What have IASB and FASB convergence efforts achieved?

What have IASB and FASB convergence efforts achieved?


Paul Pacter CPA, Ph.D. served as a member of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from July 2010 to December 2012. At the end of his term on the Board, he wrote the following article.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this opinion piece, former International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) member Paul Pacter describes the accomplishments of the convergence project undertaken in 2002 by the IASB and FASB. He says many standards have converged, and IFRS have been improved as a result of the process.

On a standard-by-standard basis, results of convergence have been mixed, Pacter says. Some standards have been improved. Some have not changed because the boards couldn’t agree on a converged solution. And a few—revenue recognition, leases, and financial instruments—remain under development.

According to Pacter, although progress has been made through convergence, adoption of IFRS for U.S. financial reporting is the ultimate goal. He says adoption is the best approach for any jurisdiction.

For nearly 40 years, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its predecessor, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), have been working to develop a set of high-quality, understandable, and enforceable International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to serve equity investors, lenders, creditors, and others in globalized capital markets. When the IASB took over from the IASC in 2001, few countries had adopted International Accounting Standards (as IFRS were then called) even for cross-border public sales of securities, let alone for domestic public companies.

That all changed—and quite dramatically—with two events. First, in 2000, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) endorsed IFRS for cross-border securities offerings in the world’s capital markets. Then, in 2002, the European Union made the bold decision to require IFRS for all companies listed on a regulated European stock exchange starting in 2005. Those events started a snowball rolling, to the point where today roughly 100 countries require IFRS or a national word-for-word equivalent for all or most listed companies.

Almost from the outset, a key goal of the IASB and the IFRS Foundation, under which the IASB operates, has been to bring the United States on board. In a plenary address at the World Congress of Accountants in 2002, Paul Volcker, the first chairman of the Foundation’s trustees, said: “I do not think it reasonable today, if it ever was, to take the position that U.S. GAAP should, de facto, be the standards for the entire world. Rather, the International Accounting Standards Board, whose oversight trustees I chair, is now working closely with national standard setters throughout the world to develop common solutions to the accounting challenges of the day. The aim is to find a consensus on clearly defined principles, and I am delighted that the American authorities appear sympathetic to that objective.”

In October 2002, the IASB and FASB signed a memorandum of understanding that has come to be known as the “Norwalk Agreement.” The two boards pledged to use their best efforts to (a) make their existing financial reporting standards “fully compatible as soon as is practicable” and (b) “to coordinate their future work programs to ensure that once achieved, compatibility is maintained.” “Fully compatible” was generally understood to mean that compliance with U.S. GAAP would also result in compliance with IFRS. That is, the standards would be aligned though not identical.

With the Norwalk Agreement, the boards launched a series of both short-term and longer-term convergence projects aimed at eliminating differences in the two sets of standards. The two boards agreed that where either IFRS or U.S. GAAP had the clearly preferable standard, the other board would adopt that standard. And where both boards’ standards needed improvement, the boards would work jointly on an improved standard.

The Norwalk Agreement has been updated several times since 2002, but always with the objective of two sets of standards that were converged in principle if not in words. The IFRS-U.S. GAAP convergence approach has been repeatedly endorsed by global financial leaders such as the G-20 as an important step on the path toward a single set of global accounting standards.

In November 2007 an important milestone was achieved toward use of IFRS in the United States when the SEC eliminated the requirement that a foreign issuer using IFRS must present a reconciliation of IFRS measures of profit or loss and owner’s equity to amounts that would have been reported under U.S. GAAP. In their comment letter on the SEC proposal that led to removal of the reconciliation, FASB and the Financial Accounting Foundation wrote:

Investors would be better served if all U.S. public companies used accounting standards promulgated by a single global standard setter as the basis for preparing their financial reports. This would be best accomplished by moving U.S. public companies to an improved version of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

So, where are we today after 10 years of convergence work? Some convergence projects have been completed successfully as envisioned—aligned principles even if the words differed. Others have been completed with partial success—some progress toward converged standards, but some differences remain. And some convergence projects either were discontinued or resulted in different IASB and FASB standards because, in the end, the two boards just could not agree. Some convergence projects continue to this day, including such major projects as revenue recognition, leases, and financial instruments.

At this point, it is reasonable to sit back and ask two fundamental questions about each of those convergence projects:

1. Have IFRS and U.S. GAAP been converged?

2. Even if convergence was not successfully achieved, has IFRS been improved?

The accompanying table, “Results of Convergence,” sets out my admittedly subjective views about the success of convergence and the resulting improvements to IFRS for each of the projects listed in the various agreements between the IASB and FASB. As a final thought, I would add that convergence may have been the most realistic way to initiate the use of IFRS in the United States, but such an arrangement is not sustainable in the long term. Rather, the best approach for any jurisdiction is outright adoption of IFRS. As the trustees of the IFRS Foundation said recently in the report of their 2011 Strategy Review:

As the body tasked with achieving a single set of improved and globally accepted high quality accounting standards, the IFRS Foundation must remain committed to the long-term goal of the global adoption of IFRSs as developed by the IASB, in their entirety and without modification. Convergence may be an appropriate short-term strategy for a particular jurisdiction and may facilitate adoption over a transitional period. Convergence, however, is not a substitute for adoption. Adoption mechanisms may differ among countries and may require an appropriate period of time to implement but, whatever the mechanism, it should enable and require relevant entities to state that their financial statements are in full compliance with IFRSs as issued by the IASB.

Adoption is the only way to achieve a single set of global financial reporting standards—an objective that both the IASB and FASB have publicly endorsed on many occasions.

Click here to read "Results of Convergence: A Look at the Outcome of Key Joint IASB/FASB Projects"

2012 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments

The AICPA Conference summaries are always a source of information that will keep companies out of trouble in financial reporting.

Following is Ernst & Young's brief summary of their longer documnet.

 

Representatives of the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the FASB and the IASB shared their views on various accounting, auditing, and reporting issues at the three-day AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments (Conference) in December 2012 in Washington D.C.

 

Highlights of their comments included: 

• The SEC is continuing to evaluate whether further analysis relative to whether and, if so, when and how to incorporate IFRS into the US financial reporting system is necessary. SEC officials advised stakeholders to “stay tuned.” Various SEC and FASB speakers discussed the importance of the US setting its own accounting standards while continuing to work with the IASB to improve comparability and narrow differences in the standards.
• Various speakers commended the outreach performed by the FASB and IASB and their progress on the convergence projects. Several speakers focused on the need for coordination when developing implementation guidance (e.g., on revenue recognition). Speakers from the FASB stressed the need for timely interpretive guidance to help during implementation and post-implementation.
• SEC and PCAOB officials stressed the importance of audit quality to the capital markets and the relevance of inspection findings, particularly findings pertaining to internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). Some inspection findings could have implications for preparers in their own evaluations of ICFR. PCAOB officials also said they are considering feedback on mandatory audit firm rotation while taking other steps to improve auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism.
• The SEC staff discussed year-end financial statement considerations and the staff’s areas of focus in its reviews of filings, including revenue recognition disclosures, the valuation of deferred tax assets and observations related to the new fair value disclosures.
• Various panelists commented on the need to evaluate disclosure requirements, particularly the dividing line between the footnotes to the financial statements and the rest of the financial reporting package (e.g., MD&A). SEC Acting Chief Accountant Paul Beswick said he plans to host a roundtable in 2013 to better understand these concerns.

EY's publication, 2012 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, discusses the Conference in detail.

Future of IFRS

Recently the IASB published a paper on its future priorities.

In their “feedback statement”, the IASB lists input it received from the public on the future of IFRS. They organized the responses into five broad themes from the more than 240 comment letters it received. 

1. Provide a period of calm after a decade of almost continuous change in financial reporting.
2. Prioritize work on the Conceptual Framework, which would provide a consistent and practical basis for standard setting.
3. Make some targeted improvements in the needs of new adopters of IFRS.
4. Pay greater attention to the implementation and maintenance of the Standards.
5. Improve the way in which the IASB develops new standards, by conducting more rigorous cost-benefit analysis and problem definition earlier on in the standard-setting process. 

The Board also set out five priority near-term research projects. These are:

 

• Emissions Trading Schemes;
• Business Combinations under Common Control;
• Discount Rates;
• Equity Method of Accounting;
• Intangible Assets; Extractive Activities; and Research & Development Activities;
• Financial Instruments with the Characteristics of Equity;
• Foreign Currency Translation;
• Non-financial Liabilities (amendments to IAS 37); and
• Financial Reporting in High Inflationary Economies.

 

You can read the full report here.

Disclosure Overload: FASB Project Comments

A lot of recent commentary exists on the subject of disclosure overload.

 

Recently the FASB has begun to focus on this topic. "Streamlining Disclosures" has become subject of various initiatives, including a recent round-table discussions this conducted by FASB and the Center for Audit Quality.

 

FASB has also initiated a Disclosure Framework project "to improve the effectiveness of disclosures in notes to financial statements by clearly communicating the information that is most important to users of each entity’s financial statements. Although reducing the volume of notes to financial statements is not the primary focus, the Board hopes that a sharper focus on important information will result in reduced volume in most cases."

 

"Boilerplate" and non-material disclosure have been said to be "noise" that obscures the real information that readers of financial information really need.

 

FASB published an Invitation to Comment (ITC) on this topic last July 12. They asked stakeholders to comment on whether and how disclosures in the footnotes to financial statements can be made more effective. The comment period ended Nov. 16.

Some of the questions:

• Do the decision questions in this chapter and the related indicated disclosures encompass all of the information appropriate for notes to financial statements that is necessary to assess entities’ prospects for future cash flows?
• Do any of the decision questions or the related indicated disclosures identify information that is not appropriate for notes to financial statements or not necessary to assess entities’ prospects for future cash flows?

Commentors said unnecessary disclosures can prevent users from finding the information they need, obscure the real information and waste prepares' time, money, and create undesirable environmental outcomes, i.e. too much paper.  

The FASB received 83 comment letters. Some comments: 

 

• Issuers should only provide relevant disclosures
• Disclosures should have a narrower focus that "could be useful to investors"
• Concern over the risk of litigation or regulatory action because preparers omit information previously provided. 
• Avoid using the term "relevance" 
• Watch the SEC's requirements, i.e. no point to reducing GAAP disclosures if the SEC imposes more specific requirements
• "The uses of boiler plate disclosures and reliance on checklists have inundated both the public and private sector as the volume and complexity of reporting requirements have increased significantly over the years. We believe having the flexibility to apply professional judgment will substantially reduce unnecessary disclosures."
• "We believe that preparers' judgment should instead be focused on what is material to the company based on a set of flexible disclosure requirements. Enabling flexibility, based upon materiality, would result in the right balance of providing relevant information while maintaining comparability."


• "Disclosure overload and complexity are the two aspects of financial reporting that financial statement users and preparers, large or small, agree on: There is too much of both."

This will be interesting to watch over the next few years. Don't expect a quick reduction in disclosures for this year's 10-Ks!

 

 

500 Foreign Firms Still use U.S. GAAP U.S. Regulatory Filings

Good article by Emily Chasan of the WSJ.


The Big Number: 500

That’s the approximate number of foreign firms that use U.S. accounting standards in U.S. regulatory filings.

Some foreign companies that file financial reports with U.S. securities regulators are having trouble freeing themselves from U.S. accounting standards.

Five years ago the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to let U.S.-listed foreign companies that use International Financial Reporting Standards stop having to reconcile their financial statements with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. But about 500 companies, or roughly half of the 1,000 foreign companies listed on a U.S. exchange, still submit their filings using the U.S. standards.

Some companies still must reconcile their home country’s accounting rules with U.S. GAAP, “but that number is shrinking in favor of companies that switch” to IFRS, Craig Olinger, deputy chief accountant in the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, said recently at a Financial Executives International conference.

More than 100 countries currently use IFRS. European companies, which have been using those standards since 2005, are the largest group using international rules for U.S. filings. Canada, which accounts for the biggest number of foreign SEC-registered companies, should soon have more companies using international rules for their U.S. filings after switching to IFRS last year. Some of the 340 Canadian companies that file with the SEC still reconcile their results to U.S. GAAP, Mr. Olinger said.

U.S. regulators still haven’t decided whether U.S. companies should be able to report using IFRS, and the successor to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro will play a large role in that discussion. A widely anticipated study by the SEC’s staff earlier this year didn’t make any formal recommendations on the matter. Mr. Olinger said the SEC staff stays up to speed on trends in IFRS and performs reviews of filings in international standards at the same level that it inspects those done in U.S. GAAP

Significant vs Material

Often the terms “significant” and “material” are used interchangeably. This can course a lot of confusion. The SEC once took a company to task asking why they used this explanation of a contingency:

“You disclose...that you do not expect the ultimate conclusion of any of the proceedings to which you are a party to have a “significant adverse effect” on your financial statements and you have not disclosed the contingent liabilities associated with these claims either because they cannot be “reasonably” estimated or because such disclosure could be prejudicial to the conduct of the claims. Please revise your future filings...to more clearly confirm that you believe the ultimate conclusion of any of the proceedings to which you are a party will not have a “material” adverse effect to your results of operations, cash flows, or financial position.


Why the distinction between "material" and "significant"? To help with understanding the difference between "significnant" and "material" , the following comes from a paper on the IASB 2008 Annual Improvements Process, Comment Letter Analysis:

Significant vs Material

As mentioned above...some respondents asked for further clarification of the Board’s intentions in changing material to significant.

According to paragraph 30 of the Framework:

“Information is material if its omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements. Materiality depends on the size of the item or error judged in the particular circumstances of its omission or misstatement. Thus, materiality provides a threshold or cut-off point rather than being a primary qualitative characteristic which information must have if it is to be useful.”

“Significant, on the other hand, is not a defined term in IFRSs but is used throughout IFRSs to denote the degree of importance or relevance, eg significant costs (IAS 16) significant increase in turnover rates (IAS 19), significant period of time (IFRS 2).”

“Some respondents questioned whether it is possible to have a material change in the number of employees that is not significant. The staff notes that it is not meaningful to say there is a ‘material’ change in the number of employees in IAS 19 since the standard does not require that number to be disclosed in the financial statements.”

Clear as mud?

US GAAP Requirement for Push Down Accounting

Had a recent comment that push down accounting wasn not mandatory under USGAAP, rather is was simply permitted in certain circumstances. In response to that previous comment, the FASB requirement for push down accounting is 805-50-S99-1. Readers of this part of the Codification will need to pay careful attention to the answer in question1, and not jump to conclusions that push down accounting is allowed (see question 2).

Following is the text of SAB Topic 5.J, New Basis of Accounting Required in Certain Circumstances.
Facts: Company A (or Company A and related persons) acquired substantially all of the common stock of Company B in one or a series of purchase transactions.

Question 1: Must Company B's financial statements presented in either its own or Company A's subsequent filings with the Commission reflect the new basis of accounting arising from Company A's acquisition of Company B when Company B's separate corporate entity is retained?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The staff believes that purchase transactions that result in an entity becoming substantially wholly owned (as defined in Rule 1-02(aa) of Regulation S-X) establish a new basis of accounting for the purchased assets and liabilities.

When the form of ownership is within the control of the parent the basis of accounting for purchased assets and liabilities should be the same regardless of whether the entity continues to exist or is merged into the parent's operations. Therefore, Company B's separate financial statements should reflect the new basis of accounting recorded by Company A upon acquisition (i.e., "pushed down" basis).