FASB vs IASB: Split on Lease Accounting

The US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) failed to reach a consensus for new lease accounting guidance Wednesday but vowed to continue working together in pursuit of consistency.

During two days of meetings at FASB’s headquarters in Norwalk, Conn., the boards failed to reach common answers on key areas of lessee and lessor accounting. In particular, the IASB favored a single approach for lessees for recognition of all leases, while FASB voted for a dual-recognition approach for lessees, depending on the type of lease.

The boards issued a joint statement saying they had agreed on areas such as lease term and short-term leases. The boards also pledged to continue working together on the standard.

“While differences remain, most notably in their preferred approaches to expense recognition, the boards are committed to working together to minimize these differences and to creating greater transparency around lease transactions for the benefit of investors worldwide,” the boards said.

The boards are attempting to create a converged standard that would eliminate a hidden liability for lessees by bringing leases onto corporate balance sheets. But they have struggled to agree on how to do it.

No consensus for lessee accounting

IASB members this week expressed a preference for lessees to account for all leases as the purchase of a right-of-use asset on a financed basis. In this “Type A” approach, a lessee would recognize amortization of the right-of-use asset separately from the interest on the lease liability for all leases.

FASB members preferred a dual-recognition approach for lessees that would use a Type A interest-and-amortization method for leases classified as capital leases under existing guidance, and a “Type B” single, straight-line lease expense for operating leases.

But there may still be a chance for convergence on this issue. FASB Chairman Russell Golden asked the FASB staff to work with the IASB staff to conduct research that would help the boards understand the effects of a possible exception that would permit preparers not to apply the proposed standard’s requirements to leases of small, nonspecialized assets.

The IASB voted for the so-called small-ticket exception, while FASB voted against it. Golden asked for the staff research in hopes that a better understanding of the exception could lead to convergence, which could cause the boards to agree on a preferred method of expense recognition.

FASB member Tom Linsmeier said he would be more inclined to consider the Type A-only approach for lessees if the boards abandon the small-ticket exception.

Sticking point for lessor accounting

On lessor accounting, meanwhile, the boards agreed to keep standards similar to current guidance but couldn’t agree on one important detail. They agreed that lessors should classify their leases as Type A or Type B based on whether the lease is effectively a financing or a sale rather than an operating lease.

But the IASB preferred to make that determination by assessing whether the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the underlying asset.

FASB preferred to make the leases guidance consistent with the requirements for a sale in the soon-to-be-issued revenue recognition standard. FASB’s approach would preclude recognition of selling profit and revenue at lease commencement for any Type A lease that does not transfer control of the underlying asset to the lessee.

The core principle of the new revenue recognition standard will be that revenue should be recognized to depict a transfer of promised goods or services to the customer.

Despite the disagreement on lessor accounting, some IASB members said they could accept the FASB approach, with IASB Chairman Hans Hoogervorst holding a “swing vote” that Golden suggested could move the lessor accounting decision to a converged answer in the future.

Before the boards parted, Golden thanked IASB members and said the boards ought to work together on the definition of a lease, disclosures, and other aspects of the leases proposal.

“We will continue to work together to improve accounting in this area, to continue to meet our objective,” Golden said, “and I hope to continue to minimize any differences.”

The boards have been working since 2006 to come to agreement on a leases standard. Their second exposure draft on the topic, issued in 2013, caused many preparers and some investors to question the benefits of the information—and the costs—the proposal would have generated.

By Ken Tysiac at JofA

Can Companies Smooth-Talk Investors?

Investors Prove Wise at Judging Self-Serving Earnings Explanations

Investors have proven to be sophisticated enough to dismiss implausible explanations from companies of their quarterly earnings results, according to a new study.

For example, a utility company might attribute their lower earnings to “warm weather and higher propane products costs,” while an insurance company might explain a good quarter by touting its “continued efforts on cost containment and operational efficiencies.” Self-serving attributions such as these, which typically blame outside factors for negative developments and claim that their own internal initiatives led to positive results, are a traditional part of corporate earnings reports and press releases. But that doesn’t mean investors generally believe them.

According to a new study in The Accounting Review, a journal of the American Accounting Association, market response to self-serving attributions depends in large part on two key tests of plausibility—how badly the company’s industry peers are doing and what the study calls “commonality,” the extent to which market or industry forces drive a company’s earnings.

The difference proved to be dramatic when those two key tests were applied to the 94 companies in the study, which was conducted by Michael D. Kimbrough of the University of Maryland and Isabel Yanyan Wang of Michigan State University. Firms with average positive earnings surprises who made the highest-plausibility attributions had three-day above-market returns of 4.77 percent on average, whereas those that offered the lowest-plausibility reasons actually averaged a slight decline of 0.79 percent. Meanwhile, among firms with average negative surprises, those with the lowest-plausibility attributions sustained average declines of 5.11 percent, while those with the highest-probability excuses had declines of only 1.42 percent.

“Firms which provide defensive attributions to explain earnings disappointments experience less severe market penalties when 1) more of the their industry peers also release bad news, and 2) their earnings share higher commonality with industry- and market-level earnings,” said the paper. “On the other hand, firms that provide enhancing attributions to explain good earnings news reap greater market rewards when 1) more of their industry peers release bad news, and 2) their earnings shares lower commonality with industry- and market-level earnings.”

 “Collectively, our results suggest that investors neither completely ignore seemingly self-serving attributions nor accept them at face value, but use industry- and firm-specific information to assess their plausibility,” the professors added. “Further analyses reveal that investors’ use of industry peer performance and earnings commonality information appears justified because investors’ perceptions are consistent with the association between the plausibility measures and the ex post actual persistence of earnings surprises.”

In sum, “investors are somewhat sophisticated when interpreting these narrative disclosures,” Kimbrough and Wang wrote:

“Our findings ought to be of value to both investors and corporate leaders,” said Wang in a statement. “Hopefully it will disabuse those executives who are counting on the naiveté of investors to let them get away with empty words or phony excuses in their public communications. For investors, it provides standards they will need to meet to keep up with the investment community at large.”

“The tools needed to apply those standards are certainly available to institutional investors, even though determining commonality is probably beyond the reach of individual stock-pickers,” said Kimbrough. “Still, even they should have the means to stack up the claims of a given company against its industry peers, which can go a long way in assessing the plausibility of the firm's performance narrative.”

The study's findings are based on an analysis of press releases and earnings reports of 94 randomly chosen firms, a roughly equal mix of small, medium and large, over a seven-year period. Sufficient data was obtained for a total of 1,790 firm quarters, 1,023 of which featured self-serving attributions and 767 of which did not. The self-serving classification was assigned to quarters when companies attributed their success in meeting or beating consensus forecasts to internal factors, such as management strategies or introduction of new products, or blamed a negative earnings surprise on external factors, such as bad weather or rising costs or regulatory actions. Firm-years in the self-serving category featured at least one such attribution and an average of three to four in a given earnings press release.

The authors found a significant relationship between the plausibility of self-serving attributions, as determined by industry performance and commonality, and the market-adjusted cumulative return of firms' stocks in the three days centered on earnings announcements. In reaching that conclusion, they controlled for an array of factors likely to affect the market’s response to earnings announcements, including the size of companies, the volatility of their stock, and their book-to-market ratio.

What kind of companies are likely to issue suspect attributions? Preliminary evidence suggests, in the words of the study, “Firms which provide less plausible attributions are larger and have higher likelihood of insider trading around earnings announcements, higher analyst following, higher institutional ownership, higher return volatility, and lower book-to-market ratio. These findings imply that managers with insider trading incentives and those facing greater capital market scrutiny are more likely to offer seemingly self-serving attributions even if they lack plausibility, consistent with the ‘opportunistic behavior’ view of capital markets.”

This view, according to the paper, finds “that capital-market scrutiny combined with the linking of manager compensation with stock prices creates pressure for managers to prop up prices by biasing financial reporting. To the extent capital-market pressure is greater for firms with higher analyst following and/or institutional ownership, the ‘opportunistic behavior’ argument suggests that greater analyst following and/or institutional ownership may increase managers’ tendency to provide implausible attributions to either mitigate market reactions to negative earnings surprises or to increase market rewards to positive surprises.”

Still, given the hazards of implausible attributions, as revealed by the new study, why would managers make them? It’s a matter of what they believe, Wang and Kimbrough wrote. “If managers believe there is a chance that investors might be persuaded by their implausible seemingly self-serving attributions, they are more likely to offer them even if ex post it turns out that investors can see through them.”

This article is by Michael Cohn in Accounting Today. The study, “Are Seemingly Self-Serving Attributions in Earnings Press Releases Plausible? Empirical Evidence,” appears in the March/April issue of The Accounting Review, published six times a year by the American Accounting Association.

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.

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?

Friendly Accounting at Facebook

This post is courtesy of the Accounting Onion


U. S. Senator Carl Levin recently spoke on the Senate floor, referencing the discrepancy between tax and accounting treatment of stock options in the (then upcoming) Facebook IPO:


"According to its filings, when Facebook goes public, Mr. [Mark] Zuckerberg plans to exercise options to purchase 120 million shares of stock for 6 cents a share. Mr. Zuckerberg's shares, obviously, are going to be worth a great deal more than 6 cents, a total of about $7 million; they will apparently be worth more than 600 times as much, something in the neighborhood of $5 billion.


Here's where the tax loophole comes in. Under current law, Facebook can – perfectly legally – tell investors, the public, and regulators that the stock options he received cost the company a mere 6 cents a share – that's the expense shown on the company's books. [This is wrong – see later.] But the company can also – perfectly legally – later file a tax return claiming that those same options cost the company something close to what the shares actually sell for later on – perhaps $40 a share. And the company can take a tax deduction for that far large [sic] amount. So the books show a highly profitable company – profitable, in part, because of the relatively small expense the company shows on its books for the stock options it grants to its employees. But when it comes time to pay taxes, to pay Uncle Sam, the loophole in the tax code allows the company to take a tax deduction for a far larger expense than they show on their books. …


Now, the end result is that a profitable U.S. corporation – a success story – could end up paying no taxes at all for years, even decades."
To Levin, the Facebook IPO is a dramatic illustration of an inequitable "loophole" in the tax law. As Levin and Sherrod would have it, Facebook's tax deduction for using stock options to compensate executives – as opposed to any other form of compensation – would be essentially zero (that's probably a little dramatic on my part, but the point is the same); yet, Zuckerberg's tax liability when he exercises the options could be somewhere in the area of $3 billion.


The strong implication of Levin's narrative is that the extra amount of expenses would have wiped out every dollar of Facebook's reported net income that it had ever 'earned.' On top of that, there could be other outstanding options held by Zuckerberg and other employees extending way down the organization, which are going to have the same effect on future reported net income.


Which brings me to my second question: For all practical purposes, could Zuckerberg be taking Facebook public at this point in time with no history of profitability, perhaps negative shareholders' equity, and perhaps no hopes for earnings for some for years to come?


My inclination is to say "no," but I can only speculate. So, I will answer that question with another question: Since the FASB's rules understate the economic cost of options granted to employees, did the FASB provide a perverse incentive to Facebook to grant more options (or at terms overly favorable) to employees than it should have?


If one accepts the maxim that "what gets mismeasured gets mismanaged," then the answer to that question should be "YES." The stock option problem lies not with the tax rules that eventually recognize the full cost of the options to shareholders, but with the financial reporting rules that allowed Facebook to grant options without recording their full cost.


Surely, the senators can see that different accounting rules would have wrought different compensation policies from Facebook. Senator Levin would not have had a story to tell and Mark Zuckerberg would be a few billion dollars poorer.


Footnote: It is my distinct pleasure to provide Senator Levin (and his staff) with yet another accounting lesson. The amount of expense to be reported by Facebook is not, as the senator claims, the exercise price of the options (i.e., 6 cents per share). Assuming that the options were issued without any intrinsic value, then their "grant-date present value" (i.e., the amount upon which periodic option expense is measured) could end up being more or less than 6 cents per share. Although this technical correction to Senator Levin's story it doesn't fundamentally change the message, it once again reveals a lack of understanding that makes one question if Senator Levin has an adequate grasp on the issues.

IFRS Update

Comprehensive IFRS Update, courtesy of AICPA

SEC decision on IFRS is at least a few months away
The Securities and Exchange Commission staff will need a few more months to produce a final report on International Financial Reporting Standards, SEC Chief Accountant James Kroeker said Dec. 5 at the AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments in Washington. SEC members are not expected to make a determination on the use of IFRS for reporting by U.S. public companies until the staff's work is complete.

 Comment letters support IFRS, call for more convergence work: The Securities and Exchange Commission said comment letters in response to a staff paper called "Exploring a Possible Method of Incorporation," issued in May, expressed support for global accounting standards. But commenters also wanted the International Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board to make more progress on joint standards-setting projects before International Financial Reporting Standards are adopted as the U.S. standard.

 AICPA advises IASB to complete work on conceptual framework
Richard Paul, chairman of the AICPA's Financial Reporting Executive Committee, advised the International Accounting Standards Board in a letter to complete its work on a conceptual framework, including a presentation and disclosure framework. This framework will guide the board as it continues to develop International Financial Reporting Standards. The letter was sent in response to a request for feedback when the IASB issued its Agenda Consultation 2011 in July.

FASB, IASB reach tentative decisions on aspects of lease accounting
The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board announced progress in their ongoing, high-profile convergence project on leases. Although an exposure draft hasn't been released, the boards reached tentative decisions regarding cancelable leases, and revenue recognition and disclosure for lessors with leases of investment property. They also reached an agreement on how to require banks to book losses on loans earlier than they do now. The boards will release the revised joint proposal on impairment in 2012, with the standard likely to be effective in 2015.

FASB, IASB issue new disclosure requirements on offsetting
The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board issued on Dec. 16 common disclosure requirements on the effect or potential effect of offsetting arrangements on a company’s financial position. The new rules will require companies to disclose gross amounts subject to rights of set-off, amounts set off in accordance with the accounting standards followed, and the related net credit exposure, according to the IASB.

Key accounting-policy decisions are mired in uncertainty
Details about whether and how International Financial Reporting Standards will be incorporated into the U.S. financial reporting system remain unclear, as Securities and Exchange Commission officials say they are still a few months away from deciding. The SEC has floated a "condorsement" approach, although the AICPA has urged the agency to give companies the option to adopt IFRS as issued by International Accounting Standards Board. Meanwhile, leaders of the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the IASB say the current convergence project model is likely to end when the priority projects are completed.

Revised FASB proposal could change revenue-recognition timing
The timing of revenue recognition for certain companies could be affected by revised accounting proposals from the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board. The new rules also would bring other changes, such as increased disclosure requirements. AICPA members can download an updated Revenue Recognition Accounting Brief from AICPA.org.

Amendments aim to clarify transition guidance for IFRS 10
InAudit.com (12/23)

IASB pushes mandatory effective date for IFRS 9 to 2015
InAudit.com (12/23)

How the switch to IFRS could affect M&A

The convergence of International Financial Reporting Standards and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles will have implications for the treatment of mergers and acquisitions, writes Brian Reed, CPA/CVA. For example, GAAP and IFRS take different approaches to measuring the fair value of business combinations, and in many cases, revenue is recognized sooner under IFRS. In general, IFRS offers fewer rules and less guidance.

IFRS allows banks to inflate profits, report says
Banks are using complex financial products to bolster profits under International Financial Reporting Standards, according to a report by the Adam Smith Institute that calls for changes. In particular, banks are able to recognize expectations of future income as current profits under IFRS.

IFRS rule led to misdiagnosis of financial crisis, U.K. group says
Flaws in the IAS 39 International Financial Reporting Standards rule kept U.K. and Irish banks from booking potential bad loans during the 2008 financial crisis, leading to losses totaling $236 billion, according to a report by a pension fund lobby group. The accounting rule led to misdiagnosis of the root problem as one of liquidity, rather than solvency, the report said.

Commission: U.K. local authorities handled switch to IFRS well
U.K. local authorities handled the transition to International Financial Reporting Standards well in 2010, the Audit Commission found. However, some filed late accounts because of the change, with 18 of the 457 local bodies without auditors' opinions by Oct. 31, compared with seven in 2010-11.

Ireland eyes new deadline for U.S. multinationals to use IFRS
U.S. companies operating in Ireland reportedly will have another five years before being required to prepare a second set of statements under either International Financial Reporting Standards or Irish generally accepted accounting principles, in addition to U.S. GAAP. A proposed law would allow U.S. companies to continue using U.S. GAAP until 2020. The measure is intended to encourage foreign businesses to invest in Ireland.

Official: Russia's public companies will switch to IFRS by 2013
Bloomberg (12/13)
 CPA Exam to be given in South America under AICPA deal with Brazil
Accounting Today (12/9)

Discover the IFRS Certificate Program from the AICPA
The AICPA's IFRS Certificate Program is a comprehensive curriculum of online training, research tools and practice aids designed to help CPAs understand, implement and apply International Financial Reporting Standards. Courses cover revenue recognition, leases, impairment, intangible assets, inventories, EPS and more.

Fix for IFRS XBRL Taxonomy Exposed

Both the U.S. GAAP and IFRS XBRL taxonomies have been revised and exposed for comment.

For those not familiar with XBRL, it is an open-source HTML-like language for tagging financial statements. Proponents claim that XBRL makes it easier for investors and analysts to compare financial results across companies and industries. XBRL is now mandated by the SEC for public companies to use in their financial filings. XBRL tags let users of financial statements electronically search for, assemble, and process data so the information can be accessed and analyzed by investors, analysts, journalists and regulators.

The 2012 U.S. GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy is expected to be finalized and published in early 2012. The proposed 2012 U.S. GAAP taxonomy and instructions on how to submit comments are available on FASB’s XBRL page.

As for the IFRS taxonomy, the IFRS Foundation has revised it taxonomy in response to regulators and preparers who wanted more extensions (additional sub-accounts) to the full IFRS XBRL taxonomy.

The IFRS XBRL taxonomy is used to help those filing IFRS financial statements electronically to tag the information with identification tags, also known as “concepts.” Currently, the IFRS taxonomy includes all of the core concepts included in IFRS as issued by the IASB. However, preparers often need to provide more detailed financial information than is reflected by the core IFRS concepts.

To ensure that those creating and using electronic filings do not need to create their own extensions to the IFRS taxonomy, the IFRS Foundation has created an “extension taxonomy” by analyzing and drawing from common practice. For instance, although IFRS requires the disclosure of an analysis of expenses, IFRS does not include a prescriptive listing of all of the possible categories of expenses. The common-practice taxonomy includes concepts for the most commonly used types of expenses, such as “sales and marketing.”

The interim taxonomy released on Thursday completes the first part of a project to address this issue, by providing about 350 extensions for the most common concepts used in the financial statements.

The common practice concepts are in line with IFRS requirements and will help to alleviate the burden on preparers and to increase the comparability between financial statements in accordance with IFRS that are electronically submitted.

Impairment Bucket List

No, it’s not a list of cool impairments that an accountant might calculate in his lifetime, if he or she had the time and luck.

Accounting standard-setters are working on a new method of categorizing impaired financial instruments.

The recent credit crisis has advanced a need for revision of the current model as large financial institutions did not agree with existing standards. Large banks, for example, claim that the existing standards result in a “pro-cyclical” result. That means that when times were good, they accounting rules made things look better, faster. And when times were bad, things looked bas faster. Or went to hell faster, as we saw in 2009/03. The rules also impact other sectors.

Credit Crisis Effects
In 2008, banks were following a system of incurred loss reporting, meaning assets were marked down, or impaired, only once their value had demonstrably fallen. Critics said this caused catastrophic shortcomings in financial early warning systems, meaning banks were unable to build up reserves for expected losses and were woefully unprepared when asset values suddenly went into freefall.

The IASB has developed a more forward-looking set of rules for calculating impairment.

“Three-Bucket Solution”

One approach, and the major one being advocated now, is called the three-bucket approach.

One pre-IFRS problem was earnings management, when banks would set aside provisions with little justification, only to release them in lean years to plump up earnings. Critics said this made it hard for investors to get a handle on banks' true financial positions; from these concerns was born incurred loss reporting.

After the credit crisis, the accounting problem was how to permit the judgment essential for expected loss provisioning without paving the way for a potential return to earnings management.

The three-bucket approach aims to break down assets according to impairments, keeping a tighter rein on provisioning and giving analysts a clearer picture of financial health.

Into bucket one goes 'healthy' assets, those for which banks expect a reasonable return and need only make minimal provisions. Bucket two is reserved for assets with some level of impairment, but which are not completely useless, while bucket three is for assets that are undeniably 'bad'.

Throughout its life, the asset can move between buckets according to macro- and micro-economic triggers, hopefully allowing banks to make exactly the right provision at exactly the right time.

An example might be a bundle of mortgages. The bank grants the mortgages, and works out on the basis of historical data that it is likely to take an 80% return on them. It therefore makes provision for the 20% loss and the mortgage bundle sits in bucket one until a trigger makes re-evaluation necessary.

This trigger could be a macro-economic event such as falling oil prices, a contracting economy or rising unemployment. From this, the bank might deduce that a greater proportion of mortgage holders will struggle to pay and shift the asset bundle into bucket two, requiring higher provisions to be made.

For the mortgages to jump to bucket three, they must be demonstrably impaired, for example when the inhabitants of a town hit by unemployment begin defaulting on their mortgages. This is essentially an incurred loss model and would result in very high or 100% provisioning for the de-valued assets.

Unfinished business
Like all theoretical models, there is much uncertainty to be hammered out. What constitutes a bucket-moving trigger? When an asset is impaired, who decides whether the impairment is expected – therefore already provided for – or unexpected, meaning more cash should be set aside? How will auditors examine such a complicated model and will it really prevent earnings management if banks are determined to do it?

A number of question exist, and will need to be ironed out prior to implementation.

The Beginning of the End of a Single Set of High-quality, Global Accounting Standards

A year and a half ago, the G-20 leaders called on international accounting standard setters to redouble their efforts to achieve a single set of high-quality, global accounting standards through their independent standard-setting processes and complete their convergence project by June 2011.

Before we even have a converged set of global accounting standards, the EU has hammered a nail into its coffin. If the EU can decide to opt in or out of a given part of IFRS standards then the door is open to home-country versions of IFRS similar to those that have existed for years.

The European Union has refused to adopt a new accounting rule that could ease fallout from the euro zone's sovereign debt crisis on banks.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), following up on pressure from policymakers at the height of the financial crisis, has eased its "fair value" or mark-to-market rule that was known as IAS 39.

The first completed part of the new IFRS 9 standard allows banks to price some government debt held on their books at cost rather than at current depressed prices.

This avoids the "cliff effect" of many banks needing to recognize large losses and top up regulatory capital buffers.

IFRS 9 would allow European banks to exclude some of the broader markets effects of the current financial crisis in Europe.

Under IFRS 9 impairments will still exist, but would be more timely.

The EU has stated that it wants to see how two other elements of IFRS 9 will be finalized before making up his mind on the complete rule.

Giving a Rodent's Posterior about IFRS

I love the way that the author introduces this article:

Anyone Who Gives a Rat’s Behind About IFRS Needs to Mark July 7 on Their Calendars
By CALEB NEWQUIST

Cause there’s gonna be a roundtable.

The Securities and Exchange Commission staff announced today that it will sponsor a roundtable in July to discuss benefits or challenges in potentially incorporating International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers.

The July 7 event will feature three panels representing investors, smaller public companies, and regulators. The panel discussions will focus on topics such as investor understanding of IFRS and the impact on smaller public companies and on the regulatory environment of incorporating IFRS.

“We must carefully consider and deliberate whether incorporating IFRS into our financial reporting system is in the best interest of U.S. investors and markets,” said SEC Chief Accountant James Kroeker. “This roundtable will provide an excellent opportunity for investors, preparers, and regulators to provide the SEC staff with valuable information that will help the Commission in its ongoing consideration of incorporating IFRS.”

See you there. If you manage to recover from your July 4th meat sweats, that is.

IFRS Convergence Projects Delayed

The heads of FASB and IASB announced they will take “a few additional months” beyond their June target date to complete priority joint convergence projects on revenue recognition, leases, financial instruments and insurance. This is a reasonable development, and expected by most observers. The original convergence deadlines were optimistic and some thought that inferior standards would result if the projects were rushed. A few quotes below.

David Tweedie, Chairman of the IASB
Leslie Seidman, Chairman of the FASB

David Tweedie: “...if you were listed in the United States using IFRSs you had to reconcile to US GAAP, that showed where the differences were, and what we did was try to look through our standards and if FASB had a better standard, we should take it and vice versa. That was going to take forever so in 2006, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was instituted and that set out a different policy, namely that we should look at certain standards, and for each of these standards, if it was complex or out of date there was no point in trying to converge them otherwise we would just get a complex out-of-date converged standard when what we should really do is write a better one.” “...we have completed most of that program and it’s been a great success, the two sets of standards are much closer together and frankly IFRSs are much better quality than they would have been otherwise.”

Seidman: “We would never let a target date take priority over thorough and robust due process...so let me clarify any misunderstanding about the June 2011 date. It was always intended to be a target, not a deadline, and we always said that achieving the target was subject to the nature and extent of the feedback that we got on each of the exposure documents. At this point on each of the exposure documents we have received significant and very constructive feedback and we are in the process of working through those issues. The quality of the standards remains of the utmost importance. Every board member wants to issue high quality standards that we think are going to withstand the test of time.”

Tweedie: “We have been working on these now for some five years so this is hardly a rush job and what we have done, and I think this is a big change in standard-setting over the past couple of years, is we have gone out deliberately to get high quality in put in addition to that required by our due process. This extensive outreach is something that hadn’t been done to the extent that it is now. We get constant input, and we test these ideas as we finalize the standards.”

Tweedie: “...we would never release a standard before it is ready and ultimately it must be a high quality standard or you just can’t issue it.”

Seidman: “After evaluating the issues yet to be addressed we jointly concluded that, without extending the work out indefinitely, we all could benefit from a few more months to develop these standards, some of which really go to the core issues of many companies.”

Tweedie: “So as Leslie was saying there, we have decided to extend the timetable for a few additional months to enable us to check whether our conclusions will last the test of time. We are also mindful of the G20 target, we have been reminded of that many times over the last few years, and we intend to try to finish this convergence program by end of 2011. The June target has helped us to get there but at the same time it is clear that we need a little more time to check the conclusions, and to ensure that the standards are of the highest quality.”

Seidman: “Let me mention one other thing, we have yet to decide on the effective dates for these standards but we do want to reassure people that we will allow ample time for them to understand the requirements and to plan for an effective transition to the new standards once those decisions are made.”

A U.S. Viewpoint on Lease Accounting

Following is a summary of a comment letter submitted on lease acconting, as previously published in the Journal of Accountancy.

The AICPA’s Financial Reporting Executive Committee (FinREC) commented on FASB’s Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Leases. The exposure draft was developed jointly with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). FinREC said it supports the boards’ overall objective to develop a single approach to lease accounting and to require assets and liabilities arising under leases to be recognized in lessees’ statements of financial position. However, FinREC believes there are fundamental application issues not addressed by the ED, and revisions that need to be made to various aspects of the boards’ proposal, including those related to the right-of-use approach to lessee accounting.

The FASB proposal would result in a single “right-of-use” approach applied consistently to lease accounting for lessees and lessors. Among other changes, the approach would result in the liability for payments under all lease contracts within the scope of the standard and the right to use the underlying asset being included on the lessee’s balance sheet. The standard setters say the changes would improve the information available to investors and other financial statement users about the economics surrounding lease contracts.

Unlike FASB’s discussion paper, Leases: Preliminary Views, published in March 2009, which focused primarily on lessee accounting, the ED, Leases, would result in changes on both sides of a lease transaction. A lessor would apply either a performance obligation approach or a derecognition approach. “The majority of FinREC members do not support the boards’ hybrid (lease classification) approach to lessor accounting—instead they support the derecognition approach as the single lessor accounting model,” FinREC said in its comment letter.

The proposal includes simplified accounting for short-term leases—leases having a maximum term of 12 months or less. The simplified accounting would allow lessees to ignore the effects of interest on the recorded assets and liabilities and allow the lessee to record the liability for lease payments at the undiscounted amount for lease payments. The simplified accounting would allow the lessor not to recognize assets or liabilities arising from a short-term lease, nor derecognize any portion of the underlying asset.

In its comment letter, FinREC said, “We do not support the boards’ approach to accounting for lease renewal options and contingent rents. We believe that the lease term should be defined as the lessee’s (lessor’s) best estimate of the lease term. We believe contingent rents and expected payments under residual value guarantees should be included in the measurement of assets and liabilities based on management’s best estimate of payments to be made (received) under the lease.”

Joint Proposals Push Toward IFRS/GAAP Convergence in Issues Affecting Banks

FASB and the IASB announced moves toward convergence of IFRS and GAAP through joint proposals on offsetting transactions and impairment of financial assets.

The two main changes are 1) an exposure draft released last week on a common approach to offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities. This would end a major difference between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. 2) A supplementary document with a new impairment model for financial assets like loans managed in an open portfolio. The proposal would replace the incurred loss model with a more forward-looking expected loss model--a response to complaints in the financial crisis.

The issue with offsetting is that companies can, in some instances, report IFRS balance sheet figures that are 100 percent greater than their U.S. GAAP numbers. This is confusing to the global capital markets and the proposals would eliminate the difference.

U.S. GAAP would only net in more limited circumstances, with note disclosure of other netting arrangements in footnotes.

Offsetting/netting is required when company presents in net amounts on their balance sheet. As it stands now, financial assets and financial liabilities may show up on a balance sheet as one net amount, or as two gross amounts, depending on whether the balance sheet is in IFRS or U.S. GAAP.

The above netting arrangements cause the largest difference between balance sheets using IFRS and U.S. GAAP. Derivative assets and related liabilities are the most common area where this occurs. Balance sheets of financial institutions generally have the largest derivative positions.

The new proposed rules apply only when the right of setoff is enforceable at all times, including in default and bankruptcy, and the ability to exercise this right is unconditional—i.e. offsetting only occurs after a future event. A company must intend to settle net, i.e. with a single payment, or simultaneously. If all of these requirements are met, offsetting is mandatory. This would also change industry conventions.

The Exposure Draft is Offsetting Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities [FASB Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Offsetting]. Comments are due April 28.

On Impairment, changes introduce an expected loss model that is more forward-looking in accounting for credit losses, and is said to better reflect the economics of lending decisions. IFRS and U.S. GAAP currently account for credit losses using an incurred loss model, which requires evidence of a loss (known as a trigger event) before loans can be written down.

“The FASB and IASB are seeking comment on the changes, i.e. whether they agree conceptually and whether the changes can be practically applied.

Some advocate that a more forward-looking approach to loan losses would have made loan provisions show up earlier than before, and may have held off or mitigated the credit crisis by giving earlier warnings about the health of financial institutions.

Comments on the document Accounting for Financial Instruments and Revisions to the Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, are due April 1.

If you need a nap, the IASB is hosting a webcast on the impairment of financial assets proposal on Friday, Feb. 4, with sessions timed for Europe and the U.S. Also “FASB in Focus” has overviews on the new rules netting on FASB’s website and another FASB in Focus on the impairment model.

FASB Reversal a Major Step Toward International Convergence

The FASB has made a major compromise in the area of impairment of financial instruments. Full details will be released later, but this is a major concession to U.S. and European banks. It is also a major step toward convergence of U.S. accounting rules with IFRS and the end to what what previously called a "religious war" over fair value accounting. As well, political influence over accounting may be resolved by the compromise.

This new FASB approach is similar to the International Accounting Standards Board’s model in IFRS 9. FASB has agreed that at least some assets should qualify for cost accounting, whereas banks were forced to use a fair value model for all loans under the new rules. Existing rules forced fair value on portions of banks’ loan portfolios.

The FASB’s original proposal was opposed by the banking industry as being pro-cyclical (making problems worse as business cycles worsened). Banks say that proposed the fair value approach is a danger to the survival of marginal financial institutions that could have their capital called by bank regulators because the rules have and would continue to force banks to take large and inappropriate write-downs on temporary market declines. They also lobbied that the rules would hurt lending and unfairly reduce banks' book value. They argued that banks would not make loans if the value of the loan could be written down immediately due to temporary market fluctuations.

Supporters of the FASB fair-value proposals say it would have improved transparency and unmasked potential weaknesses at banks. Proponents of fair value accounting, including the CFA Institute, argue it is what is needed to make the financial statements of banks reflect their true financial positions and operations more clearly to investors.

FASB said that financial statement users, including preparers, auditors and others would prefer to have loans held for collection recorded on the balance sheet at amortized cost, but with a more robust impairment test.

The FASB will go back to users for input toward an impairment model for loans. The original proposal required a fully fair value-based approach that the banks have lobbied against for years. The new approach would recognize a portion of the estimated loan losses over time unless greater losses are expected in the foreseeable future, in which case that larger floor amount would be recognized currently. Some loans, including loans traded actively by banks instead of held to collect payments will be valued at market prices.

The changes are partly the result of a fierce lobbying campaign by the American Bankers’ Association and others and seen as a major victory for the banking industry. However it was not solely the banks in opposition to the proposals. The FASB reported an overwhelmingly negative reaction to its proposal from companies and investors, who wrote more than more than 2,800 comment letters.

Best of 2010: Accounting

After creating an ambitious agenda for the year, the standard-setters had to play hurry up and wait.

Article by Marie Leone and David M. Katz, CFO.com US

In the realm of accounting, no one moved more rapidly this year than the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board. The two standard-setting bodies set forth an aggressive agenda that called for a dozen or so new rules to be issued by 2011.

Their aim was to complete their now eight-year-old convergence project and emerge with a single set of global accounting standards. But the effort was ambushed by reality — the global financial crisis and subsequent global recession; heated debates over controversial rulemaking decisions; the early retirement of FASB chairman Robert Herz; and the announced departure of IASB chairman Sir David Tweedie, slated for June 2011. (On December 23, the trustees of the Financial Accounting Foundation announced that Leslie F. Seidman, acting FASB chairman since Herz's retirement, had been named chairman of FASB, effectively immediately.)

Accordingly, the rulemakers slowed down the convergence process in the latter part of 2010, vowing to issue only four newly melded standards at any one time. Still, they hope to finish a number of convergence projects by the end of 2011. That will be a prickly task, since those projects have shaken some fundamental tenets of business. They will, for instance, eliminate the concept of operating leases, rework revenue-recognition rules, do away with last-in-first-out inventory accounting, and expand the reach of fair-value accounting.

Meanwhile, the process of adopting private-company accounting standards ("little GAAP") in the United States began in 2010, and could eventually become the purview of a second standard-setting board. The debate concerning final decisions about little GAAP should come to a head in 2011 — just in time for the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision on whether or not U.S. publicly traded companies should abandon U.S. generally accepted accounting principles in favor of international standards.

"Taking the 'Ease' Out of 'Lease'?"
By doing away with operating leases, new accounting rules could bring billions of dollars back onto balance sheets.
"Shorter Agenda for Convergence"
FASB and the IASB have selected five priority projects to focus on – and hopefully push out by next year.
"One Step Closer to Little GAAP"
A blue-ribbon panel on private-company accounting standards recommends a separate GAAP for private companies.
"Technical Difficulties"
As the pace of accounting-rule changes intensifies, can IT systems keep up?
"A Relentless Pursuit of Global Rules"
Tom Jones, director of Pace University's international accounting center, looks forward to a world without local GAAPs.
"Debunking IFRS Myths"
Experts expose seven misconceptions about international financial reporting standards.
"After Eight Years at FASB, Herz Looks Back"
In an exclusive interview, Robert Herz talks about his legacy as chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
"One Size Gives Fits to All"
Financial executives say that proposed changes to revenue-recognition rules ignore real-world realities.
"Revenue Rules Could Cause Software Snags"
How much will ERP systems have to be tweaked to comply with FASB's new revenue-recognition rules?
"Without Hoopla, Fair-Value Rule Is Readied"
Among the ripple effects of the global credit crisis is the rewrite of the controversial fair-value accounting rule once known as FAS 157. The revised standard could be in place by the end of the year.

Pension Pain

When the Wall Street Journal talks about accounting it is usually worth reading, so here is their take on the impact of a proposed change to accounting for pensions under IFRS.

Efforts to make pension accounting more transparent could cause corporate profits to become more volatile if gains and losses from pension assets are mingled with results from companies' business operations.

The agency for international accounting standards [the IASB] is expected to take up a proposal next year that would require companies with defined-benefit pensions to report annual changes in the value of their pension assets as part in their income statements. Under current procedures, returns on pension investments and gains and losses in pension-plan assets are accounted for in small increments over several years to keep them from skewing companies' earnings.

The change would provide a more immediate snapshot of companies' pension-plan performance. But U.S. companies, aside from Honeywell International Inc. (HON), have so far been reluctant to voluntarily change their pension accounting. Observers warn that investors could be subjected to bouncier stock prices if earnings become significantly less reliable with the addition of unpredictable gains and losses from pensions.

"If we've learned nothing else over the last three years, it's that the market isn't always rational," said Alan Glickstein, senior consultant for Towers Watson, an employee benefits consultancy. "It's not necessarily a good thing if [the accounting change] just increases earnings volatility."

If the International Accounting Standards Board--the nongovernmental agency for accounting rules used by companies outside the U.S.--adopts the change for pension accounting, observers predict the Financial Accounting Standards Board will follow suit for the sake of consistency and amend the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by U.S. companies.

"To the degree that a company wants to make sure that their financials are reflective of their operations, it would make sense to go through a change like this. It would add transparency to the numbers," said Daniel Holland, an analyst for research firm Morningstar Inc.

More than 340 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index have defined-benefit pensions that guarantee employees pension incomes when they retire. To meet these obligations, the companies have set aside a combined $1.22 trillion that is invested in stocks, bonds and other types of investments.

Smoothing out annual gains and losses from defined-benefit pensions has come under increasing scrutiny as regulators dismantle other accounting practices used for decades to wall off pension costs and liabilities from companies' balance sheets and their profit statements.

"The pension volatility has always been there. It's just not measured today. The accounting doesn't require that it be highlighted," said David Larsen, managing director for corporate finance consulting at Duff & Phelps Corp., a financial services and investment banking advisory firm.

Honeywell is the largest U.S. company to begin using market-to-market accounting for its pension. The move is intended to put the brakes on escalating costs for Honeywell's pension. Falling interest rates on bonds used to determine companies' future pension obligations have driven up annual pension costs for all companies with defined-benefit plans. But Honeywell's expenses have been exacerbated by a decision it made in the late 1990s to use a six-year schedule for amortizing pension gains and losses on pension assets and a three-year schedule for smoothing out returns from pension investments. Most companies amortize gains and losses over 10 years or 12 years and account for investment returns over five years.

Honeywell's shorter time frame helped the company lower its pension expenses when asset values soared. But when pension-fund performance tanked in 2008, Honeywell's pension headwinds were magnified in its earnings.

Without the option of switching back to a longer amortization schedule, Honeywell will stop deferring gains and losses. The aerospace and building-systems manufacturer will recognize $5.5 billion in prior asset losses in its 2010 income statement. Going forward, Honeywell will report gains and losses in their entirety during the year they occur.

The change will increase the company's pension costs for this year to $1.61 billion, compared with $791 million under the six-year schedule. But its pension expenses are expected to plunge to $200 million in 2011.

"It takes all that old stuff and puts it behind them," said Howard Silverblatt, an analyst with Standard & Poor's investment services unit.

Once the slate is wiped clean, Honeywell aims to limit its pension expenses to about $200 million a year. Moreover, the company will attempt hold down pension-related volatility in its earnings by making pension asset values and returns more predictable than in the past.

"I can see investors having this fear that every fourth quarter there's going to be this wild swing," Chairman and Chief Executive David Cote said during a Nov. 16 conference call with analysts. "More likely than not, that is not going to happen."

In the coming years, Honeywell plans to shift more of its pension funds from equities to fixed-income investments. That will lower annual returns to 6.5% from 9%, but will lessen Honeywell's exposure to sudden swings in stock values and returns that would contribute to earnings volatility.

If mark-to-market pension accounting becomes the standard, other companies will likely change their investment mix as well, creating a profound shift in the allocation of pension funds the next decade.

"I would expect it to take a while, but pension assets would shift to less volatile securities," Morningstar's Holland said.



-By Bob Tita, Dow Jones Newswires;

Fair Value Fight between FASB, IASB heats Up with Volcker Comments

The FASB vs IASB fight has heated up substantially following comments by Paul Volcker, an advisor to Barack Obama and former chairman of the US. Federal Reserve Board, and former Chairman of the Trustees of the IFRS Foundation. The FASB wants to expand the use of fair-value accounting to all financial assets, including loans and deposits. This concept is opposed byUS bankers and also somewhat by the IASB, which prefers a milder version of fair value accounting. The battle that is shaping up between opposing forces could determine how much capital banks are required to maintain, and accordingly would determine to some extent how much leverage a bank could utilize.

The FASB proposal could result in the largest U.S. banks writing down the value of their loan portfolios.

Volcker said that treatment of financial instruments has not been resolved because of political pressure. Volcker also said “When you have global corporations operating around the world, and analysts looking at them from around the world, you want one accounting standard.”

The two accounting bodies have worked diligently toward convergence of the two different sets of accounting rules for the past five years. Disagreements are most significant around fair value rules for financial instruments, including derivatives, and rules governing what companies have to consolidate on their balance sheets. Many issues are close to being resolved.

The FASB likes a version of fair value accounting that forces loans and bank deposits to be marked to market values as is already done for banks trading books. Theis would not necessarily affect earnings, since some fair-value adjustments can be recorded in other comprehensive income which goes directly to equity.

The IASB prefers an approach that allows financial assets to stay on the books at original cost if the assets are held to maturity, i.e. for the long term. The IASB says it has no plans to re- open discussion of fair-value accounting, however the FASB and the IASB may eventually move to a middle ground.

Volcker prefers the IASB approach on valuing financial instruments. “You can’t have everything at fair value,” Volcker, said--“I’m not in favor of fair valuing bank loans because we don’t know their fair value anyway. It’s not consistent with the basic business model of commercial banks.”

In a similar episode, a few months earlier, IASB bowed to European Union demands to relax its fair-value rules, letting banks move some assets to a different part of the balance sheet so they wouldn’t have to be marked to market values.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable U.S. securities firm, has said that banks hide losses on loans used to generate investment-banking fees. In a Sept. 1 letter to FASB, Goldman Sachs described how banks lend at below-market rates to win equity and debt-underwriting deals, a practice known as “lend to play.” Goldman Sachs executives have argued that the firm’s practice of marking assets to market value helped it prepare for the credit contraction earlier than rivals.

Looking for Work? Try FASB or IASB

If you are an accounant with a converged accounting skillset, perhaps there are a couple of jobs youu might be interected in. Both Robert Herz, and Sir David Tweedie, respectively the chairman of the U.A. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the head of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) are due to retire shortly. Despite the departures of Sir David and Mr Herz, big accounting firms and their clients still expect convergence of standards to top the agenda of their successors.

Both men have had to deal with controversial issues in financial reporting. In particular, fair value accounting for financial assets: and liabilities is a particularly cumbersome issue. In fact, the two men and their accounting bodies have butted heads over this issue, with both business people and politicialns sticking their oars in to the dispute. Recently, the FASB has taken a more principles-based approach, calling for most measurements to be at fair value. IASB has taken a two-category approach, saying that loans and loan-like equivalents held to maturity may be marked at amortised cost, whereas frequently traded instruments should be marked to market. Comments to date are leaning more toward the IASB approach, with “Big Four” accounting firms and many companies on the IASB’s side. Conjecture is that Herz’s replacement may be a pragmatic consensus-builder rather that the principles-based stalwart that herz was.

At IASB, meanwhile, the skills of a politician or diplomat may be required as the EU politicians have in some cases refused to agree to the IASB's proposed standards.

IFRS - Convergence or Adoption? Part 1

WebCPA recently published a survey of responses on IFRS adoption, quoting people of influence in the accounting profession on their thoughts on moving to IFRS.

Below is Part 1 of some of their comments.

Full convergence on rules will take time -- especially as the economic factors continue to shift (like regulating derivatives), but there needs to be general agreement on the guiding principles in the meantime.
-- Mark Albrecht, CEO, XCM Solutions

Many have underestimated the degree to which the "concepts-based" IFRS standards will migrate toward the "rules-based" structure that exists in GAAP today. In fact, the SEC issued comment letters that speak to uncertainties of this transition. We have "rules-based" standards in the U.S. today largely because of our financial reporting environment, and a change to IFRS will not necessarily change that dynamic.
-- Charles Allen, CEO, Crowe Horwath LLP

...the burden and cost of implementation during the current economy is a large hurdle for some companies. In the long term, I believe a single set of global accounting standards will be very positive.
-- Jordan Amin, Chair, National CPA Financial Literacy Commission, AICPA

The concept is good. But there are a couple real-world issues to resolve. The first is that many countries that have already adopted, or are expected to soon adopt, International Financial Reporting Standards have "country modifications" -- if this is prevalent, we do not really have common standards. A second issue is that standards must be relevant and useable -- currently, there is a legitimate question as to whether one set of standards can meet all needs of public companies, private companies, etc. and that must be resolved.
-- Rick Anderson, Chairman and CEO, Moss Adams

There seems to be worldwide consensus surrounding the need for one global set of high-quality accounting standards and that IFRS is currently best positioned to fulfill that need. However, there is much to be gained from U.S. GAAP and, as such, the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS may very well best serve the needs of the global community.
-- C.E. Andrews, President, RSM McGladrey

We have indeed reached the point where global businesses, financial and capital markets are interrelated. Without a single set of standards, we will become like the Biblical Tower of Babel.
-- August Aquila, President and CEO, Aquila Global Advisors

As proposed, (IFRS is) more principle-driven than our rule-driven U.S. GAAP accounting, and thus more open to interpretation. But I think that interpretation and flexibility are necessary. The differences in the cultures and business practices of each nation have to be considered and that requires flexibility. I think that convergence will likely be the best vehicle for migration and eventual international adoption because it will allow the standards to evolve as they are practiced.
-- Andy Armanino, CEO and managing partner, Armanino McKenna

The creation of a single set of high-quality standards will benefit U.S. financial markets and public companies.
-- Erik Asgeirsson, CEO, CPA2Biz

The process is too much and too fast, especially considering the state of our economy, legal system vs. global, and the need to assure the U.S. public of due process and independence in accounting standards promulgation. The process of accounting standards convergence must slow down and acquire the broad support of the U.S. public, financial statement users, preparers, practitioners and regulators.
-- Billy Atkinson, Chairman, NASBA

I think that the political, cultural and governance challenges associated with getting global adoption of a uniform set of high-quality accounting and financial reporting standards accomplished are far more difficult to deal with than the technical accounting issues, and will likely prevent the achievement of that goal. Still the convergence goal should be pursued to the extent feasible, and any remaining differences should be identified so that financial statement users can better consider the impact of such differences.
-- Robert Attmore, Chairman, GASB

Comparability is overrated, and it's not going to happen anyway. This idea would be far superior to the status quo. All financial statements are lagging indicators anyway -- similar to timing your cookies with your smoke alarm. We have to compare any change to GAAP to the status quo, not some perfect Utopia that's never going to exist here on earth.
-- Ron Baker, Founder, VeraSage Institute

...the move to create one set of global standards recognizes that we are operating in a borderless, i.e., seamless, business environment.
-- Sheri Bango, Vice president of practice mobility and state regulatory & legislative affairs, AICPA

A single set of standards is imperative given global markets today, and IFRS is a reasonable path. With the impact of globalization and large developing economies such as China, Brazil and India, effective, meaningful comparisons between entities are absolutely critical.
-- Jon Baron, President - Americas, Workflow & Service Solutions, Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting

U.S. GAAP was the gold standard for so many countries for so long because it was considered the highest-quality set of accounting standards anywhere. U.S. GAAP may not be flawless, but the words "prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP" send a message to the financial statement user that the methods under which the financials were prepared have been tested and are trusted. U.S. regulators must demand that "prepared in accordance with IFRS" -- or "U.S. IFRS" if it
comes to that -- guarantees the same level of trust and reliability.

The roadmap as currently proposed does not enhance the comparability of financial information that would be achieved through convergence.
-- Joanne Barry, Executive director, NYSSCPA

While the objective of global accounting standards seems obvious and noble, there exists far too much deep and long-lasting disagreement in many basic accounting theories to make this practical and useful. For instance, "fair value accounting" has serious regulatory and financial consequences to a company and its nation, and its application may have serious unintended economic consequences. However, I am afraid that the genie is out of the bottle and continued enormous effort will still be devoted to its ultimate realization. Nevertheless, adoption of those standards will be difficult.
-- Tony Batman, Chair, CEO and president, 1st Global

Though the transition will be, and is, troublesome and costly, a single set of global accounting standards is necessary, particularly as the world is moving closer and closer to a global economy. This is clearly evident in the current recession we are experiencing in the U.S. because the entire world has been affected. Whether it will be the convergence of accounting standards or adoption of IFRS, one or the other must ultimately happen and if not now, sometime down the road.
-- Parnell Black, CEO, NACVA

While I don't think a single standard is a prerequisite for growth and prosperity, it could facilitate markets and the deployment of capital in ways that would support growth and prosperity. That is, as long as standards are not sought as end in itself -- which it sometimes feels like -- but because they would improve transparency through better disclosure and data availability, investor insight into company performance, and management accountability to markets.
-- David M. Blaszkowsky, Director, Office of Interactive Disclosure, SEC

Globalization is a reality, but a single set of global standards will take significant effort and time because of politics and world economic conditions. IFRS requires leadership, relationships and creativity in order to succeed.
-- L. Gary Boomer, CEO, Boomer Consulting Inc.

I believe that a single set of standards for publicly held companies and companies doing business worldwide is long overdue. For many years now we have been a global economy. Technology has been the single biggest contributing factor to this phenomenon. Technology has allowed companies to reach further to sell products and services than ever before.
-- James C. Bourke, Partner, WithumSmith+Brown

The accounting standard-setting process must be robust, transparent and independent, free from political interference and underpinned by appropriate due process that gives all stakeholders an opportunity to provide input.

It's important that accounting standards are not politicized but focused on providing relevant, timely and transparent information for investors and other users.
-- Beth Brooke, Global vice chair, Ernst & Young

The SEC needs to recognize that IFRS is the quality global standard and that trying to maintain a separate U.S. GAAP will not serve investors or other public stakeholders.
-- Robert Bunting, President, IFAC

The economy is definitely global in nature, and as such, it is imperative to have global accounting standards. One of the primary roles of the accounting profession is to attest to fairly presented financial statements. I believe that once a universally acceptable IFRS evolves, it will be easier for accountants to fulfill this obligation.

At this stage, once the IFRS are adopted, I believe the value generated will exceed the cost of compliance. We will be operating for a consistent framework for evaluating the health and performance of a business.
-- Peyton Burch, Director of partner programs, Deltek

Thus, in brief, the primary reason for moving toward IFRS is competitiveness. I think it will become increasingly difficult for the U.S. capital markets and U.S. organizations to compete in a world in which potentially we're the only country operating under a different set of accounting standards -- and therefore a different financial language. My concern is that if we do not now accelerate our move toward adoption, we will increasingly be less influential in the development of IFRS. There remain myriad unresolved issues related to the standard-setting process, the governance and funding of the standard-setting process, as well as serious and valid concerns about government intervention in IFRS standard-setting.
-- Stephen M. Chipman, CEO, Grant Thornton

Given the continuing evolution toward a world economy, globally recognized accounting standards are becoming more and more essential moving forward. In my opinion, this is an important development and rapid adoption is as important as ever.
-- David M. Cieslak, Principal, Arxis Technology Inc.

The shift to a global economy calls for the development of standards that make financial statements comparable across borders. The organizations involved in the process, such as the SEC, will need to take steps to ensure that companies and accounting professionals are provided with the tools to make the proper adjustments accordingly.
-- Scott Cook, Founder, Intuit

I think the goal of a single set of high-quality, fully vetted, global standards for publicly held companies is appropriate and should be pursued. However, the effort to over sell IFRS under the guise that, "Every country except the U.S. is doing it" is missing the mark and hurting the attainment of an appropriate goal of one set of standards.

The misinformation and outright hype and exaggeration of the acceptance worldwide of IFRS is not helping to convert federal and state regulators. It seems to me that before the "big sell" was made on IFRS in the U.S., much elementary work was and is required: Who is covered? What are the standards and what about the carve-outs? Why is IFRS superior to GAAP? Which entities should use IFRS? How should IFRS be developed, promulgated and monitored (there are grave sovereignty issues related to a foreign standard-setter)?
-- David Costello, President and CEO, NASBA

A single set of standards will be crucial to world commerce as our globe morphs into one overarching super-economy. I believe it's our leadership responsibility as accounting professionals to drive the effort. I'm disappointed the SEC is distracted and not setting a steady pace. The initiative has huge implications on not only the technical side, but the market dynamics of our profession. The initiative will create significant demand for our services, and cause further specialization of our profession.
-- Gale Crosley, President, Crosley+Co.

I think a single set of global accounting standards would be very good because it would bring uniformity to an already-confusing set of standards. Most companies that rely on CPA services cannot discern the differences between U.S. GAAP and global standards. A CPA promoting his or her services can more easily communicate the one set of standards to clients and prospects, especially if the client does business internationally.

I think is also incumbent on everyone who works in the accounting profession to take an active role in helping clients and the public understand the single set of standards, instead of relying on larger entities to solely communicate the information. Of course, the regulatory organizations will have to help the accounting professional understand "what" to communicate, but I think everyone should participate in this discussion.
-- Scott H. Cytron, President, Cytron & Co.

As the activities and interests of investors, lenders and companies have become increasingly global, it is crucial for the continued health of our global capital markets that a globally accepted, high-quality financial reporting framework is developed at both a domestic and international level. This is the only way to achieve fair, liquid and efficient capital markets worldwide by providing investors with information that is comparable, transparent and reliable. Given the unique concerns of the U.S. markets and standard-setters, convergence is the most likely method by which the implementation of a single set of global accounting standards is likely to occur.
-- Bob Dias, Vice president of marketing, CCH

I think that this is an important goal, as it creates a level playing field across continents and markets, which becomes more important as investors and their advisors look at investing and diversification with a more global view. Knowing that financial information is standardized makes it easier for investors to make more informed decisions.
-- Michael Di Girolamo, Managing director, Investment Advisors Division, Raymond James Financial Services

I support the creation of a single set of global accounting standards -- and truly believe IFRS is way overdue. A single set of standards will not only simplify the way companies conduct themselves, but encourage 100 percent adoption of ethical behavior. In addition, any time somewhat-disparate regulatory bodies can come together for a common cause -- even though the rules may be somewhat complicated to follow in the short term -- the public will appreciate the effort because it builds long-term trust and a much stronger economy.
-- Anton Donde, CEO, SpeedTax

A standardized set of global accounting standards is inevitable. I believe that eventually, through convergence, it will happen. It is just a matter of time. The broader concern is the potential variances based on size and type of business involved. With this consideration, I believe that there will be a difference in the development and implementation of global standards.
-- Loretta Doon, CEO, CalCPA,

To achieve the objective of a single set of global accounting standards will likely require an independent and well-funded standard-setting body that, while suitably accountable to the world's capital markets, is insulated from political interference and has an investor focus to its standard-setting activities.

There's no doubt that this is challenging -- both within a global network like KPMG's and more broadly across the profession -- but it's clearly the path we need to pursue to facilitate more efficient allocation of capital resources around the globe.
-- Timothy Flynn, Global chairman, KPMG

…there are many benefits to American investors and the markets. Such benefits include facilitating more efficient capital allocations by both companies and investors, promoting increased transparency of financial information given the principles-based nature of IFRS, reduced costs for companies (especially those operating in multiple jurisdictions), as well as protecting the long-term capital market competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.
-- Cynthia Fornelli, Executive director, Center for Audit Quality

Arriving at a single set of accounting standards is imperative; inconsistency breeds uncertainty, which in turn discourages investment and business activity.

The most obvious approach is to adopt IFRS -- after all, it's just U.S. GAAP against the rest of the world, at the moment. We would then work within the IFRS structure to get change. While IFRS is not perfect, it's better than the current uncertain standoff.
-- Christian Frederiksen, Chairman, The 2020 Group

As capital markets become increasingly global, U.S. investors have a corresponding increase in international investment opportunities. In this environment, I believe U.S. investors would benefit from an enhanced ability to compare financial information of U.S. companies with that of non-U.S. companies. The Securities and Exchange Commission has long expressed its support for a single set of high-quality global accounting standards as an important means of enhancing this comparability. Therefore, International Financial Reporting Standards will potentially provide the best common platform on which companies can report and investors can compare financial information.
-- J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

The idea of a single set of global accounting standards is nice, especially as business today isn't and shouldn't be limited by geographic boundaries. And more principles-based than rules-based is probably good. But standards imposed by regulatory authorities for comparability aren't all that helpful to stakeholders as would be, say, reporting that meets the true needs of these stakeholders: assurance of accuracy and relevance specific to the purpose. With something as complex as accounting, judgments are almost always necessary and exceptions seem to be the rule (captured minimally, at present, in footnotes). An approach that clarifies the judgments applied and assures transparency of the judgment process is, in my humble opinion, the more important objective. Does IFRS accomplish this any better than GAAP does?
-- Michelle Golden, Founder, Golden Practices blog