This blog has moved to:

« SEC IFRS Roundtable Debrief: March of the Zombies | Main | The Hans Hoogervorst IFRS Sales Pitch Hits the Road »

July 11, 2011



Is this another case of the Obama administration hemming and hawing, but ultimately adopting another Bush administration position? Shapiro's rhetoric when she took office was very skeptical of IFRS, but the SEC seems to be arriving at Cox's position after a lot of dithering.

That said, I've heard conflicting reaction to the round tables. One view is that the investors were essentially indifferent (they make so many adjustments to GAAP as it is), the small issuers were against it, and so was NASBA. IFRS requires a lot of disclosure, so perhaps analysts are comfortable they'll be able to gather what they need from the notes, and so are just going with the flow, but wouldn't be greatly saddened if the US sticks with US GAAP. Small issuers are obviously concerned about cost, and if investors are indifferent, the small issuer views ought to prevail, at least for them.


Europeans see it completely different. To sum up they would respond to you "Don't be afraid; your country will go for condorsement and not endorsement.This will leave the US all the latitude to influence IFRSs for the benefits of the US at the detriment of Europeans."

My guts tell me that when two groups are that opposed in the way they interpret a situation both are wrong. But maybe you can reconcile the two views and explain further why in Europe leaders well that they are being cheated by americans.

With kind regards,



IFRS is totally [expletive deleted].
If you go to those countries that "adopted" IFRS, you'll find that IFRS is different in each country because they change some of them to "suit" their own country's situation. So let's have our own IFRS: US GAAP.

Plus, IASB stepped back recently regarding applying fair market value rule to those European bonds due to the pressure of EU. I don't think it's a good idea to use some accounting rules in US from an organization that is back off due to political reasons in Europe.


Well David nicely said.

But europeans think exactly the same about americans. The US has numerous US citiazens in the board of the IASB - those board members are those who take the decisions. But strangely the US is not applying the IFRS. On the other hand the EU has no means to impose a political pressure on the IASB: it can only complain laudly that the IASB is running after you, icnreainsg fair value at the expense of amortised cost. If there is any kind of pressure it is surely not political but cultural.

Accounting is a cultural language that tries to reflect the way the economy is funded. In Europe 80% of the economy is funded via bank loans. In the US it the contrary: 75% is done via financial markets.

Therefore you want reliable data for investors in order to offset the risk that managers cheat.
European Banks want relevant data because they know their clients very well and have been following them for years. for them relevant means to avoid artifical volatility in their balance sheet.

The IASB proposes something that does not please anyone and that means it is a good compromise. It is a mixed measurement model. half fair value, half amortised cost (well in realty it is 3/4 FV but thisis another issue)

The aim is not to hurt any business model but to work with both of them.

Unfortuntely the financial crisis is not finished and banks is both sides want to use regulatory arbitrage to win market share. You see it with basel III and you see it also with IFRS

Against this background The US cannot let the accounting issue slip through its hands especially when canada will apply IFRS, Mexico also and China + japan are moving forward. Yes it is true China, Japan, India will use their own IFRS dialect but the cultural framework of IFRS will be at its core IFRS and not US GAAPs. Too risky for the big investement banks in the US who control de facto the policy making of your country (well in europe it is the same)

If I was to compare the merit of both accounting systems I tend to prefer IFRS because it is my cultural bias. I compare how you recognise revenus in US GAAP, treat leases, address accounting for financial instruments or insurances and I conclude that although the IASB is lost in the review of most of them in terms of concepts IFRS appear better. please do not tell me that the treatment of leasing is sound in US would be ridiculous.

To summarise: you just do not want to change what you are used to. We europeans were forced to. Accounting IS political for god sake. It is a language. You want your rules that you know and you cannot change your mindframe because for you using principles will mean that accounting will not be reliable anymore.

For us it will not be relevant anymore.

it can be both. But it will be hard to achieve it because of the need to find extra revenus for banks in both sides of the atlantic.

If I may make an analogy there is a similar issue in comparative law. We continental europeans have law codes. You have cases. When I met 4 years ago for the first time British bankers and dicuss basel requirements and how they are going to be applied in the EU I was appalled by what appeared to me as a lack of logic.

They had three concerns. For me all those concerns were only one. It took me some time to understand that for them they were not one single issue but really three different cases.

In the end we all know that the US is going for "condorsement". You will keep you cultural influence, and try benefit from regulatory arbitrage. It is the interest of the big US banks and investement firms. You will try to introduce more securitization into the funding of european SMEs and take some market share in this field. I can tell you that already law firms in London paris and frankfurt are hiring in this respect.

In addition the very probable solution will be that IFRS will be applicable only for listed companies and amongst them only for those who are listed outside the US.

What a big change.They already publish in IFRS... Dissing the SEC is useless because politically the US has to go for some kind of IFRS. my point is that you are going to play it very nicely and maybe you will win. You have powerful allies in europe: the british and the dutch. Hoogervorst is dutch. Board members are anglo-saxons by culture. But Commisionner barnier is french.

he is your ennemy. Not the SEC. maybe you can still turn him into an ally but for that you will need to stop playing the bully in regulatory negociations. basel III? not applied in the US. and FATCA? What a horrible proposal.

It is incredible that you only see one part of the picture and are not interested in udnerstanding the other camp. You are not living in an isolated island anymore and people ressent it.

When talking about IFRS please first read other point of view and take them into account. Addressing IFRS from a US only pespective is not relevant anymore. really, not anymore.

kind regards,


The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog has moved to: