National and International Developments in Risk Reporting: May the German Accounting Standard 5 Lead the Way Internationally?

German Law Journal

Volumn 6, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1191-1200

  Dobler, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35948929970     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S207183220001422X     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. 1 See Regine Buchheim/Kati Beiersdorf, New Developments in Management Reporting – The Modernisation of the Annual Report, 6 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 861-868 (2005) www.germanlawjournal.com.
2. 2 See Directive 2003/51/EC of June, 18th, 2003, Art. 1(14)(a), Art. 2(2)(a).
3. 3 See, e.g., Peter Kajüter/Carsten Winkler, Die Risikoberichterstattung der DAX100-Unternehmen im Zeitvergleich, 3 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR KAPITALMARKTORIENTIERTE RECHNUNGSLEGUNG 228 (2003);
4. GASC, Deutscher Standardisierungsrat beschließt Neuausrichtung, Press Release www.standardsetter.drsc/docs/press_releases/gasb_restructuring.html (July 25th, 2003).
5. 4 See § 342 HGB; Dieter Ordelheide, Germany – Group Accounts, TRANSNATIONAL ACCOUNTING 1385-1368 (Dieter Ordelheide/KPMG (eds.), 4th ed. 2001).
6. 5 For a discussion see Michael Dobler, Auditing Corporate Risk Management – A Critical Analysis of a German Particularity, 1 THE ICFAI JOURNAL OF AUDIT PRACTICE No. 2 51-52, 56-57 (2004).
7. 6 See Directive 2003/51/EC, Art. 1(4)(a) amending Art. 46(1)(a) of Directive 78/660/EEC, and Directive 2003/51/EC, Art. 2(10)(a) amending Art. 36(1) of Directive 83/349/EEC.
8. 7 See Directive 2001/65/EC of September 21st, 2001, Art. 1 (4) amending Art. 46(2) of Directive 78/660/EEC, and Directive 2001/65/EC, Art. 2 (3) amending Art. 36(2) of Directive 83/349/EEC.
9. 8 See IDW RS HFA 1.29-36 (IDW Stellungnahme zur Rechnungslegung Hauptfachausschuß 1).
10. 9 In a general decision, the local court of Duisburg decided that bulletins of the IDW may have particular authority. However, they cannot substitute the legal interpretation by a court. See Amtsgericht Duisburg, Beschluß v. 31.12.1993, 23 HR B 3193, 47 DER BETRIEB 466-467 (1994).
11. 10 See GAS 5.1, .3. GAS 5.8 recommends to apply GAS 5 to risk reports of individual companies.
12. 11 See Deutscher Rechnungslegungsänderungsstandard 3, issued on July 15th, 2005, Art. 9.
13. 12 GAS 5.9.
14. 13 See GAS 5.30-33.
15. 14 See GAS 5.12-13.
16. 15 See GAS 5.15.
17. 16 See GAS 5.18-19.
18. 17 See GAS 5.20, cumulatively requiring „reliable and recognised methods“, the absence of „undue economic expense“and effects of the quantification on „the decision of users“.
19. 18 See GAS 5.23-24.
20. 19 See GAS 5.25.
21. 20 See GAS 5.26-27.
22. 21 See GAS 5.31.
23. 22 See GAS 5.21.
24. 23 See GAS 5.28-29.
25. 24 See IDW RS HFA 1.52; GAS 15.83.
26. 25 See GAS 5.30-33; GAS 15.83, .91.
27. 26 See IDW RS HFA 1.52.
28. 27 See Regulation 1606/2002 of July, 19th, 2002; § 315a HGB implemented by the BilReG.
29. 28 See, e.g., Statement of Auditing Standards (SAS) 69; Miller/Redding/Bahnson, THE FASB – THE PEOPLE, THE PROCESS AND THE POLITICS 61 (4th ed., Boston et al. 1998).
30. 29 See Form 20-F, Item; Form 10-K, Item 7; Regulation S-K, Item 303.
31. 30 See Statement of Financial Accounting Standards SFAS 5.9-12; SFAS 5.17 read in connection with Accounting Research Bulletin ARB 50; SOP 94-6.11-16.
32. 31 See SFAS 133.44-45.
33. 32 See Statement of Position SOP 94-6.11-16.
34. 33 See SOP 94-6.21-24; SFAS 131.39, .108.
35. 34 See International Accounting Standard IAS 37.10, .89-92.
36. 35 See IAS 32.52-85; ED 7.
37. 36 See IAS 1.116-122.
38. 37 See IAS 1.23-24.
39. 38 See Donald E. Kieso/Jerry J. Weygandt/Terry D. Warfield, INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTING 1296 (11th ed. 2003).
40. 39 One could argue that SOP 94-6 in the US is also a standard dealing with risk related disclosures. However, SOP 94-6 must be read in connection with SFAS and only addresses some specific risk disclosures.
41. 40 To digress briefly, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales issued a proposal for a Statement of Business Risk in 1997. However, the proposal did not become a standard.
42. 41 See, e.g., IAS 1.116.
43. 42 See Draft-GAS 5.B3 (Reasoning).
44. 43 While GAS are available in English language in general, Draft-GAS 5 is the first and only draft of a GASB-standard issued in English. See www.standardsetter.de/drsc/docs/drafts/5_eng.html for Draft-GAS 5 published on November 24th, 2000.
45. 44 For a detailed analysis of GAS 5 see Michael Dobler, RISIKOBERICHTERSTATTUNG – EINE ÖKONOMISCHE ANALYSE 162-181 (Frankfurt am Main 2004).
46. 45 See Directive 2004/109/EC of December 15th, 2004, Art. 4(2)(b) and (c), Art. 5(3).
47. 46 See www.iasb.org/meetings/iasb_observernotes.asp for notes on the IASB meeting in June 2005, the status of the project, and the planned Discussion Paper.