Talk:Financial Accounting Standards Board

Comment

This article is a mess, and it's a shame that after all this time it's still a stub. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the stub tag; I hope I wasn't too off base in doing so. I agree that the article still needs more work. Grease Bandit 23:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

This article has grown considerably since Mtmelendez's comments, but it is still a bit of a mess. I'm working with the Financial Accounting Foundation to both update the article and consolidate the information that's already here. If anyone has any feedback or input, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll stage a sandbox in the near future with proposed edits, but I'm going to be focused primarily on restructuring the article so that it's better organized and combining existing sections for better readability.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a long long time, but I've got a new version of the article sandboxed here. This new version is focused on reorganizing the article and giving clear delineations for the FASB's history as well as the accounting standards it's proposed. I'm going to work on listing out all the changes I'm proposing, but I wanted to share it for the time being. If anyone has the time to look (I know it's a lot), I'd appreciate any feedback on it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: (think we should discuss this here, not my talk-page - I do think the FASB is an important topic (as opposed to a random company - this is a standards setting organization) which is why I'm picking this up), I have the followings comments and observations (I might have more - this is from a first run at this):

1. I tag bombed your sandboxed article - feel free to undo this - but I thought this would be the best way to point out what needs improvement in my eyes - mainly citation needed.
2. Some of the sub-section headings are possibly overly verbose. I tagged one as peacocked.
3. "Current issues" -> "Accounting issues" in see-also.
4. I think, that as construed, much of the "History" and "Accounting Standards" (which seems to also function as history) - should be combined into one timeline. Both should also be shorter (or the rest of the article longer) - it is taking too much relative space - it should be trimmed down.
5. The criticism section and/or inline criticism of the FASB should be expanded.
6. The lede doesn't make clear what the FASB does. Well - I'll be precise - it does make it clear to people who know what GAAP is, but those people also know what FASB is. I think this should be "dumbed down" a little bit so that a layperson could understand this (without clicking on GAAP).
7. The lede should also be longer - per MOS:LEADLENGTH - a 15k-30k char article (didn't count - looked at byte count - but I think you're at the upper side of this range) should have 2-3 paragraphs of lede. Currently we have one short paragraph + a single standalone sentence.
8. Overview -> should be renamed and expanded, possibly split (e.g. into Structure and Mission). While the history (and long list of accounting standards) is overly long - what is too short is how the FASB goes about what it does - the history/standards in the output of the organization - however we are lacking information in the article on process.
9. You removed the current "Oversight" section by Financial Accounting Foundation - and how FAF's trustees are selected - I think this is relevant - as essentially this is how the mgmt of FASB is selection (by representatives of industry - and who specifically is important).
10. You also removed "FASB 11 concepts" - I suggest you move this into the "see also".Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the thorough feedback. It looks like I've got a lot to work on! I'm going to start with finding the citations for the items you tagged and the section titles, and then I'll take a look at potential ways to better organize the article. I can definitely see what you mean by the excessive focus on history when it's lacking on process. I'll keep revising on my sandbox, but if you happen to think of anything else, please don't hesitate to mention it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I've made some pretty significant edits so far (diff here).

1. I've added citations for everything that had been tagged.
2. I've trimmed the section headers, but please let me know if you think they need more work.
3. Done.
4. There were some redundancies between the content in the history section and the accounting standards section, but I think I've managed to alleviate that. While the accounting standards section does have some history, it's now focused on actual significant accounting standards, while the history section is focused on the history of the organization and its relationships with other accounting organizations. There's still a lot of content, but it is shorter now.
5. I'm not exactly sure how or where to expand the criticism section, as I think the three issues are the most prominent that the FASB has faced. I'll continue researching, but I do think that what's here already should be sufficient, especially as the section doesn't exist in the current article.
6. I moved the "Mission" subsection into the lede, which I think helps alleviate the accessibility problem you mentioned.
7. The lede has been lengthened, as mentioned above.
8. Overview has been retitled "Structure" and now includes the previously missing "Oversight" section from the current article. I incorporated some of the "Independence" content into the "Inception" portion of the history section, as some of it was redundant anyway.
9. See above.
10. Done.

Would you mind taking another look? I think there might be more work to be done, but these felt like significant changes to the earlier version, so I wanted to get your feedback on if it's heading in the right direction. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. Remove "FASB reevaluates its agenda" subsection - it is un-sourced, and I'm not sure it is DUE.
2. The "structure" section (or alternatively - an additional "mission"/"process" or other section) needs to be expanded. Staff is currently a one-liner. Where are they physically located? How do they go about setting new accounting standards? What else do they do (e.g. research? education? outreach to accountants/companies?)?Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:

1. I've removed it, as I haven't been able to find any third-party sources to support it, but also because in addition to the reasons you mentioned, it feels more focused on the Financial Accounting Foundation than the FASB itself.
2. I added the location to this section (as well as added the infobox to the top of the article). I'm not sure what else to include here. The content that was in the "Mission" section that's now in the lede I feel covers it: "The FASB carries out its mission through improving the usefulness of financial reporting, focusing on the faithful representation and relevance of financial information, including the enhancing characteristics of useful information, comparability, timeliness, understandability, and verifiability. The FASB also accomplishes their mission through educating and guiding auditors, preparers, and other users of financial statements, ensuring current standards reflect developments in methods of doing business and economic environment changes, and by acknowledging areas of insufficiency in financial reporting that could be improved through the standard setting process." They set accounting standards, to be followed by accounting professionals. They refine those standards and educate industry professionals on how best to use them. Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but I don't think the details of those processes are essential to the article. I think this page covers what you're asking about, but at the end of the day, I don't think knowing that the FASB meets individually with auditors, gives talks at conferences, and conducts webcasts is all that essential to understanding what "educating and guiding auditors, preparers, and other users of financial statements" actually means. If you feel strongly about it, and think this is an acceptable source, I can draft up some additional content covering it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: - I'm convinced the present state is an improvement - so I copied it to main space (with cats and accounting sidebar that was missing in the sandbox). Regarding (2) - I think this could use some expansion. Look for instance at U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission#Organizational structure or Commodity Futures Trading Commission#Organization for what I mean. End of the day - this is an organization with people and an organizational structure that should be covered - if you have material for this - great, otherwise - we're still in an improved state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I get what you're saying now. So far I haven't found additional information about the FASB like that, but should I come across it, I'll draft it up and share it here. Thanks for all your help with this. I greatly appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Sorry to bother you again, but I was hoping you could take another look at this. This time, a much smaller request. I was looking over the Oversight section that we added back into the sandbox from the original article, and realized that the reference for the selection of the Board of Trustees of the FAF doesn't actually support the content. As far as I can tell, the information isn't exactly accurate anyway. The FAF by-laws (page 8, section 5: nominations) shows that the Board itself is responsible for selecting new members, not external organizations. I'm not sure how this information has managed to stay in the article for so long, since it seems wholly inaccurate, but the recent addition (11 October 2017) of that misleading ref seems to have been by a relatively inexperienced editor. Would it be suitable to remove the unsupported content and have the section appear like

this instead?

==Structure== The FASB is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, and is led by seven full-time Board members, one being the chairman, appointed by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) to serve five-year terms and are eligible for one term reappointment. The qualifications to serve on the FASB Board include professional competence and realistic experience from professions like financial reporting, investment services, and financial planning. Board members also come from sectors such as academia, business, and legal, or government agencies. FASB Board members, as of 30 April 2018: Member Professional Background Term Expiration Russell Golden, Chairman Public Accounting 2nd term expires in 2020 James Kroeker, Vice Chairman Public Accounting/SEC 2nd term expires in 2024 Christine Botosan Academic 1st term expires in 2021 Marsha Hunt Public Accounting 1st term expires in 2022 Harold Monk, Jr. Private Company Auditor 1st term expires in 2022 R. Harold Schroeder Financial Statement User 2nd term expires in 2021 Marc Siegel Financial Statement User 2nd term expires in 2018 The board is supported by more than 60 staff with backgrounds in public accounting, industry, academia, and government. === Oversight === The FASB is subject to oversight by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), which selects the members of the FASB and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and funds both organizations. The Board of Trustees of the FAF, in turn, is selected in part by a group of organizations including: American Accounting Association American Institute of Certified Public Accountants CFA Institute Financial Executives International Government Finance Officers Association Institute of Management Accountants National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers Securities Industry Association

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you one better - added a source for this - diff.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I think the book you referenced is outdated. Could you take a look at the by-laws I linked? They're current as of December 15, 2017. From Section 5, Nominations, (a):

Nominations for at-large Trustees, other than the Chairman Trustee, shall be sought by the Foundation from a broad array of groups, as the Board of Trustees, or any designated committee thereof, deems appropriate. Such groups may include domestic and international investor, accounting,and business organizations; financial and capital markets participants; accounting and business academicians; consumer groups; regulatory organizations; and other interested entities and persons. The Trustees may also nominate candidates for at-Large Trustees. The Board of Trustees, or any designated committee thereof, shall have sole authority to nominate all candidates for the office of Chairman Trustee, and any nominee for such office may, but need not, be a member of the Board of Trustees at the time nominated.

I also just wonder about its actual relevance here; we are ultimately talking about the FAF's board and not the FASB's.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I modified the text somewhat. The bylaws do not contradict the book - they say the same in legal-speak just without naming the organizations which comprise " broad array of groups... may include domestic and international investor, accounting, and business organizations; financial and capital markets participants; accounting and business academicians; consumer groups; regulatory organizations; and other interested entities and persons.". Who elects the management/trustees of an organization is of fundamental importance - particularly in a public or semi-public regulatory body.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Financial Accounting Standards Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/press/d08b3ded18365310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121202355/http://www.globalpublicpolicysymposium.com/bios/prada_michel.htm to http://www.globalpublicpolicysymposium.com/bios/prada_michel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714043711/http://www.icsa2010agm.com/michel-prada-19-66.aspx to http://www.icsa2010agm.com/michel-prada-19-66.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Improving the Oversight section

I've done some additional research since my last conversation with Icewhiz above, and I've found some sources that help elucidate the situation. While the section as it's currently written isn't technically incorrect, it's a little misleading. The by-laws were amended in 2008 to prevent some of the organizations listed from having too much influence on the nomination process. I drafted a new version in my sandbox. Could someone take a look? @Icewhiz: are you open to collaborating again?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied. If what we were describing was incorrect (post 2008) - then yes - that's a good reason to change. The section is vague at the moment at who actually pulls the strings - but that's better than naming the wrong organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Update Board Members

Information to be added: 1. Sue Cosper is replacing Harold Monk on the FASB Board list. 2. Garry Buesser has replaced Marc Seigel on the board Explanation of issue: 1. Harold Monk left office early and Sue Cosper is taking his place. 2. Garry replaced Marc Seigel after his term expired. Hruck (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 22-APR-2019

  Edit request implemented  

• The officials were added — although other elements of information in the table, such as term of office and background, could not be added — as they were not provided with the request.
• The COI editor is reminded to make all necessary disclosures on their talk page.

 Additional changes made:

1. As the article uses two distinct citation styles, an unclear citation style maintenance template was appended to the article.
2. Text which was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material was omitted, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
3. Text which was unreferenced was omitted, per WP:V.
4. Headings which did not align with MOS:HEADING were revised.
5. Three instances of |archive-date= parameters missing the |url= parameter in their citation template entries were corrected by deleting the |archive-date= parameter.
6. A reference entry which contained a non-working url was given the {{dead url}} template.

Regards,  Spintendo  21:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-APR-2019

Apologies if I missed any sort of requirement when requesting an edit, I am new to requesting edits on Wikipedia. I work in Communications for the Financial Accounting Foundation, (FASB's parent organization) and am just trying to get the board list up to date. In regards to the updates, I have more information for the table:

1. Buesser's Professional Background is "Statement User" and his First term expires in 2023
2. Sue Cosper's Professional Background is "Public Accounting" and her First term expires in 2024

Please let me know if you require more/different sources as I'd be happy to add them, I am still learning about wiki editing and appreciate any constructive feedback Hruck (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 02-JAN-2020

Disclosure: I work for the Financial Accounting Foundation, which supports the Financial Accounting Standards Board in its work.

For the table depicting current members of the FASB (under "Structure" section of the article), I request that the following missing details be added to complete the table:

1. For Sue Cosper, please use full first name ("Susan", not "Sue"), please add "Public Accounting" under Professional Background, with "1st term expires 2024" under Term Expiration
2. For Garry Buesser, please correct typo in first name ("Gary", not "Garry), add "Statement User" under Professional Background, with "1st term expires 2023" under Term Expiration

Thank you for your consideration. --Triciamcknight (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Reply 2-JAN-2020

  Edit request partially implemented    Spintendo  02:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested Update to List of FASB Members

Disclosure: I work for the Financial Accounting Foundation, which supports the Financial Accounting Standards Board in its work.

For the table depicting current members of the FASB (under "Structure" section of the article), I request that the following updates be made:

• R. Harold Schroeder has completed his second term as a board member and should be removed from the table

• Please add Frederick L. Cannon as a board member, with "Statement User" under Professional Background, and with "1st term expires 2026" under Term Expiration

Thank you for your consideration

Triciamcknight (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References