	No evidence of skill development
Integration of theory and practice	Skilled integration of theory and practice	Skilled integration of theory and practice	Skilled integration of theory and practice	Useful links drawn between theory and practice	Consideration of related Â theory and practice	Consideration of both theory and practice, which may be uneven	Uneven balance between theory and practice	Little appreciation of theory in practice	Relationship between theory and practice not evident	No awareness of theory in practice evident
Professional competence	Extremely high level of professional competence	Extremely high level of professional competence	Very high level of professional competence	Substantial level of professional competence	Sound level of professional competence	Satisfactory level of professional competence	Questionable level of professional competence, e.g. may be some evidence of unsafe practice	Lack of professional competence	Serious lack of professional competence	Professional incompetence
Reflective practice	Sophisticated reflection on personal and professional practice	Sophisticated reflection on personal and professional practice	Clear and insightful reflection on personal and professional practice	Clear understanding, reflection and evaluation of implications for personal and professional practice	Sound reflection on personal and professional practice	Adequate but limited reflection on personal and professional practice issues	Inadequate reflection on Â personal and professional practice issues	Slight, if any, reflection or reference to personal and professional practice	Slight, if any, reflection or reference to personal and professional practice	Slight, if any, reflection or reference to personal and professional practice
Technical understanding and use of materials	Excellent technical understanding and judgement; work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Excellent technical understanding and judgement; exceptional Â level of competence in use of materials and appropriate application of working processes and techniques	Thorough technical understanding and judgement; excellent level of competence in use of materials and appropriate application of working processes and techniques	Accurate technical understanding and judgement; good level of competence in use of materials and appropriate application of working processes and techniques	Mostly accurate technical understanding and judgement; satisfactory level of competence in use of materials and appropriate application of working processes and techniques	Adequate though only partially accurate technical understanding and judgement; adequate level of competence in use of materials and application of working processes and techniques	Slight technical understanding and judgement, with inaccuracies; lack of competence in use of materials and erroneous application of working processes and techniques	Feeble technical understanding and judgement; incompetence in use of materials and erroneous application of working processes and techniques	Almost no technical Â understanding or judgement; serious incompetence in use of materials and erroneous application of working processes and techniques	No technical understanding or judgement; uninformed and arbitrary use of material, methods, processes and techniques
Relationship between content, form and technique	Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Excellent design and sophisticated relationship between content, form & technique	Excellent design; strong relationship between content, form & technique	Good design; meaningful relationship between content, form & technique	Fair design; generally sound relationship between content, form & technique	Adequate evidence of some relationship between content, form & technique	Limited or unresolved relationship between content, form & technique	Very limited relationship between content, form & technique Â	Minimal evidence of understanding of relationship between content, form & technique	No evidence of understanding of the relationship between content, form & technique
Analysis of performance	Outstanding critical analysis of performance	Sophisticated critical analysis of performance	Strong and thorough critical analysis of performance	Good critical analysis of performance	Sound analysis of performance Â	Adequate analysis of performance	Limited information about performance Â	Very limited information about Â performance Â	Insufficient evidence of knowledge of performance Â	No evidence of knowledge of performance
Communication Skills	90â€“100 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	80â€“89 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	70â€“79 (1^stÂ class/FD Distinction)	60â€“69 (upper second/FD Merit)	50â€“59 (lower second/FD Pass)	40â€“49 (third class/FD Pass)	30â€”39 (Fail/FD Fail)	20â€“29 (Fail/FD Fail)	10â€“19 (Fail/FD Fail)	0â€“9 (Fail/FD Fail)
Written vocabulary and style	Exceptional clarity and coherence; highly sophisticated expression; work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions	Extremely well-written, with accuracy and flair; Highly sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas	Very clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and style	Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style	Clearly written, coherent expression; reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style	Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication	Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology	Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate, terminology inadequate and inappropriate Â	Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear Â	Incoherent expression Â Â
Spelling, punctuation and syntax	Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax Â	Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax Â	Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax Â	High standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax	Overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax, although there may be some errors	Inaccuracies in spelling, punctuation and syntax do not usually interfere with meaning	Many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax Â	Many serious errors of spelling, punctuation and syntax	Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax	Heavily inaccurate; Â inappropriate use of language
Referencing	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented	Sources acknowledged and accurately presented	Sources acknowledged and referencing mostly accurate	Sources acknowledged; Â references not always correctly cited/presented	Referencing incomplete or inaccurate Â	Referencing inaccurate or absent Â	No attempt at referencing Â	No attempt at referencing Â
Presentation skills	Complete accuracy in presentation; highly autonomous, thorough and well-managed approach	Great clarity and maturity of presentation; independence in extensive planning and preparation	High standard of presentation; evidence of thorough planning, preparation and organisation Â	Good standard of presentation; well-organised; relevant planning and preparation	Presentation generally sound, maybe some weaknesses; fairly good organisation, planning and preparation	Some confidence in presentation, with some lapses; adequate organisation, planning and preparation	Few presentation skills; weaknesses of organisation, planning and preparation	Ineffective presentation skills; serious deficiency in organisation, planning and preparation Â	Inadequate presentation skills; almost no evidence of organisation, planning or preparation	Presentation totally ineffective; no evidence of organisation, planning or preparation
Dialogic skills Â Â	Outstanding ability to stimulate and enable discussion	Excellent ability to stimulate and enable discussion	Excellent ability to stimulate and enable discussion	Clear evidence of ability to stimulate and facilitate discussion	Capable attempts at participation in discussion	Adequate participation in discussion	Little constructive participation in discussion	Inadequate attention given to discussion	No attention given to discussion	No attention given to discussion