What it means
American accounting rules did not appear fully formed; they accreted one controversy at a time, and from 1959 to 1973 the body issuing the verdicts was the Accounting Principles Board. The APB was the American Institute of CPAs' own committee, and its formal rulings, the Opinions, told practitioners how to account for everything from leases to income taxes.
Thirty-one Opinions appeared over fourteen years, and while some were narrow technical fixes, a few, like the rules on business combinations and the income statement, shaped reporting for decades. The board inherited its predecessor's frustration, since the earlier Committee on Accounting Procedure had issued research bulletins with little power and the APB was meant to bring more authority and research.
Authority stayed its weak point, because membership was part-time, dominated by practising accountants, and Opinions often emerged as compromises that industries could live with rather than principles they feared. Two sagas defined its decline: fights over investment tax credit accounting and business combinations showed a board that could be rolled by lobbyists, and confidence drained away.
The Wheat Study delivered the verdict, as its 1972 report recommended a full-time, independent board, and in 1973 the Financial Accounting Standards Board took over. The Opinions did not vanish at the handover, because the FASB adopted many as continuing GAAP, and some APB rules survived in the codified standards for years afterward.
Today the term is mostly historical: accountants meet APB Opinions when tracing why an old rule reads the way it does, or when studying how standard setting evolved. The institutional lesson outlived the institution, since the FASB's structure of full-time members, independence from the profession's trade body and public due process is a direct answer to the APB's failures.
Standard setting globally borrowed the lesson, with independent, full-time boards using public consultation becoming the template, from the UK's reforms to the creation of the IASB. The era's paperwork still surfaces in due diligence, as acquirers combing through decades-old financial statements meet pooling entries and unamortised goodwill whose logic only an APB Opinion explains.
For students, the numbering alone repays attention, because seeing 'APB 25' in an old filing is a signpost that the accounting predates modern treatment and deserves translation before analysis. For a manager, the story explains a quirk of the rulebook: US GAAP is a layered archaeology, and the APB Opinions are one of its oldest visible strata.
The Opinions also remind readers that rules are political, since every standard carries the imprint of who was in the room, and the APB era made that imprint impossible to ignore.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
APB Opinion No. 17 required purchased goodwill to be amortised, a rule that stood until the FASB replaced amortisation with annual impairment testing decades later. Acquirers in that era planned their deals knowing the yearly charge would reduce reported earnings.
Example
APB Opinion No. 25 let companies avoid expensing most stock options. The controversy it created burned until the FASB mandated option expensing in 2004, long after the board that wrote the rule had disappeared.
Example
An accounting historian tracing the revenue-recognition rulebook finds the foundations laid by APB-era pronouncements, folded into later codification. The historian can follow a modern paragraph back through the standards that built it, one Opinion at a time.
Formula
Calculation
There is no formula for the Opinions as a whole. The working mechanics were institutional: the APB commissioned research, debated exposure drafts, and issued numbered Opinions that practitioners were expected to follow, with departures requiring justification in audit reports until the FASB assumed the role in 1973.
One Opinion does produce a simple calculation. APB Opinion No. 17 required purchased goodwill to be amortised over a period not exceeding 40 years. If a company bought a business and recorded $4,000,000 of goodwill, the maximum-period charge was $4,000,000 / 40 = $100,000 a year against earnings. Under the pooling method of APB Opinion No. 16, the same deal recorded no goodwill, so the annual charge was $0 and reported profit was $100,000 a year higher.Case study
Seen in the real world.
A made-up conglomerate, Westmark Industries, pools two acquisitions in 1971 under the pooling-of-interests method allowed by APB Opinion No. 16. This case study is fictional and illustrative. Decades later, its successor company's accountants still explain the deal's absence of goodwill by pointing back to that Opinion.
When a new owner reviews the old statements in due diligence, the analysts ask why the balance sheet shows no acquisition goodwill for deals that clearly cost real money. The answer sits in the footnotes: the pooling method carried the acquired companies over at their book values, so no premium was ever recorded. The analysts adjust their comparison to rivals that used purchase accounting, so that earnings and asset values can be compared fairly. The exercise takes a day of reading, and it shows why knowing the rule's origin saves time later.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Treating APB Opinions as current law; the FASB superseded the board in 1973 and its codification absorbed, amended or replaced the Opinions. Check current standards before relying on any APB rule.
- Confusing the APB with the FASB; one was a part-time committee of the accounting institute, the other an independent full-time board. The structural difference is the whole story.
- Assuming old means irrelevant; several APB-era rules shaped standards for decades. Knowing the lineage helps explain odd corners of today's GAAP.
Questions
People also ask.
What is an APB opinion?
A formal accounting ruling issued by the US Accounting Principles Board between 1959 and 1973, establishing generally accepted practice before the FASB replaced the board and its pronouncements.
Why was the APB replaced?
Criticism that its part-time, profession-led structure produced compromised rules under industry pressure led to the Wheat Study and the creation of the independent, full-time FASB in 1973.
Do any APB opinions still apply?
Most were superseded or absorbed into the FASB's codification, but the lineage survives: some APB-era rules influenced standards for decades, which is why the Opinions still appear in accounting history and research.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%Related