Answer
Despite the fact that the ARBs issued by the CAP limited the scope of alternative practices to some degree, the CAP's problem-by-problem approach neglected to give a well-defined, organized group of accounting rules that were both required and wanted. Therefore, the CAP was replaced by the APB.
The APB had more responsibility and authority than CAP had. Tragically, the APB was ambushed all through its 14-year presence. It experienced harsh criticism early, accused of the absence of productivity and neglecting to act promptly to address asserted accounting mishandles. The APB likewise met a great deal of industry and CPA firm resistance and occasional federal interference while handling various prickly accounting issues. In dread of federal standard making, the accounting profession examined the ineffectualness of the APB and supplanted it with the FASB.
Learning from the prior altercation, the FASB has a few noteworthy contrasts from the APB. The FASB has (1) less participation, (2) full-time, remunerated enrollment, (3) more prominent self-sufficiency, (4) expanded independence, and (5) broader representation.
Work Step by Step
What's more, the FASB has its research staff and depends on the expertise of different task force teams formed for different projects. These features form the desires for progress and support from the members of the public. Moreover, the due process taken by the FASB in creating financial standards gives interested people ample time to make their perspectives known. Thus, the FASB is receptive to the requirements and perspectives of the whole economic network, not simply the public accounting profession alone.
