To issue an accounting standard, members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) must approve pronouncements with a majority. Since its inception, the FASB has been subjected to two types of voting requirements: a simple majority, which requires the approval of four of seven members, or a supermajority, which requires the approval of five of seven members. This study investigates the effects of different voting requirements on (1) the time taken to generate a pronouncement and (2) the need for subsequent revision of the accounting pronouncement.
The results indicate that the supermajority voting requirement hinders the pronouncement generation process. This is evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of pronouncements issued and an increase in the amount of time required to generate an accounting pronouncement. In addition, the supermajority was found to have no effect on subsequent interpretation or supersedure of the pronouncement. As a result, the findings provide limited justification for the existence of a supermajority requirement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelsleyD. A.1984. “Demeaning Conditioning Diagnostics through Centering”. The American Statistician (May): 73–90.
2.
BeresfordD. R.1995. “How Should the FASB Be Judged?”Accounting Horizons, 9 (June): 56–61.
3.
BeresfordD. R.1997. “How to Succeed as a Standard Setter by Trying Really Hard”. Accounting Horizons, 11 (September): 79–90.
4.
BriloffA. J.1986. “Standards without Standards/Principles without Principles/Fairness Without Fairness”. Advances in Accounting, 3: 25–50.
5.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. K.. 1986. “Econometric Models Based on Count Data: Comparisons and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1: 29–53.
DyckmanT. R.1988. “Credibility and the Formulation of Accounting Standards under the Financial Accounting Standards Board”. Journal of Accounting Literature, 8: 1–30.
8.
FieldsT. D.KingR. R.. 1996. “Voting Rules for the FASB”. Journal of Accounting. Auditing & Finance, 11 (Winter): 99–117.
9.
Financial Accounting Foundation. 1981. Report of the Structure Committee to the Trustees of the Financial Accounting Foundation. Stamford, Conn: FAF.
10.
Financial Accounting Foundation. 1989. Report of the Special Advisory Group to the Trustees. Stamford, Conn.: FAF.
11.
JohnsonS. B.MessierW. F.. 1982. “The Nature of Accounting Standards Setting: An Alternative Explanation”. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 5 (Spring): 195–213.
12.
JohnsonS. B.SolomonsD.. 1984. “Institutional Legitimacy and the FASB”. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3: 165–183.
13.
KaplanD.FenderE. A.. 1998. “The Development of Comment Letters on FASB Proposals by the AICPA Accounting Standards Executive Committee”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (June): 184–187.
14.
KingR. R.1994. “An Experimental Investigation of Super Majority Voting Rules: Implications for the Financial Accounting Standards Board”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25: 197–217.
KnutsonP. H.NapolitanoG. U.. 1998. “Criteria Employed by the AIMR Financial Accounting Policy Committee in Evaluating Financial Accounting Standards”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (June): 170–176.
17.
LevittA.1998. “The Importance of High Quality Accounting Standards”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (March): 79–82.
18.
LinsmeierT. J.BoatsmanJ. R.HerzR. H.JenningsR. G.JonasG. J.LangM. H.PetroniK. R.ShoresD.WahlenJ. M.. 1998. “Criteria for Assessing the Quality of an Accounting Standard”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (June): 161–162.
MurrellA. J.StewartA. C.EngelB. T.. 1993. “Consensus Versus Devil's Advocacy: The Influence of Decision Process and Task Structure on Strategic Decision Making”. The Journal of Business Communication, 30 (4): 399–415.
21.
MyersR.1986. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Boston: Duxbury Press.
22.
NeterJ.KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC. J.WassermanW.. 1996. Applied Linear Regression Models, 3rd ed.Chicago: Richard D. Irwin.
23.
OwsenD. M.1997. “The FASB'S Executive Stock Option Controversy Supports Increasing the Research and Teaching of Political Accounting”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22 (6): 611–615.
24.
PriemR. L.HarrisonD. A.NuirN. K.. 1995. “Structured Conflict and Consensus Outcomes in Group Decision Making”. Journal of Management, 21 (4): 691–710.
25.
ReitherC. L.1997. “How the FASB Approaches a Standard-Setting Issue”. Accounting Horizons, 11 (December): 91–104.
26.
ReitherC. L.1998. “What are the Best and the Worst Accounting Standards?”Accounting Horizons, 12 (September): 238–292.
27.
RocknessH. O.NikolaiL. A.. 1977. “An Assessment of APB Voting Patterns”. Journal of Accounting Research, 15 (Spring): 154–167.
28.
RogeroL. H.1998. “Characteristics of High Quality Accounting Standards”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (June): 177–183.
29.
SaemannG. R.1995. “The Accounting Standard-Setting Due Process, Corporate Consensus, and FASB Responsiveness: Employers' Accounting For Pensions”. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 10 (Summer): 555–564.
30.
SchwenkC.1989. “A Meta-Analysis on the Comparative Effectiveness of Devil's Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry”. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 303–306.
31.
SeltoF. H.GroveH. D.. 1982. “Voting Power Indices and the Setting of Financial Accounting Standards: Extensions”. Journal of Accounting Research, 20 (Autumn): 676–688.
32.
SeltoF. H.GroveH. D.. 1983. “The Predictive Power of Voting Power Indices: FASB Voting on Statements of Financial Accounting Standards Nos. 45–69”. Journal of Accounting Research, 21 (Autumn): 619–622.
33.
ShenoyP. P.ShriverK. A.SmithD. B.. 1989. “The Potential Effects of Different Voting Rules on the FASB Due Process”. Research in Accounting Regulation, 3 (July): 125–132.
TandyP. R.WilburnN. L.. 1992. “Constituent Participation in Standard-Setting: The FASB's First 100 Statements”. Accounting Horizons, 6 (June): 47–58.
36.
WulffJ. K.Koski-GraferS., 1998. “Characteristics of High Quality Accounting Standards: Perspective of the Corporate Preparer”. Accounting Horizons, 12 (June): 188–191.
