There is concern that accounting standards are difficult to understand by those who use them. We investigate factors that enhance and inhibit the ability of the standards' users to comprehend their meaning and requirements. Readability statistics reveal that Australian accounting standards are difficult or very difficult to read. Interviews with experienced financial statement preparers and auditors from the for-profit, not-for-profit private, and public sectors reveal that 'understandability' is a function of many inter-related factors, only some of which relate to how standards are written and presented. We offer recommendations to standards-setters about how the understandability of standards could be improved.

David Alexander University of Birmingham Maria Gabriella Baldarelli Università degli Studi di Bologna Vincent Bicudo de Castro Deakin University Michele Bigoni University of Kent Mark Billings University of Exeter Tiago Cardao-Pito Universidade de Lisboa Ana Alexandra Caria Universidade do Minho Garry Carnegie RMIT University Amanda Carter University of South Australia Jonida Carungu London Metropolitan University Greta Cestari Università degli Studi di Cagliari Phillip E Cobbin University of Melbourne Duncan Connors University of Winchester Ericka Costa Università degli Studi di Trento Ivo De Loo Nyenrode Business University Dominic Detzen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Roberto di Pietra Università degli Studi di Siena Keith Dixon University of Canterbury Alasdair Dobie Edge Hill University Sami El Omari Toulouse Business School, Université de Toulouse Elaine Evans Macquarie University Giovanni Favero Università Ca’ Foscari Venzia Dale Flesher University of Mississippi Clemence Garcia Gakushuin University Sendirella George Victoria University of Wellington David Hay University of Auckland Jan Heier Huntingdon College Sebastian Hoffmann University of Edinburgh Bryan Howieson University of Adelaide Freda Hui University of Wollongong Farzaneh Jalali Aliabadi La Trobe University Xu-dong Ji Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University Gustav Johed Stockholm School of Economics Mikhail Kuter Kuban State University Orthodoxia Kyriacou Middlesex University Rosa Lombardi Università Roma Tre Maria Lusiani Università Ca’ Foscari Venzia Esther Maier Wilfrid Laurier University Ad hoc Referees

Australian Accounting ReviewVolume 32, Issue 4 p. 409-410 Editorial Research on Application and Impact of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments Michael Bradbury, Michael Bradbury orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-878X Search for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Corresponding Author Bryan Howieson [email protected] University of Adelaide, Australia Correspondence Bryan Howieson, Adelaide Business School, University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, 5000, South Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Michael Bradbury, Michael Bradbury orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-878X Search for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Corresponding Author Bryan Howieson [email protected] University of Adelaide, Australia Correspondence Bryan Howieson, Adelaide Business School, University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, 5000, South Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 22 November 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12391Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, Issue4December 2022Pages 409-410 RelatedInformation

Australian Accounting ReviewVolume 31, Issue 2 p. 77-78 Editorial Editorial: Australian Accounting Review Reaches A 30-Year Milestone Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12345Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue2June 2021Pages 77-78 RelatedInformation

Australian Accounting ReviewVolume 31, Issue 4 p. 271-272 Editorial Editorial: Using Academic Journals as a Conversation Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 December 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12359Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue4December 2021Pages 271-272 RelatedInformation

Australian Accounting ReviewVolume 30, Issue 3 p. 157-158 Editorial Editorial: Evidence on APRA Proposals and Impact of COVID-19 on Expected Credit Loss Accounting Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author Michael Bradbury, Michael BradburySearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12323Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References el Barnoussi, A., Howieson, B. and van Beest, F. 2020, 'Prudential Application of IFRS 9: (Un)Fair Reporting in COVID-19 Crisis for Banks Worldwide?!', Australian Accounting Review, 30 (3): 178–192. Google Scholar Bradbury, M.E. and Howieson, B. 2019, 'Audit Quality, Compensation, Effectiveness of Regulation and Extended External Reporting', Australian Accounting Review, 29 (4): 610–4. 10.1111/auar.12298 Google Scholar Davis, K. 2020, 'Financial Product Design, Retail Investor Sophistication, and Issuer Incentives: A Case Study', Australian Accounting Review, 30 (3): 206–211. 10.1111/auar.12266 Google Scholar Chapple, L. and Routledge, J. 2020, 'Board Turnover and Reorganisation Outcomes: Evidence from Voluntary Administration', Australian Accounting Review, 30 (3): 212–224. Google Scholar Jackson, D. 2020, 'Accounting and Finance Graduate Employment Outcomes: Underemployment, Self-employment and Managing Diversity', Australian Accounting Review, 30 (3): 193–205. 10.1111/auar.12256 Web of Science®Google Scholar Le, C.H.A., Shan, Y. and Taylor, S. 2020, 'Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions', Australian Accounting Review, 30 (3): 159–177. 10.1111/auar.12315 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume30, Issue3September 2020Pages 157-158 ReferencesRelatedInformation

AbstractIFRS 9 and ASC 326 were developed after the 2008–2009 financial crisis, and both accounting standards include an expected loss model as a means of providing for credit losses. As a result of the COVID‐19 worldwide pandemic, however, banks face considerable uncertainty about the potential scale of the bad debts for which they will need to provide. Banks need to reassess their loan assets, by updating their risk models with expectations about potential default rates and future macro‐economic and financial developments. However, we see several interventions worldwide. The European Securities and Markets Authority addresses a position paper on the prudential application of IFRS 9. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in the US has given banks an optional deferral of implementation of the CECL model until 31 December 2020. This paper addresses the challenges banks face when applying the expected losses model during the current crisis. More importantly, it discusses the impact of supervisor and regulators’ intervention on future financial reporting comparability, transparency and whether there is a level playing field.

Australian Accounting ReviewVolume 30, Issue 4 p. 229-230 Editorial Editorial: Promoting the Usefulness of Research to Standard Setters Michael Bradbury, Search for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author Michael Bradbury, Search for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Editors-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 December 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12329Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume30, Issue4December 2020Pages 229-230 RelatedInformation

This study explores perceptions of the impact of Ball and Brown (1968) (BB68) upon accounting research, education, standards-setting, and practice. These perceptions are gathered from an extensive literature review and from 27 interviewees drawn from academe, practice and standards-setting from around the globe. The study reports upon the genesis of BB68, its disruptive effect on accounting research methodology and methods, and its broader impact on accounting education, practice and standards-setting. Reasons are provided for the popularity of BB68 and an exploration is undertaken of both the positive and negative impacts of the research methodology inspired by BB68. The characteristics of the Ball and Brown research team are also discussed and the paper finishes with perceptions regarding the future relevance of BB68. It is concluded that BB68 stands as an exemplar for innovation and for quality in the execution of accounting and finance research but that much of that innovative spirit has been lost as the BB68 methodology became mainstream.

This paper represents the intersection of three spheres of influence, relevant to the global research community interested in a more reliable understanding of capital market phenomena. First, as a timely context, we celebrate the 50-year legacy of an iconic event study of accounting information and the evolution of stock prices, namely Ball and Brown (1968). Second, we add our voice to the growing call for researchers to follow principles of "responsible science". Third, using the Ball and Brown paper as the inspiration, we report on an experiment in which several teams of researchers follow a registration-based editorial process, which illustrates one fruitful avenue for fostering responsible research into the future.

Historically professional logic has shaped accountancy, increasingly it has been shaped also by commercial logic. This study moves beyond these distinctions for a better and more nuanced analyses of how actors (Big 4 auditors) navigate conflicting logics in their everyday practice. The study follows a qualitative approach and is based on views of multiple role players in the audit process of complex companies in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The study examines auditors’ decision-making involving experts, rotating partners/firms and meeting regulatory inspection requirements. The study adds to the emerging debate around logic multiplicity at the institutional ‘coalface’ by showing that auditors use balancing mechanisms (segmenting, assimilating, bridging and demarcating) to navigate and make sense of coexisting (professional, commercial and accountability) logics. Views of non-auditor role players, mostly overlooked in by institutional research at micro-levels, challenge the institutionalisation of connected logics and question the influence on audit quality.

Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore how virtue ethics might inform our understanding about what constitutes “good” practice in forensic accounting. In particular, the paper explores the concept of phronesis (or practical wisdom) as a basis for guiding the application of professional judgement in forensic accounting practice. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on a review of relevant literature. Findings Prior literature has identified a number of technical and personal characteristics and attributes that are desirable in forensic accounting practitioners. Although being ethical is identified as an important characteristic, the question of what constitutes a “good” forensic accountant has not hitherto been investigated. Because of the profession’s multi-disciplinary and highly technical nature, forensic accountants are significantly at risk of conflating ethics with compliance with the law. The paper suggests that an understanding of virtue ethics and especially the virtue of “phronesis” or practical wisdom will help forensic accountants maintain public confidence and quality in their services and provide practical guidance on the exercise of professional judgement. Practical implications The paper suggests that the primacy currently given in forensic accounting literature and practice to a commercial logic, technical competencies and legal compliance risks damaging the professional standing of forensic accountants and, over time, reduces the ability of forensic accountants to exercise professional judgement in complex unstructured situations. Virtue ethics can act as a useful counter point to these threats. Social implications A recognition of the need for the forensic accounting profession to collectively develop phronesis would re-establish the primacy of the profession’s public interest logic and maintain public trust and quality in forensic accounting services. Originality/value There appears to be no prior literature in forensic accounting which explores the application of virtue ethics in this field. In addition, although virtue ethics has been the subject of some prior papers in accounting per se, the importance of phronesis as a basis for understanding the nature and application of professional judgement has not been addressed.

AbacusVolume 52, Issue 4 p. 685-771 Commentary Comments on Shan and Walter: ‘Towards a Set of Design Principles for Executive Compensation Contracts’* Stacey Beaumont, Corresponding Author Stacey Beaumont Associate Lecturer s.beaumont@business.uq.edu.au University of Queensland Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorRaluca Ratiu, Raluca Ratiu Assistant Professor IE University, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Reeb, David Reeb Professor National University of SingaporeSearch for more papers by this authorGlenn Boyle, Glenn Boyle Professor of Finance glenn.boyle@canterbury.ac.nz Department of Economics and Finance at the University of CanterburyHe is grateful to Warwick Anderson, Helen Roberts, and, especially, Neil Crombie for very helpful suggestions.Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Brown, Philip Brown Emeritus Professor Honorary Professor philip.brown@uwa.edu.au Business School, University of Western Australia Business School, University of New South WalesSearch for more papers by this authorAlexander Szimayer, Alexander Szimayer Professor Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of HamburgSearch for more papers by this authorRaymond da Silva Rosa, Raymond da Silva Rosa Professor of Finance ray.dasilvarosa@uwa.edu.au UWA Business School, the University of Western AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Hillier, David Hillier david.hillier@strath.ac.uk University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorPatrick McColgan, Patrick McColgan University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorAthanasios Tsekeris, Athanasios Tsekeris University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Associate Professor bryan.howieson@adelaide.edu.au School of Accounting and Finance, Business School, University of AdelaideThanks to Paul Coram and Dorothea Greiling for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this commentary.Search for more papers by this authorZoltan Matolcsy, Zoltan Matolcsy zoltan.matolcsy@uts.edu.au University of Technology, SydneySearch for more papers by this authorHelen Spiropoulos, Helen Spiropoulos University of Technology, SydneySearch for more papers by this authorJohn Roberts, John Roberts Professor john.roberts@sydney.edu.au University of Sydney Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorTom Smith, Tom Smith University of Queensland Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorQing Zhou, Qing Zhou q.zhou@business.uq.edu.au University of Queensland Business School School of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, ChinaZhou would like to acknowledge the funding support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, NSFC(71602158).Search for more papers by this authorPeter L. Swan, Peter L. Swan peter.swan@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Taylor, Stephen Taylor Professor of Accounting stephen.taylor@uts.edu.au UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyThe author acknowledges the helpful suggestions and feedback offered by Yaowen Shan.Search for more papers by this authorSue Wright, Sue Wright Associate Professor sue.wright@mq.edu.au Faculty of Business and Economics at Macquarie UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorDavid Yermack, David Yermack dyermack@stern.nyu.edu NYU Stern School of BusinessSearch for more papers by this author Stacey Beaumont, Corresponding Author Stacey Beaumont Associate Lecturer s.beaumont@business.uq.edu.au University of Queensland Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorRaluca Ratiu, Raluca Ratiu Assistant Professor IE University, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Reeb, David Reeb Professor National University of SingaporeSearch for more papers by this authorGlenn Boyle, Glenn Boyle Professor of Finance glenn.boyle@canterbury.ac.nz Department of Economics and Finance at the University of CanterburyHe is grateful to Warwick Anderson, Helen Roberts, and, especially, Neil Crombie for very helpful suggestions.Search for more papers by this authorPhilip Brown, Philip Brown Emeritus Professor Honorary Professor philip.brown@uwa.edu.au Business School, University of Western Australia Business School, University of New South WalesSearch for more papers by this authorAlexander Szimayer, Alexander Szimayer Professor Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of HamburgSearch for more papers by this authorRaymond da Silva Rosa, Raymond da Silva Rosa Professor of Finance ray.dasilvarosa@uwa.edu.au UWA Business School, the University of Western AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Hillier, David Hillier david.hillier@strath.ac.uk University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorPatrick McColgan, Patrick McColgan University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorAthanasios Tsekeris, Athanasios Tsekeris University of StrathclydeSearch for more papers by this authorBryan Howieson, Bryan Howieson Associate Professor bryan.howieson@adelaide.edu.au School of Accounting and Finance, Business School, University of AdelaideThanks to Paul Coram and Dorothea Greiling for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this commentary.Search for more papers by this authorZoltan Matolcsy, Zoltan Matolcsy zoltan.matolcsy@uts.edu.au University of Technology, SydneySearch for more papers by this authorHelen Spiropoulos, Helen Spiropoulos University of Technology, SydneySearch for more papers by this authorJohn Roberts, John Roberts Professor john.roberts@sydney.edu.au University of Sydney Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorTom Smith, Tom Smith University of Queensland Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorQing Zhou, Qing Zhou q.zhou@business.uq.edu.au University of Queensland Business School School of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, ChinaZhou would like to acknowledge the funding support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, NSFC(71602158).Search for more papers by this authorPeter L. Swan, Peter L. Swan peter.swan@unsw.edu.au University of New South Wales Business SchoolSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Taylor, Stephen Taylor Professor of Accounting stephen.taylor@uts.edu.au UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyThe author acknowledges the helpful suggestions and feedback offered by Yaowen Shan.Search for more papers by this authorSue Wright, Sue Wright Associate Professor sue.wright@mq.edu.au Faculty of Business and Economics at Macquarie UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorDavid Yermack, David Yermack dyermack@stern.nyu.edu NYU Stern School of BusinessSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12091Citations: 3 *For corresponding and other author details please see the end of this article. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume52, Issue4Special Issue: Issues in Executive CompensationDecember 2016Pages 685-771 RelatedInformation

In 2013 ICAS and the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) commissioned two international teams of researchers to undertake studies to investigate what mix of attributes, competencies, professional skills and qualities need to be combined in an audit team in order for it to perform a high quality public interest audit in a modern and complex global business environment. This report is one of the two independent research reports published as a result of this call for research. This report explores the views of key audit stakeholders in Australia, South Africa and the UK. The researchers conducted interviews with individuals who are directly involved in the audit process (engagement partners, chairs of audit committees, chief financial officers, chief audit executives (internal audit) and experts) in six of the largest listed companies in Australia, South Africa and the UK. Individuals who have some oversight, public policy or educative role with regard to audit, in each of the three countries, were also interviewed, giving a total of 84 interviews.

Reliable, consistent assessment process that produces comparable assessment grades between assessors and institutions is a core activity and an ongoing challenge with which universities have failed to come to terms. In this paper, we report results from an experiment that tests the impact of an intervention designed to reduce grader variability and develop a shared understanding of national threshold learning standards by a cohort of reviewers. The intervention involved consensus moderation of samples of accounting students' work, with a focus on three research questions. First, what is the quantifiable difference in grader variability on the assessment of learning outcomes in 'application skills' and 'judgement'? Second, does participation in the workshops lead to reduced disparity in the assessment of the students' learning outcomes in 'application skills' and 'judgement'? Third, does participation in the workshops lead to greater confidence by reviewers in their ability to assess students' skills in application skills and judgement? Our findings suggest consensus moderation does reduce variability across graders and also builds grader confidence.