This blog has moved to:

« XBRL at the SEC: Investors Want More Data To Go With the Better Formatting | Main | The Revisions to IFRS 3: Bad Enough to Abandon Faith in IFRS? »

June 09, 2008


Independent Accountant

I couldn't have said it any better.


"I know we can count on the Chinese and Europeans to come up with reasonable answers on technical issues like disclosing related party transactions, *securitizations*, hedging, contingent liabilities, business combinations, and about the twenty other things that really aren't so good about IFRS."

(Emphasis supplied).

There may be securitization issues that need to be looked at in IFRS, but at least IFRS got rid of QSPEs a while back. I notice that it took the biggest financial disaster this side of the Great Depression for the FASB to muster enough courage to tackle that particular issue. I'm sure the reason is that until now the existence of QSPEs was in the best interest of investors!

Big 4 Guru

Great post. This is indeed an exciting time in the accounting world - for better or worse.
My concern is primarily for U.S. firms with no foreign operations or competitors. IFRS will be all cost and no benefit. The general argument that U.S. convergence to IFRS is necessary for U.S. multinationals to remain players in the global marketplace is ridiculous. I echo the thoughts on convergence being an outright boon for auditors. I would add that since the SOX ramp-up there was also the fair-value ramp-up. Now it will be the IFRS cash cow. Oh boy.

Independent Accountant

I have followed the QSPE issue closely. I concluded the problem is not with the FASB, but the Big Four which failed to force their clients to properly account for QSPEs. I've said so at my blog.


Great Post and very valuable information.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog has moved to: