This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com

« IASB Tried to Keep its Greek Bond Letter a Secret – But it Leaked! | Main | Why Do Accounting Academics Blog Less Than Other Academics? »

October 03, 2011

Comments

Steve

It's my understanding that the revisions to IAS 19 was based on the premise that IASB would require a single comprehensive income statement at the same time.
We all know the latter goal was never fully achieved (Company still has a choice of showing OIC in a separate statements)
It is very puzzling to me why IASB decided to disallow recycling of OCI (on several occasions), while at the same time they admitted that they can't explain what OCI is, but they feel comfortable to put some gains or losses there and never hit P&L. Quite extraordinary thinking there!
This just further my belief that more and more IASB board members look like accounting experts on the resume, but don't quite understand (or at least articulate ) the accounting consequences they are discussing at the meetings.

Independent Accountant

TS:
Pardon my stupidity, but I fail to see how this is any better than SFAS 87. I think SFAS 87 stinks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com