The Evolution of Goodwill Accounting: 1970-2005 and The Lesson Learned

By: Ersa Tri Wahyuni

This piece was written back in 2006 where I am still fascinated by Goodwill Accounting. My research interest has been developed, but goodwill accounting is always an interesting issue to follow... occasionally...

I love history... and I love accounting... please enjoy the goodwill accounting from a humble accounting historian perspective.

****

Goodwill appears in the balance sheet of a company when a business purchases another business and pays for more than the fair value of the specifically identified net assets of the acquiree. In United States, where accounting standards are more advanced than in most other countries, goodwill has been reported for more than 100 years, but before the 1970s there was no single accounting and financial treatment for goodwill (Kintzele et.al, 2005).

Below are some popular accounting methods for goodwill before 1970s:


1. Capitalization and indefinite retention of purchased goodwill as an asset.
One of the early methods of accounting and reporting for goodwill before the 1970s was to record it as an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life. Under this approach, purchased goodwill was recognized as an asset but rarely recognized as an expense. Goodwill was assumed to be an asset with a fixed value of the life of the business, similar to other fixed assets.
The key area of debate was whether goodwill fit in to definition of asset, especially to satisfy the requirements of asset that the entity had control over the benefits. Although many studies argued that the core component of goodwill is an asset (Johnson and Petrone, 1998) many articles also challenged that idea. One of the important studies by Henning et.al, (2000), showed that their study was consistent with the concern that some components of goodwill were assets while others are not. The results suggested that investors did not review the residual components of goodwill as an asset. Therefore perceived goodwill entirely as an asset was not encouraged by this research.

2. Immediate write-off of purchased goodwill against reserves.
Before the 1970s, this is also a popular alternative to account goodwill. Until the end of 1998, this alternative was recommended to UK firms under Statament of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAP) No. 22, “Accounting for goodwill” (Henning et.al, 2004).
The argument for this policy was that goodwill was not an asset because it could not be sold separately from the acquired business. FASB, the standard setter of United States challenged this argument. The viewpoint of FASB, as written by Johnson & Petrone (1999), stated that the Board believes that goodwill meets the criteria of assets. The Board concluded that goodwill provides future economic benefits because it possesses the capacity to produce cash flow in conjunction with other assets.
Under the treatment, purchased goodwill was treated consistently with internally generated goodwill on the Balance Sheet (no asset shown). On the other hand, goodwill was treated inconsistently in the profit and loss statement (no expense for purchased goodwill, while the amounts spent in building up the goodwill of existing businesses are expensed). Miller (1995) argued that this inconsistently caused incompatibility in reported results between companies growing by acquisition and companies with internal growth policies. Also, immediate write-off of goodwill reduced accountability, depleted the amount reported to shareholder’s equity and distorted rate-of-return measures.
However, this method had the advantage of accounting for the negative attributes of goodwill all at one time in the year of acquisition. This way the company can have a clean start the year following the acquisition. Nevertheless, this method ignored the common realistic situation that the value of goodwill would be more likely to exist after the year of acquisition.

Goodwill Accounting After 1970s.

In the year 1970, The United States had a new standard for intangible assets (APB No.17) which required that all goodwill be amortised in a systematic manner not to exceed a period of 40 years. The preference method of amotization was by the straight-line method. APB No.17 also stated that goodwill was a subject to a test of impairment and required that the firm tested goodwill impairment at the “enterprise level”. However the standard did not require goodwill to be tested annually nor prescribed a certain methodology on how firm should run the impairment test.
Amortization of goodwill waspopular method in some countries at that time (see table 1). Under this approach, purchased goodwill is reported as an asset and systematically expensed. Nevertheless, given that the life of purchased goodwill was often indeterminate, its forced amortization may have been far removed from any real-world economic value. This raised questions about the usefulness of the information (Miller, 1995).


Why Shift to Impairment?

Another accounting method for goodwill that has been developed recently is to capitalize goodwill and test it for impairment on rigorous annual review. The method is canvassed in a discussion paper issued in December 1993 by the UK Accounting Standard Board (Wagner, 1994). In 1995, the United States issued FAS No.121 which required goodwill be tested annually for impairment. At this time, goodwill in the US was subject to both amortization and annual impairment test.
Starting 2001, FASB issued FAS No.142 which mandated that goodwill should no longer be amortized, but should be tested for impairment annually. Any firm in the United States suddenly needed to conduct an initial impairment test and for most companies, the 2002 annual report was the year in which the standard was implemented.
On January 1, 2005, the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) completed the first phase of business combination project, which is an on going project between IASB and FASB, and issues IFRS 3, Business Combination. Starting in 2005, IASB also adopted an annual impairment test and prohibited amortization of goodwill, which was previously prescribed at IAS 22. Other countries that adopted IFRS then follow IASB, such as Australia also adopted the IFRS in 2005. Clearly there is a major shift all over the world from amortization of goodwill in to impairment of goodwill. In the very near future, countries all over the world will reach a common goal of accounting harmonization and will need to adopt the impairment of goodwill and prohibit amortization of goodwill.

One of the main questions raised in this paper is why the world would be interested in impairment instead of amortization? There are two possible answers to this question. Impairment of goodwill provides a better accounting treatment for the nature of goodwill thus it can satisfy many parties debated about the nature of goodwill. The second reason is goodwill amortization had failed to provide a relevant information to the users, thus in attempt to improve the relevancy of goodwill information, standard setters chose impairment.

1. Goodwill impairment is a better accounting method than direct write-offs and amortization.

The difference between annual impairment value with amortization is this method ensures that goodwill is expensed when appropriate. It can be argued that, goodwill impairment is better than other alternatives in four areas:
• Purchased goodwill is treated consistently with internally generated goodwill. With the write-off method, the companies that grow from business combination (mergers and acquisition) will be disadvantaged compared to companies that grow without business combination.
• Purchased goodwill is recognized as an asset, but it is expensed when appropriate.
• The value of goodwill will be more representative of the real value. While the amortization method systematically decreases the value of goodwill, impairment method enables the retention of the value of goodwill if the value is not decreasing.
• The impairment method acknowledges that goodwill may have indefinite useful life.

Although the method seems superior compared to the other accounting methods, annual impairment has a high compliance cost arising from the need for comprehensive valuation of business segments with purchased goodwill. The test required by IASB is far more rigorous than the test required by FASB. However, the debate about goodwill now is no longer whether goodwill is an asset or not, but rather than how should firm test goodwill for impairment.

2. Goodwill amortization has failed to provide relevant information to users.
Under the amortization method, the value of goodwill is systematically decreased despite the fact that it may not actually decrease. Unlike amortization, the impairment method enables the value of goodwill to remain the same if the recoverable amount is greater than the carrying amount. FASB does not presume that goodwill and other intangible assets that have indefinite useful lives will not be amortized but rather will be tested at least annually for impairment. (FASB, 2001)
There must be a good reason that standard setters all over the world now are more interested in goodwill impairment than amortization. FASB has already changed their goodwill accounting, while other standard setters such as AASB and IASB are moving in the same direction. The reason for the change was probably because of some research findings showed that goodwill amortization disclosure was not decision-useful information for the user of financial statement.
Ever since 1992, researchers had recognized some problems with goodwill amortization disclosure in the United States. APB No.17 required the amortization method for goodwill accounting. However, compliance rate to that standard was actually very low (Duval, et.al, 1992). Duval, et.al (1992) conducted a survey in 1988 among 621 firms of New York and American Stock Exchange. Twenty-one percent did not disclosure net goodwill, 58 percent did not disclose accumulated goodwill amortization and 76 percent did not disclose goodwill amortization expense.
Duval et al. (1992) research investigated whether goodwill disclosures by publicly traded firms were sufficient to enable investors to determine the financial statement impact of APB No.17. The results suggested that investors could not easily identify the financial statement effects of goodwill accounting rules at the time for a substantial number of firms with material goodwill. Duval et al. (1992) then argued that the more complete and uniform goodwill disclosures were needed.
More and more research studies were done to investigate the usefulness of goodwill amortization disclosure. Greg Clinch (1995), in his literature review concluded that there is no consistent association between reported goodwill amortization and either share price or returns. Also there was only a little firm evidence that goodwill amortization expense reflected information that was used by investors in setting share prices and return. Clich (1995) then proposed two reasons for that: 1. goodwill amortization was less importance to investors than other components of net income or 2. goodwill may not be viewed as an amortizable asset by investors.

It is important to note Clinch second argument in this context. If investors did not view goodwill as something that should be amortized, then probably standard setters need to consider another method. Hopefully, the other method wiould increase the usefulness of goodwill disclosure information to the investors. FASB monitored the research progress before they argued that goodwill amortization disclosures were not decision-useful to investors and they would like to change to method of impairment.
The research done by Moehrlre, et.al (2001) also supports the FASB argument that goodwill amortization disclosures are not desion-useful to investors. The results of the study support FASB’s conclusion in that earnings excluding goodwill amortization disclosures provide decision-useful financial information equivalent to that contained in net income. Moehrle et.al. (2001) research provided results that support the FASB decision to adopt impaired goodwill.

Additional conclusive research by Jennings, et.al, (2001) reported that goodwill amortization information does not improve the quality of earning information for investors to predict share values. The study reviewed 2,918 observations (firm years) in the US listed company from 1993-1998 to investigate which one could explain the share values better; earnings before goodwill amortization or earnings after goodwill amortization. The study found that earning before goodwill amortization explained significantly more of the share price than the earnings after goodwill amortization. Jennings, et.al also suggested that making the earnings impact of goodwill accounting more transparent would benefit investor and analysis.

To sum up, from the previous research findings, most were conducted in the United States and suggest that new rules needed to be set up for goodwill accounting. Goodwill amortization does not represent faithful and decision-useful information. Better information is needed, as intangible assets (including goodwill) are an increasingly important economic resource for many entities. Goodwill also becomes an increasing proportion of the assets acquired in many transactions.

The Possibility of Goodwill Impairment in Indonesia

The Possible Impact and consequences on Indonesia if Adopting Goodwill Impairment
Currently in Indonesia, the requirement for goodwill disclosure is to disclose net goodwill on the face of the balance sheet. In 2005, from 324 listed companies on the Jakarta Stock Exchange (JSX), goodwill was reported on the face of balance sheet by 60 companies. Of the 60 companies, 36 companies has relatively small amount of goodwill- less than one percent of their total assets. Only seven companies have goodwill more than 5% from their total asset (attachment 1).

Accounting standards for goodwill in Indonesia are different when compared to US GAAP or IFRS. In PSAK 22 (Indonesian GAAP) Accounting for Business Combination, goodwill should be amortized using straight-line basis, unless other amortization method is more appropriate in other circumstances. The amortization period should not exceed five years, unless a longer period can be justified and the justification should be disclosed. The maximum period of amortization should not exceed than 20 years from the date of acquisition. PSAK 22 was harmonized with IAS 22 (revised 1993) which has similar regulation for goodwill. IAS 22 was revised in 1998 and superseded by IFRS 3 in 2005.

However in PSAK 19 (revised 2000), Accounting for intangibles, goodwill is also a subject of the annual impairment test. Although in PSAK 19, the standard does not specifically describe the impairment test for goodwill from acquisition, considering PSAK 19 was harmonized with IAS 38 (revised 1998), the practice should be similar to IFRS. IAS 38 Accounting for intangibles was revised in 2004, and as the revision of IFRS/IAS were quite rapid in the past five years, it is hard for the Indonesia Accounting Standard Body (DSAK) to catch up with the new revised standard.
In regards to negative goodwill, both IFRS and US GAAP have similar standards where the excess of negative goodwill (after reassessing the acquiree identifiable asset) should be recognized in profit or loss (US GAAP as extraordinary gain) immediately. In Indonesia, the excess of negative goodwill should be recognized as deferred income (liability) and recognized as income over a period of not less than 20 years.
The condition of goodwill accounting in Indonesia is similar to the condition in the US around 1995 where goodwill was amortized but also was tested for impairment annually. Observing the harmonization effort by Indonesian standard setter with IFRS since 1994, Indonesia will need to adopt impairment of goodwill sooner or later. The information on when exactly Indonesian GAAP is going to adopt goodwill impairment remains unknown at the time this article was written.

Indonesian Standard Setter should\ had realized that the world consensus on impaired goodwill is very strong. Currently nearly 7,000 public companies in the 25 EU countries will be required to use IFRS for the first time in 2005 (Shoaf & Zaldifar, 2005). Indonesian Institute of Accountants (IAI) in many occasion stated that they aim to harmonize with IFRS by 2008. But considering there are still so many IFRS that have not been adopted yet, and IFRS about business combination will likely to change in the future anyway, business combination probably is not a major priority of Indonesian Standard Setter now or even in five more years.

It is interesting to analyze what would be the possible impact to Indonesia if Indonesia adopt impairment of accounting and prohibit goodwill amortization? As Indonesia is about ten years behind the US in this issue, it would be imperative to look at what happened in the US after they issued SFAS 142 in 2001. Some lesson learns below can become considerations, not only the standard setters but also to investors:

1. Major Write-Off of Goodwill by listed companies in the first year.
One important lesson was learned from the US who was the first to adopt impairment for goodwill accounting. Before 2001, US companies with weak performance can delay goodwill impairment to protect their asset value in the balance sheet. In fact this has been a major criticism prior SFAS 142 that the rule gave too much discretion to the firms as to the amount of write-off and the timing of the write-off.
The FASB adopted SFAS 142 in July 2001. Companies using US GAAP had time until June 30, 2002 to complete the first part of the impairment test and until the end of the year to complete the balance sheet. Any write-off that resulted from the initial impairment test was reported in a favorable manner, as a change in accounting standard. Any write-offs that occured after the transitional period had to be reported as income from continuing operations. If companies waited until after the first quarter to start, they would have to go back and restate numbers for the first quarter (Gilpin,2002)
Due to the incentives to clear up the matter in the first quarter, some analysts predicted that some companies would take substantial write offs of their goodwill in 2002. The new rule would possibly weakening companies’ balance sheets, especially those, which built through acquisition. Some companies have a huge proportion of goodwill in their balance sheets. The write-down of an asset reflects reduced future expectations of cash flow and earnings. If it is proven that it will weaken the balance sheet, sureties bonds are more likely to be concerned.
An important research by Henning et,al (2004), concerned 1,482 sample US firms that wrote off their goodwill during the transitional period. Ninety-three percent of the transition firms with significant abnormal returns decided to recognize goodwill impairment. In contrast only 12 percent of the transition firms with positive abnormal returns decided to impair. This result was consistent with hypothesis that “weak performance” companies may have delayed their goodwill impairment and maximized the goodwill impairment during the transition year. The study also showed that these weak firms impaired a greater proportion of their market-adjusted goodwill, had higher debt-to-capital ratios and had older goodwill compared to “good performance” firms.

2. Impairment test it too complicated.
Another concern is the complexities of the impairment test. Calculating impairment is complicated. Impairment tests are based on the future cash flow that an asset is expected to produce, but goodwill alone does not produce cash flows. It only produces cash flows in conjunction with the other assets or groups of assets. Associating goodwill with these assets for purposes of impairment testing is problematic, particularly when the operations and activities of once-separate companies are combined. Goodwill may have to be assessed on an enterprise-wide basis, which also is problematic (Johson & Petrone, 1999)
Even if Indonesia decided to adopt impairment, the model to do the impairment test both prescribed by FASB or IFRS is complicated. The model is so complicated it can make the compliance cost too high for some companies in Indonesia which their goodwill mostly comprised of less than 5 percent of their total asset.
FASB model needs two steps of calculating impairment while IFRS only one step. However IFRS requires goodwill to be tested in CGU level (Cash Generating Unit), while FASB allowed goodwill is tested in reporting entity’s level. IASB initially was also interested to prescribe two-step test, but significant concern of IASB constituents about the practicality and complexity of the test made IASB then prescribed only one step test.


Asking companies to test their goodwill annually would probably too expensive and is something that need to be considered by the companies as well. There would be many other issues beside the testing which may include: how do companies define a cash generating unit, what are the tax implication of the write downs, and after the extensive and possible expensive testing, would it increase the relevance of financial statement at all?

3. Impairment test increases possibility for subjectivity and manipulation.

IAS 36 Impairment of asset requires the firm to compare carrying amount of goodwill with its recoverable amount. IASB used the term of recoverable amount instead of fair value because in deciding the recoverable amount, one should choose which ever is higher; fair value less cost to sell or value in use. Due to the nature of goodwill and other intangible asset that do not have an active market, to determine its market value would be problematic. Most of the firms then use the estimated fair value and compare it with the carrying value. However the use of estimation can opens more opportunity for manipulation.
Research by Kintzele et al. showed that most of the companies use present value or discounted cash flow in their impairment test. They investigated S&P 100 listed companies in United States and check their annual report of 2002. From the 100 companies, 35 percent of the companies had an initial impairment and discussed the method of determining the impairment loss. From that 35 companies, twenty-nine companies used present value or discounted cash flows, three companies used discounted cash flows, and three companies used market-based fair-value determination without further elaboration on how they determine that value.
There are many different methods used in calculating the “fair value” of goodwill and the distinctive accounting method compared to other intangible assets, this would increase internal inconsistency in the financial reporting. The use of cash flow estimates, the selection of discount rates and the use of appraisal values are all fraught with subjectivity and the manipulation issues inherent in such a process (Kintzele, et.al, 2005). This research even suggested that the combination of goodwill amortization and impairment testing is probably a better way to account goodwill.


***

Now, October 2012, EFRAG and Italian accounting standard is pushing IASB to review IFRS 3, especially on the prohibition of goodwill systematic amortization. Should we go abandon goodwill impairment just because it is too difficult?

The Use of Institutional Theory in IFRS Convergence Research: What Researchers Have Missed

By: Ersa Tri Wahyuni

This article is part of my submitted assignment at Manchester Business School for my first PhD year. I like the analysis and I hope this article may help other PhD students and researchers to look deeper in the IFRS Convergence issue.

****



New Institutional Theory (NIS) has been widely used by various researchers in sociology, political science, business and management as well as Information system and technology. The increasing use of institutional theory in other research areas is also prevalent over the years. As it is exhibited in table two, institutional studies has been utilized in 511 research papers published in 210 journals over the past 20 years (Weerakkody, et,al., 2009).

The corner stone year of the new institutional theory would have to be 1977 when John Meyer published his paper “The Effect of Education as an Institution” in American Journal of Sociology. John Myer with Brian Rowan (1977) also published another important paper in the same journal edition, “Institutionalized Organization: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony” which provides the central components of the new institutional theory.

In the Accounting research area, NIS has been used to explain many case studies in management accounting, auditing, and international accounting. Accounting as one of tool to produce information from the organization cannot be separated from the organization norms, value and behavior. Many longitudinal case study of management accounting use NIS as a powerful tool to understand the behavior or an organization over time. Not only in the micro level as company and organization, NIS also being utilized to explain the behavior of a country or a state in adopting accounting standard.

One example of management accounting case study is Yazdifar, et.al. (2008) who look a parent-subsidiary relationship over 8 year period of time. Yazdifar, et.al, use NIS and OIE (Old Institutional Economics) theory to explain the dynamic of the process of change in the subsidiary. NIS is utilized to explain the coercive isomorphism from the parent company to the subsidiary. Drawing on observations from a longitudinal case study (from 1993 to 2001), the study specifically investigates the extent to which a parent imposes its (management accounting) systems, rules and procedures on a subsidiary. In addition, the study also seeks the role which (local) political, cultural and institutional factors in a subsidiary play in shaping the dynamics of such change implementation

NIS is also powerful to explain processes in non-profit organization. There is a presumption that in competitive markets, only the goal of profitability matters which force non-profit organization that they must act as if their goal is for profit in order to survive. Non-profit and less competitive environments have sufficient slack to allow more institutional effects influence the organization (Carruthers, 1995). The example of NIS in non-profit organization is another longitudinal study by Parker (2007) which explains boardroom strategizing in two professional associations. The study reveals that private sector philosophies are imported to the non-profit boardroom.

Not only in company or non-profit organization, NIS also has been used to explain the decision process of a state. A paper by Carpenter & Feroz (2001) uses NIS in explaining the decision of four US State Governments in adopting General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The study utilizes institutional theory to explore how institutional factors exerted on four state governments (New York, Michigan, Ohio and Delaware) influenced the decision of these governments to adopt or resist GAAP for external financial reporting. The study identifies resource dependence as potent form of coercive institutional pressures that associated with early adoption of GAAP.

NIS in the research area of IFRS convergence.

In the context of IFRC convergence initiatives, institutionalization can be viewed as a social process through which a country accept that national accounting standards are absorbed in the interests of international accounting harmonization. (Rodrigues and Craig, 2007) Some existing studies reveal that the processes of isomorphism have exhibited for many years, in many countries. IFRS is not only used in Anglo Saxon Countries which mostly based on microeconomics, shareholder oriented, judgement-based financial reporting (Doupnik & Salter, 1995; Nobes 1998) but IFRS harmonization are also evident in countries in a different accounting regime such as code law countries. China for example, from the Rusian style accounting standard in the past, China has been gradually accepting IFRS since 1997 (Ding&Su, 2008). Kazakhtan, a former USSR country, also try to adopt IFRS since its independence in 1991 (Tyrall et.al. 2007).

In the field of international accounting research, especially research on IFRS adoption/convergence, NIS has been used both in quantitative and qualitative research. As suggested by Rodrigues and Craig (2007), NIS is useful in explaining development in international accounting over period of time. One widely held myth is that a formally announced practice of an organization (e.g total compliance with IFRS) does not differ from its actual, or informal practice (e.g less than total compliance to IFRS). The concept of decoupling in NIS can be utilized to explain if such evidence exists (Rodrigues & Craig, 2007)

When a country decides to adopt IFRS and abandon their previous accounting standard, the main reason should be economical such as IFRS will bring economic benefit to the country. The economic benefit can be the decline in the cost of capital or the significant increase of foreign investors in the country’s capital market. However, some studies suggest that the reason of a country adopting IFRS is not economical but more on achieving institutional legitimization. The three type isomorphism is powerful to understand what force a country in adopting IFRS.

Some researchers tries to find empirical evidence of reasons behind the adoption of IFRS and exploit the NIS as their theoretical framework. Research by Judge, et,al. (2011) or Lasmin (2011) proxy three isomorphism with quantitative data. For normative isomorphism those two research use the enrollment level of secondary education and with coercive isomorphism, the percentage of foreign aid as total of country GDP is used. For mimetic isomorphism, the Lasmin (2011) use the average percentage of market capitalization to the GDP while Judge, et,al. (2011) use import penetration as their independent variable. The result of two studies is not consistent. While all three independent variables have predictive value to which IFRS has adopted across hundreds of countries with varying degrees of adoption, Lasmin (2011) found coercive isomorphism is the most predictive while Judge, et.al (2011) found normative isomorphism has more predictive value.

Having personally involved in the IFRS convergence process in Indonesia for the past three years before coming to UK, I found the quantitative research using the proxy for isomorphism are not convincing. For example the enrollment of secondary education as a proxy for professionalism (normative isomorphism) is perplexing for me as the relationship is quite remote. I believe the number of accountants practicing in a country can be a better proxy for normative isomorphism as professionalism is relevant. Or the number of accountants certified by international recognition certification in the country. However for such kind quantitative research and statistical test, the data availability is a major issue which is acknowledged by researchers in this area (Judge, et.al, 2011).

I believe NIS isomorphism is more suitable for qualitative research as the first intention of NIS theorist is to find theory to explain how an institution endures. In Weerakkody et.al.(2009) survey, the quantitative research methodology comprise only 36.3% of the total papers that utilized NIS, while qualitative and conceptual/theoretical methodology comprises total of 56.9%. Table three below exhibits the percentage of research methodology applied in the research papers using NIS.

In the earlier stage of NIS, the researcher focus was more to companies or non-profit organization. However as the NIS diffused and widely used in other research area, the institution are expanded in to cities, countries, or a set of institutional arrangement such as accounting standards. The NIS framework to explain IFRS convergence in a particular country has been utilized in qualitative case study for Sweden (Collin, et.al., 2009), Egypt (Hassan, 2008), French (Touron, 2005), Pakistan (Ashraf & Gani, 2005), and Bangladesh (Mir & Rahaman, 2004).

In the country’s study mentioned above except for French, all authors argued that coercive force has been the major factor in the IFRS convergence process. Either it is coercive pressure from the international donor organization such as IMF to a country or a coercive pressure from the government’s rule to the companies. Touron (2005) case study of French is a little bit different as the study investigates the motivation of two companies in using IAS (predecessor of IFRS) in 1970s far before IAS become mandatory in Europe. Mimetic isomorphism has been used in Touron (2005) study to explain the motivation of these two companies in applying IAS far before they are mandated to. Nevertheless, companies in European Union faced a strong coercive pressure in adopting IFRS in 2003 when European Commission approved the proposal to adopt IFRS in 2005 (Whittington, 2005)

However the country specific case studies I mentioned earlier, always assume that the institutional factor of the agent such as the national standard setter board is constant. This might not be the case in the some adopting countries such as Indonesia and Japan. In both countries the leadership change to pro-IFRS leader in the accounting standard board has been a plausible factor of the country’s convergence in to IFRS. Rosita Uli Sinaga, the chairman of Indonesian Accounting Standard Board, an IFRS partner of Deloitte, appointed as chairman in 2009 when the country was slipping away from their IFRS adoption year target. Ikuo Nishikawa, the chairman of Accounting Standard Board of Japan (ASBJ) was the Japanese delegation in IASC Board during 1993-1998 before he assumed the ASBJ leadership role in 2007 replacing Professor Shizuki Saito.

Another potential institutional factor is the change of the governance structure in the accounting standard board. Australian Accounting Standard Board (AASB) has become a quasi-public sector body which is funded by Government in 1991 from the previous independent Board which is profession-driven and self funded. However contrary to Australia case, In other country the national standard setter board has been spun off from the government (usually ministry of finance) to the independent private sector before the process of IFRS Convergence. This has been the case in Korea where the Government decided to establish an independent accounting standard board in 1999. Japan also established an independent private board (ASBJ) in 2001 which previously the responsibility of accounting standard setting is within the ministry of finance.

IFRS adopting countries also create a new oversight body around the decision of adopting IFRS. Australia established FRC (Financial Reporting Council) in 2001, Malaysia in 1993, and Indonesia is in the process of establishing similar FRC as the bill is being developed by the government. This oversight body usually consists of stakeholders including the government, financial report preparers, capital market, industrial association as well as accountant academics.

These changes in the structure of national standard setter board have been overlooked by researchers. There has been a structural or governance changes among the institution during the process of their IFRS adoption or convergence. Therefore there is a big possibility that the success of a country adopting IFRS mainly come from the structure isomorphism rather than coercive isomorphism. Researchers should include these structural changes as the determinant factors for IFRS convergence by countries.


Manchester, September 2012

OUT OF THE SHADOWS

This article is published in ACCA Magazine : Accounting and Business (AB) International Edition, July 2012. The magazine can be downloaded from www.accaglobal.com/ab

As IFRS Convergence pushes ahead in Indonesia, Rosita Uli Sinaga and Ersa Tri Wahyuni look at the challenges and expectations that are to come

As one of the members of the Group of 20 Leaders - the G20, Indonesia is working toward adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The decision to converge was announced by the Indonesian Institute of Accountants (IAI) in 2008 with the aim of eliminating the differences with local generally accepted accounting principles.

Although IFRS has been the major reference for accounting standard development since 1994, Indonesia also adopt some US standard and develop its own standard based on Indonesian unique business environment. The new G20 movement bring more confidence to the convergence initiatives lead by the Indonesian Financial Accounting Standard Board (IFASB) which is funded by the IAI.

On 1 January 2012, Indonesia adopted almost all IFRS except IFRS 1 First Time Adoption and IAS 41 Agriculture; together with Malaysia and India, Indonesia is still waiting for further revision on IAS 41 Agriculture before making decision on adoption. Some standards are adopted with minor modifications such as IFRIC 15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate and IAS 27 Consolidated Financial Statements.

As with any other developing countries in similar journey of adopting IFRS, Indonesia faces challenges such as the difficulties in applying fair value measurements, the challenges in educating the accountants over the new standards and –most prevalent of all- overcoming multi interpretations.

Multi Interpretations lead to variation in practices
Since the inception of IASB in 2001, IFRS have always been intended to be simple and principle-based. However, this has also created a vulnerability to multiple interpretations, depending on the level of knowledge and experience of the standard user. One such examples in Indonesia is land accounting.

Before 2012, Indonesia used a method in which the land’s initial cost was considered as property plant and equipment (PPE) and not subject of amortisation. While companies in Indonesia, by legal regulation, cannot have a freehold land title, the right to use the land bestowed from the Government can be extended and renewed indefinitely. The renewal or extension cost is also insignificant. The holder of the land right is protected by law, thus the Government cannot revoked the land right without the holder’s approval (for example for public interest) and should that rare occasion happen, a proper consideration will be provided to the land (right) holder.

As Indonesia adopting IFRS, this land accounting is provoking different interpretation. Some accountancy firms interpret accounting for land right as falling under IAS 16 Property Plant of Equipment, with no depreciation, as this is in substance is a purchase transaction. Other firms, however, are quite adamant about accounting for land as a lease, with a variation of treating it as finance lease and operating lease and subject to amortisation Some minority voices suggested that the land right may also be counted as intangible asset, thus it can be categorised as indefinite intangible asset subject to annual impairment test instead of systematic amortisation.

Observing multi interpretation can be a significant part of the company’s asset, and in 2011, the IFASB issued an interpretation after consultation with the national land authority. It decided that land (right) should be accounted using IAS 16 and should not be amortised unless there is indication the land cannot be extended. IFASB then submit a clarification to IFRIC and ask if such interpretation can be accepted. The IFASB presented the issue at a meeting of the IASB Emerging Economies Group held in India last year and then submitted the paper to the IFRS Interpretation Committee (IFRIC). IFRIC decided not to put the issue on its agenda because it was specific to Indonesia and thus too narrow to undertake the due process association with an interpretation or an annual improvement.

Another variation of practice in Indonesia is the accounting for communication towers. Under Indonesian regulation, the communication provider companies need to rent the tower from another company. The rental company, the owner of the towers, can rent one tower to more than one communication provider companies who then put their transmitting devices on to the towers. There are two variations on how to treat these towers In Indonesia, one company account this tower using IAS 16 while other company using IAS 40 Investment Property. The tower should be treated as PPE in accordance with IAS 16 or it should be treated as investment property under IAS 40, Investment Property.

These different interpretations of IFRS created a vicious debate. The main issue is whether the towers satisfy the definition of a ‘property’ in IAS 40. Both companies have their own merits and believe they have plausible arguments. Both IAS 40 and IAS 16 does not have a clear definition of “property” which then leaves the door open for multi-interpretation.

The decision to account telecommunication tower either under IAS 16 or IAS 40 will most certainly affect the entities’ profit and loss figures, especially if the comparison made is between the entities opting to use the revaluation model (PPE) with those who use the fair value model (investment property). This has a significant impact on the comparability among entities in the telecommunication tower rental industry, and more importantly multi, (and presumably inaccurate) depictions of transactions that in substance are the same and have similar economic consequences.

The accounting for land and the communication tower are just two examples out of many. These two examples have caused debate on the national scale because the size of disputable assets is significant; there are many other disputes among practitioners, between companies and their auditors, between companies and their IFRS consultants. It is not easy for a developing country in their first year of IFRS convergence to fully understand and apply principle-based accounting.

Future Expectations
To educate accountants spread out all over archipelago, Indonesia needs reliable, good quality and affordable IFRS trainings. On several occasions such as IFRS Regional Policy Forum in Kuala Lumpur in April, many other countries as well as the IFRS Foundation describes a similar urgent need.

IFRS Foundation has obtained support from other international organisation to fund training for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This initiative has open opportunities for developing countries to learn IFRS for SME inexpensively. Similar opportunities should also be pursued by the IFRS Foundation by approaching International Organization of Securities Commisions, the World Bank and other international organisation to host free trainings in developing countries such as Indonesia

As more developing countries with different characteristic in law regime, tax, and business culture converge with IFRS, we believe the IFRIC’s role will be significantly increased in the near future. Currently we believe that there is under representation of members from developing countries. Such members may offer unique perspectives to the committee’s discussions.

To eliminate the implementation challenges, we urgently call for a more formal relationship between IASB and the national standard setters of IFRS adopting countries.

As more countries, especially in Asia, have decided to adopt, or converge with IFRS, the implementation challenges will only become more daunting than before. Asia is more fragmented than Europe with a different level of maturity in its accounting profession and the capital market, as well as different socio economic, legal framework, and business culture. The IASB and IFRIC need to be more responsive in dealing with different interpretations in the practice, otherwise one global accounting standard will abide as a divine goal, incongruous with global accounting practices which remain diverged and inconsistent.



Rosita Uli Sinaga is the Chairman of IFASB (Indonesian Financial Accounting Standard Board), a Partner of Deloitte and an accounting lecturer at the University of Indonesia. Ersa Tri Wahyuni is technical adviser of IFASB and accounting lecturer at Padjadjaran University Indonesia.

Kontribusi Indonesia ke IASB: Tanggung jawab siapa?

Oleh: Ersa Tri Wahyuni
Tulisan ini dimuat di majalah Akuntan Indonesia edisi April 2012

Tidak banyak orang yang memahami bahwa International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) adalah sebuah perusahaan yang didirikan di Amerika Serikat pada tahun 2001, walaupun saat ini berkantorpusat di London. IASB bukanlah semacam asosiasi seperti IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) atau PBB namun murni seperti layaknya suatu perusahaan swasta. Sebaliknya, lembaga cikal bakal IASB yakni IASC (International Accounting Standard Committee) adalah semacam perkumpulan dari penyusun standar setiap negara yang mendapatkan legitimasi dari IFAC. Namun pada tahun 2001 diputuskan bahwa penyusun standar akuntansi internasional haruslah independen, bahkan juga harus independen dari profesi akuntan itu sendiri. Dalam rapat anggota IFAC bulan May 2000, negara-negara anggota IFAC secara aklamasi menyetujui restrukturisasi IASC menjadi perusahaan dan terpisah sepenuhnya dari IFAC.

Dengan pendapatan kurang dari 23 juta poundsterling (2010) atau hanya sekitar 320 milyar rupiah setahun, IASB menjadi dewan superpower yang sangat berpengaruh. Anggaran ini misalnya lebih kecil daripada penjualan PT. Mustika Ratu Tbk yang berjualan kosmetik (dibandingkan berjualan standar akuntansi internasional) pada tahun 2010. Beberapa pengamat yang sinis terhadap IASB berkomentar, “Bagaimana mungkin ‘perusahaan’ dengan anggaran sekecil itu memiliki pengaruh yang sangat besar terhadap negara-negara di seluruh dunia.”

Walaupun pendapatan IASB dari donasi meningkat terus sejak tahun 2007, namun IASB selalu defisit setiap tahun. Defisit anggaran IASB pada tahun 2009 dan 2010 sangat mencemaskan. Arus kas dari operasi pada tahun 2009 misalnya mengalami arus kas negatif sampai 3.2 juta poundsterling. Total donasi tahun 2010 lebih mencemaskan lagi karena hampir sama dengan tahun 2009 alias tidak ada peningkatan. Hal ini tentunya cukup memalukan karena niat dari para pendiri IASB sepuluh tahun lalu adalah untuk menggalang “dana abadi” sebesar 50-60 juta poundsterling. Jangankan aset neto sebesar 50 juta pounds bahkan sejak tahun 2008 untuk pertama kalinya sejak IASB berdiri tahun 2002, aset neto IASB berada dibawah level 10 juta pounds.

Sehingga wajar apabila semua anggota IFRS Trustee (semacam dewan komisaris yang mengawasi IASB) sangat giat untuk meningkatkan donasi ke IASB, terutama dari negara-negara yang menyatakan sedang berkonvergensi dengan IFRS. Indonesia sebagai salah satu negara yang mulai diperhatikan oleh IASB tidak luput dari incaran. Sudah lama IAI dibujuk IFRS Foundation untuk membayar royalti atas penggunaan IFRS sebagai nara sumber penyusunan standar.

Kenyatannya memang cukup memalukan bahwa Indonesia tidak termasuk dalam salah satu negara donatur IASB. Bahkan negara kecil seperti Kazakhtan dan Bulgaria memberikan sumbangan. Negara-negara besar lainnya seperti Jepang, China, Australia, Amerika Serikat dan UK bahkan menjadi donatur tetap sejak IASB berdiri tahun 2002. Jepang menjadi donatur terbesar dari Asia Oceania (lihat tabel 3), hampir sama dengan Amerika Serikat. Hasilnya dapat ditebak, selalu saja ada perwakilan dari Jepang di dalam IASB, IFRS Trustee, maupun IFRS Advisory Council.

IASB boleh saja beragurmen bahwa Jepang adalah negara penting sehingga layak duduk disemua dewan IFRS Foundation. Namun bila seandainya Jepang bukan donatur besar IASB, apakah Jepang akan tetap mendapatkan perhatian yang sama? Sejak tahun 2005 misalnya IASB melakukan rapat setahun dua kali dengan ASBJ (Accounting Standard Board of Japan), baik di Tokyo maupun di London. Bahkan pada tahun 2010, IASB memutuskan untuk membuka kantor perwakilan IASB untuk Asia di Tokyo, mengapa bukan di Singapore atau Kuala Lumpur (saya tidak berani mengatakan Jakarta). Bila memang niat IASB murni membantu negara-negara berkembang seperti Kamboja, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, Myanmar dalam mengadopsi IFRS, tidak kah lebih masuk akal bila kantor tersebut didirikan di Asia Tenggara, dan bukan di Tokyo sebagai salah satu kota termahal di dunia.

Haruskan Indonesia menjadi Donatur?

Pada tahun 2011 lalu IFRS Trustee telah mengirimkan surat kepada wakil presiden RI untuk membujuk Indonesia memberikan kontribusi ke IFRS Foundation. Anggota IFRS trustee dari Australia, Jeffrey Lucy, sangat terkesan atas pidato wakil presiden Boediono yang mendukung proses konvergensi IFRS di Bali pada bulan Mei 2011 dalam acara IFRS Regional Policy Forum yang dihadiri oleh anggota IASB dan penyusun standar dari berbagai negara.

Memang IFRS Foundation dan IASB tidak akan memberikan sanksi kepada Indonesia bila memutuskan tidak akan mengeluarkan sumbangan kepada IASB. Indonesia juga terlalu besar untuk dikucilkan dari perhatian IASB. Bisa saja Indonesia tidak memberikan sepeserpun kepada IASB, toh IASB juga membutuhkan Indonesia (sebagai negara terbesar di Asia Tenggara dan anggota G20), untuk mengadopsi IFRS.

Namun absennya Indonesia sebagai donatur memberikan beban yang luar biasa kepada ketua DSAK di forum-forum internasional. Bayangkan perasaan malu Rosita Uli Sinaga (ketua DSAK-IAI) setelah pidato mempromosikan perkembangan Indonesia yang semakin konvergen dengan IFRS dalam rapat dengan IASB, kemudian ditanya oleh IFRS trustee kapan Indonesia akan menjadi donatur tetap IASB. Setiap ada standar IFRS baru, anggota IASB rajin melakukan ‘public hearing’ di Singapore yang hanya sejengkal dari Jakarta. Setiap ke Singapore, biasanya juga mereka mampir di Kuala Lumpur. Bank sentral Malaysia dan Singapore adalah donatur tetap IASB sejak lama, Bank Negara Malaysia dan Monetary Authority of Singapore sudah menjadi donatur IASB sejak tahun 2002.

Kontribusi Indonesia ke IASB: Tanggungjawab Siapa?

Siapa yang bertanggungjawab mengeluarkan uang untuk kontribusi Indonesia ke IASB? Adilkah bila tanggungjawab itu dipikul sendirian oleh Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia yang selama ini sudah melakukan konvergensi IFRS tanpa sumbangan finansial dari pemerintah? IAI harus bekerja keras menjadi “sustainable” dengan memberikan training, seminar, dan sebagainya untuk membiayai proses konvergensi ini. Penulis mungkin bias dalam hal ini karena memiliki ikatan emosional yang kental dengan Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia, tapi mari kita lirik bagaimana negara-negara lain mengorganisasikan donasinya ke IASB.

Sangat menarik bila memperhatikan yang dilakukan oleh Korea dan Jepang. KASB (Korean Accounting Standard Board) sejak tahun 2007 melakukan penggalangan dana di kalangan perusahaan Korea untuk memberikan kontribusi ke IASB. Nama-nama donatur perusahaan korea tersebut kemudian dipajang di situs KASB. Jepang sudah lebih awal lagi menggalang dana dari kalangan perusahaan terdaftar di Jepang. Hal ini tentunya kemudian tidak menutup perusahaan swasta negara manapun melakukan donasi langsung ke IASB. Kontribusi dari China misalnya sangat beragam mulai dari Departemen Keuangan, bank sentral, perusahaan minyak nasional, sampai ke perusahaan manufaktur.

Bagaimana sebaiknya dengan Indonesia? Donasi ke IASB dapat dimulai dari lembaga-lembaga pemerintah dan juga perusahaan swasta. Bank Indonesia sebagai salah satu regulator di Indonesia sangat sesuai untuk menjadi donatur IASB karena PSAK 50 dan PSAK 55 yang diadopsi dari IFRS telah digunakan sejak tahun 2010. Bapepam LK, BEI (Bursa Efek Indonesia) juga selayaknya menjadi donatur IASB karena menjadi pihak yang akan memetik manfaat masa depan dari konvergensi IFRS ini.

Perusahaan-perusahaan besar seperti PT. Telkom Indonesia yang bersemangat mengadopsi secara penuh IFRS juga sepantasnya menjadi donatur. Jangan mau kalah dengan China Telecom limited dan SK Telecom Korea yang telah lebih dulu menjadi donatur IASB. Apalagi sumbangan kedua perusahaan itu hanya sekitar 25,000 poundsterling setahun, jumlah yang tidak terlalu signifikan. . PT. Pertamina Persero juga sangat mampu untuk menjadi donatur IASB, memantaskan diri dengan CNOOC (China Oil), S-Oil (Korea) yang sudah lebih dulu menjadi donatur.

Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia juga harus ‘legowo’ bila mungkin banyak pihak yang menyumbang ke IASB namun tidak menyumbang ke IAI untuk proses konvergensi IFRS. IAI dapat berperan dengan memulai inisiatif untuk mengumpulkan donasi ini seperti yang dilakukan oleh KASB. Atau setidaknya bila IAI tidak mau direpotkan sebagai administrator, kirimkan surat himbauan kepada perusahaan-perusahaan agar mereka menyumbang langsung ke IASB. Sudah saatnya nama Indonesia tercantum dalam laporan tahunan IASB sebagai donatur, sejajar dengan negara lainnya. Tidak penting darimana asalnya sumbangan tersebut, pemerintah maupun swasta, namun bila kita ingin diakui sebagai negara pengguna IFRS dan lebih dekat dengan IASB, Indonesia harus ada dalam daftar donatur.

Kelak ketua DSAK dapat tampil lebih percaya diri mewakili kepentingan Indonesia dalam rapat-rapat bersama IASB. Ini masalah harga diri bangsa. IASB boleh mengklaim dirinya independen, bersih dari kepentingan politik namun jangan naïf dan berfikir bahwa posisi-posisi di dalam IASB tidak dipengaruhi oleh besarnya donasi suatu institusi/negara. . Ingat bahwa IFRS Foundation adalah suatu perusahaan, bukan arena kumpul-kumpul di mana semua negara duduk sama tinggi. Dan layaknya suatu perusahaan, apalagi yang rapor arus kasnya merah bertahun-tahun, money does matter.

Ersa Tri Wahyuni
Dosen Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung dan mahasiswa PhD Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK.

Siapa Peduli Nasib Profesi Akuntan Publik?

Oleh Ersa Tri Wahyuni

Tulisan ini ditulis bulan April 2011. Mohon maaf bila sudah sedikit tidak "hot" issue nya ketika saya upload di blog ini bulan Maret 2012. Saya sendiri tidak ingat apakah tulisan ini pernah dimuat dalam majalah Akuntan Indonesia.


DPR telah mengesahkan Undang Undang Akuntan Publik yang kontraversial. Masyarakat akuntansi menanggapinya beragam. Ikatan Akuntan Publik Indonesia (IAPI), terlepas dari sikap IAPI yang semula menolak UU ini, namun mereka pastinya merasa senang karena telah memiliki landasan hukum yang kuat. Para ketua program studi akuntansi kecewa karena sekarang profesi akuntan publik boleh dari lulusan mana saja, bahkan tidak perlu sarjana. Banyak rekan akuntan akademisi yang membandingkan profesi pengacara yang harus lulus sarjana hukum, dokter yang harus lulus sarjana kedokteran, bahkan profesi psikolog yang harus lulusan sarjana psikologi.

Sikap pemerintah dan DPR untuk membuka seluas-luasnya pintu peluang menjadi akuntan publik tak lepas dari keprihatinan DPR dan Pemerintah atas kuantitas dan kualitas akuntan publik di Indonesi. Dari segi kuantitas, jelas akuntan publik di Indonesia kalah jauh dengan negeri-negeri tetangga. Indonesia hanya memiliki 920 akuntan publik itupun hanya sekitar 800 orang yang berpraktek karena selebihnya cuti praktik atau tidak boleh praktik karena sedang mendapatkan sanksi. Bandingkan dengan Filipina dan Malaysia yang keduanya memiliki akuntan publik lebih dari 2000 orang. Lebih mengkhawatirkan lagi 64% dari akuntan publik yang berpraktik usianya sudah diatas 50 tahun dan hanya 10% yang berusia 30-40 tahun.

Dari segi kualitas jasa yang diberikan, 800-an akuntan publik di Indonesia tersebar dalam 400 kantor akuntan publik (KAP) dan kurang lebih setengahnya hanya memiliki satu orang partner. Kualitas jasa audit yang memenuhi standar kualitas internasional membutuhkan kertas kerja dan prosedur yang memadai, tenaga kerja professional yang kompeten, dan juga “peer review”. Bisa dibayangkan kualitas jasa yang diberikan bila setengah dari kantor akuntan publik di Indonesia adalah usaha perorangan dengan modal rendah.

Banyak orang kemudian menyalahkan susahnya persyaratan menjadi akuntan publik sebagai sebab rendahnya jumlah akuntan publik di Indonesia. Untuk menjadi seorang akuntan publik, sarjana akuntansi harus menyelesaikan pendidikan profesi akuntan dan meraih gelar Akuntan yang disingkat Ak. Lalu kemudian harus lulus ujian sertifikasi profesi, baru boleh menyandang gelar CPA Indonesia (Certified Public Accountant). Kalau ingin menambahkan izin praktik, harus ditambah lagi dengan pengalaman bekerja sebagai auditor sebanyak 1000 jam dalam lima tahun terakhir.

Dibukanya peluang bagi mereka tanpa pendidikan sarjana akuntan menjadi akuntan publik sebenarnya sesuai dengan praktik internasional. Tentunya ada persyaratakan yang lebih berat untuk mereka tanpa pendidikan akuntansi formal dibandingkan dengan lulusan sarjana akuntansi. Namun intinya profesi ini membuka peluang seluas-luasnya siapapun yang tertarik menjadi akuntan publik sehingga arus penawaran ke dalam profesi tidak terhambat.


Krisis Penawaran atau Permintaan?


Pertanyaan besar kemudian adalah apakah krisis akuntan publik di Indonesia lebih dikaitkan dengan penawaran ataukah permintaan? Per Desember 2010 Indonesia memiliki 49.343 Akuntan Beregister. Mereka adalah yang telah memiliki gelar Akuntan dan sekitar 6700 diantaranya bahkan mendapatkan gelar akuntan dengan menyelesaikan pendidikan profesi akuntan. Sekalipun angka 49 ribuan tersebut termasuk pula akuntan yang sudah meninggal dunia dan pensiun, namun tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa jumlah akuntan di Indonesia sangat besar. Mengapa dari 49 ribu akuntan di Indonesia hanya kurang dari seribu orang saja yang berpraktik sebagai akuntan publik? Bagaimana mungkin industri akuntan publik dapat mengalami krisis jumlah apabila jurusan akuntansi masih menjadi jurusan terfavorit di banyak universitas. Ratusan ribu sarjana akuntansi dicetak setiap tahunnya oleh pendidikan tinggi di Indonesia. Hanya ada satu alasan, industri ini memang tidak menarik sehingga tidak mampu menarik akuntan dan lulusan sarjana akuntansi.

Apabila industri akuntan publik memang menarik dan menjanjikan maka sesulit apapun persyaratan pasti akan ditempuh oleh mereka yang tertarik. Pada kenyataannya, banyak akuntan publik terutama di luar Jakarta yang masih harus memiliki profesi lain demi untuk kehidupan yang layak. Akuntan Publik juga banyak mengeluhkan kecilnya audit fee yang diminta oleh para perusahaan di Indonesia sehingga tidak cukup untuk mencapai standar kerja yang memadai. Keluhan lain juga mengenai minimnya jasa yang bisa ditawarkan oleh kantor akuntan publik. Para junior auditor di Indonesia (kecuali yang bekerja di KAP besar) banyak yang hanya diganjar sesuai dengan UMR, sama dengan buruh-buruh pabrik yang lulusan SMA. Hampir semua junior auditor mengeluhkan jam kerja yang panjang, dan himpitan tekanan kerja yang dirasakan terus menerus sementara mereka melihat para seniornya bekerja dengan tekanan kerja yang lebih besar lagi.

Beberapa UU dan peraturan menteri sebenarnya telah mengharuskan perusahaan dengan jumlah aset tertentu untuk diaudit oleh akuntan publik, namun pada kenyataannya sangat mencengangkan bahwa jumlah audit engagement di Indonesia dibawah 18,000 saja. Berdasarkan sensus ekonomi BPS 2006 jumlah badan usaha menengah dan besar di Indonesia berjumlah 166,4 ribu. Hal ini mengindikasikan bahwa permintaan untuk jasa audit di Indonesia masih sangat minimal, apalagi untuk jasa-jasa akuntansi lainnya seperti review dan kompilasi. Jasa audit masih mendominasi jasa yang diberikan oleh KAP sebesar 70% sehingga tak aneh bila World Bank menyarankan KAP di Indonesia untuk lebih banyak memberikan jasa-jasa lainnya yang terkait dengan akuntansi dan tidak terfokus hanya dengan jasa audit.

Minimnya permintaan masih ditambah dengan tekanan penawaran harga jasa audit yang rendah dari perusahaan di Indonesia. Hal ini banyak dikeluhkan oleh akuntan publik di luar Jakarta dan Surabaya. Perusahaan umumnya menawar jasa audit serendah-rendahnya, namun sering royal untuk membayar jasa konsultan pajak dengan harga tinggi. KAP yang berpegang teguh pada kualitas umumnya menolak pekerjaan audit bila memang audit fee yang ditawarkan terlalu rendah, namun selalu saja ada akuntan publik nekad atau bahkan akuntan publik palsu yang bersedia menerima pekerjaan tersebut. Seperti telur dan ayam, akuntan publik mengeluhkan susahnya mendapatkan klienn yang bersedia membayar audit fee agar jasa yang mereka berikan dapat berkualitas, sementara perusahaan juga mengeluhkan bahwa jasa audit yang diberikan akuntan publik kurang memberikan nilai tambah bagi perbaikan perusahaan sehingga akhirnya mereka menawar murah.


Pentingnya Pencitraan Profesi


Minimnya role model di industri ini telah membuat para akuntan muda dan junior auditor tidak tertarik untuk terus mendalaminya. Bila ilmu Fisika yang rumit memiliki Yohannes Surya, Profesi Psikiater memiliki Dadang Hawari, Profesi Pengacara memiliki Adnan Buyung Nasution, bahkan telematika memiliki Roy Suryo, siapa yang mewakili wajah profesi akuntan? Role model ini sangat penting untuk membuat profesi ini menarik. Yang terjadi malah kebalikannya, para partner di KAP atau direktur keuangan mengeluhkan bahwa anak-anak mereka tidak tertarik untuk berprofesi sebagai akuntan apalagi setelah mereka memperhatikan orangtuanya yang sering pulang larut malam terutama pada akhir bulan dan akhir tahun.

Lihatlah dalam film ataupun sinetron Indonesia, para akuntan di perusahaan biasanya dicitrakan sebagai orang yang kaku, kikuk, berkacamata tebal. Profesi ini jarang sekali diliput oleh media masa. Segala sesuatu yang berbau akuntansi seakan kurang seksi untuk dimuat, kecuali kabar buruk seperti implementasi PSAK 50 dan PSAK 55 yang menghebohkan perbankan beberapa waktu lalu. Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia dan Ikatan Akuntan Publik Indonesia harus bahu membahu membangun citra profesi yang positif sehingga mampu menarik mereka dengan kemampuan terbaik (best talents) ke Industri ini.


Peningkatan Sisi Permintaan


Pemerintah harus benar-benar serius dalam menguatkan industri akuntan publik karena kuatnya industri ini merupakan soft infrastructure negara untuk meningkatkan transparansi, akuntabilitas bisnis di Indonesia. Banyak peraturan dan undang-undang yang mewajibkan perusahaan diaudit namun miskin penegakkan. Peraturan Menteri Perindustrian dan Perdagangan No 121/2002 yang mewajibkan perusahaan dengan aset diatas Rp. 25 milyar untuk melaporkan laporan keuangan auditan. Namun setiap tahun yang melapor paling hanya sekitar 2000 perusahaan. UU No 40/2007 Perseroan Terbatas mewajibkan PT dengan aset diatas Rp.50 milyar untuk diaudit, namun lagi-lagi tidak jelas siapa yang mengawasi dan menjatuhkan sanksi bila ada yang melanggar hal ini. KepMen Koperasi dan UKM No 91/2004 juga mewajibkan koperasi jasa keuangan syari’ah dengan total aset diatas Rp.1 Milyar untuk diaudit, namun penegakkan peraturan ini juga tidak jelas. Praktis hanya Bapepam LK dan Bank Indonesia yang secara konsisten memonitor perusahaan dalam pengawasannya dalam hal laporan keuangan auditan.

Seperti produk dan jasa-jasa lainnya, pemerintah juga bisa berpartisipasi untuk memasarkan jasa ini ke masyarakat awam. Mungkin slogan “Laporan Keuangan tidak diaudit, Apa kata dunia?” dapat meningkatkan awareness masyarakat. Landasan hukum yang jelas hanyalah langkah awal untuk menguatkan profesi akuntan publik, kerja keras masih panjang untuk mengemas industri ini menjadi menarik baik dari segi permintaan maupun penawaran.