This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com

« A Much Needed Accounting Lesson for Two Senators | Main | Peeling the Onion on the Accounting for Greek Bonds »

August 18, 2011

Comments

Warren D. Miller, CFA, CPA

Great stuff, as always, Tom. Thank you for your insights.

I have a solution for the "three sets of rules" problem you raised. Why not have separate credentialing exams and, thereby, separate certificates and licenses for each set of rules, but with the restriction that a given individual can be licensed only in one set? That would force some hard choices. Doing otherwise, however, seems to me to be the accounting equivalent of allowing one doctor to specialize in cardiology, proctology, and ophthalmology. It's insane. But then, so is this whole one-size-fits-all IFRS thing. Haven't we learned from the gratuitous failure of the U.N., another seductive idea that would surely bring world peace? Good grief.

I believe that forcing individuals to make choices would point up the idiocy of the whole exercise. . .except to the likes of E&Y and AICPA, which, in reality, speak with one voice. AICPA is the puppet, E&Y is the puppeteer.

Ken Kobylenski

EY's muted support for a "US flavor of IFRS" contrasts with PWC's IFRS orthodoxy: "PwC believes that the SEC should continue working with the FASB and IASB to determine the best means of ultimately transitioning US companies to IFRS on a mandatory basis."

Since FASB did not roll over to the IASB this summer on the transparent presentation issue of Derivatives netting, it seems unlikely that US GAAP will ever be the same as IFRS, nor that US co's would welcome an option for "pure IFRS" if they can get a US GAAP brand of "almost IFRS, not quite" with exceptions to their liking.

K O'M

Something to remember is that from the perspective of the Big 4, the convergence project has already generated a fair amount of work, or at least the potential for it. Standards over leasing, revenue recognition, and financial reporting are substantially changed, so there is less risk for the firms to walk back from their previous stance and advocate for something less than full adoption of IFRS.

Colin Davenport FCCA @Accountants in Birmingham

Interesting article you have, I've been reading upon this. The SEC staff paper should incorporate the two most prevalent methods of IFRS incorporation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com