Comprehensive Income Options: A Detriment To Transparency

Abstract

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 1997 compromised its belief that comprehensive income (CI) should be listed either in a combined statement of net income and CI or in a separate statement of CI and allowed corporations to choose using the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity (SCSE). Of course, the latter option implies just as Jordan and Clark (2002) suggest, that CI is not a measure of financial performance. Studies incorporating professional analysts by Hirst and Hopkins (1998) and a study of nonprofessional investors by Maines and McDaniel (2000) both conclude that format presentation matters and behaviors can be affected. We believe that FASB should revisit the format structure of CI and eliminate the SCSE option, which was their initial intent before they compromised with corporate managers in 1997. In addition, we believe that all items of other comprehensive income (OCI) – foreign currency translation adjustment, pension value adjustments and adjustment to securities-for-sale should be presented on an after-tax basis only in order to prevent investors from being forced to comb through the footnotes.