The Financial Accounting Resource Center™ is a comprehensive research service that provides the full text of standards, the latest news from the Accounting Policy & Practice Report ®,...
By Steven Marcy
U.S. and international accounting standard setters must resist forces that might drive their rules apart, which could undermine investor ability to understand financial performance by multinational companies.
While the two sets of accounting standards probably won’t ever be completely converged, they are close enough now to provide investors with sufficient information to obtain a clear, accurate picture of companies with multinational operations, Scott Evans, deputy comptroller for asset management for Office of New York City’s comptroller, and Alan Beller, senior counsel for law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, said Feb. 28.
Yet differences in implementation and local interests could potentially begin to unravel 15 years of effort to merge them as closely as possible, they told a Council of Institutional Investors conference. U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and international financial reporting standards must remain close in wording, implementation and enforcement, Evans and Beller said.
“It is hugely in your interest to make sure IFRS remains high-quality and IFRS doesn’t diverge from U.S. GAAP,” Beller told the conference.
Similarity among the standards is crucial to the financial well-being of governments, pension funds, mutual funds and other U.S. institutional investors that hold nearly $7 trillion in assets whose performance is measured in accordance with IFRS.
“We are all global investors,” said Beller, who also is trustee of the IFRS Foundation, which oversees the International Accounting Standards Board.
Evans warned against any divergence by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board and IASB. “They are practicing something very close right now,” Evans said. “But if the IFRS veers from U.S. GAAP, it’s going to take the rest of the world” with them. Evans said, and that is “a big problem for the U.S.”
“U.S. investors can’t afford for the IFRS to drift too far from U.S. standards, so we must get behind the continued integration of the U.S. policy makers and international policy makers,” Evans said. “That’s at risk.”
While U.S. and international standards on financial instruments, revenue recognition and leasing are very closely worded and closely related in concept, differences in implementation could still cause them to diverge in practice, Evans said.
Efforts in the U.S. to allow the use of IFRS as an optional or supplemental method of reporting financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission are probably at an end, Beller said, as well as any continued drive toward complete convergence. Smaller companies and auditing firms foresaw too many complications and expenses.
“I think that the smaller the company, the worse the fear that the option would turn into the requirement” for also filing under IFRS, Beller said. That would saddle them with increased costs emanating from duplication and conversion.
Another deterrent to U.S. adoption of IFRS as an option or supplement is accounting firms' fear of incurring enormous costs and personnel additions if they are required to prepare audits in accordance with both IFRS and GAAP, Beller said.
“No outcry” emerged from the investor community for a completely converged set of standards, Beller said; IFRS and GAAP are close enough in concept and language to be used by multinational companies.
The two rule sets are close enough now that the IFRS community “doesn’t care” if complete convergence fails to be achieved, Beller said. Further significant convergence isn’t “part of our conversation anymore” with the SEC or U.S. Treasury Department, he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Steven Marcy in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: S. Ali Sartipzadeh at email@example.com
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)