A comment
posted today by reader Randall Enders suggests that the SEC's push for IFRS is a last ditch effort to loosen accounting rules before Republican SEC chairman Christopher Cox is removed from office. Similar suggestions have been made in articles in both the New York Times and the Washington Post.
But is the implication of such suggestions that a new administration would actually stop the United States's move toward IFRS and stick with U.S. GAAP? To anyone following the inside-baseball developments of accounting standards, that scenario seems highly unlikely.
FASB has already downsized its own board, stripped down its convergence agenda , and set its sights on 2011 as the date for eliminating the major sticking points between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. (That date strongly suggests that 2013 is a likely date for U.S. conversion, since American companies would need to provide two years of IFRS reporting.)
It would, presumably, be possible to return to a more leisurely pace of accounting convergence. But as recent controversies have shown, that can get pretty leisurely. The existence of two boards inevitably means that convergence can be hampered by a two-steps forward, one-step back pace.
Moreover, apart from some grumpy rumblings from Senator Carl Levin, neither the Times nor the Post identified anyone in authority who is actually suggesting resisting or reversing the move to IFRS.
Still, the SEC's announcement of a date later this week is expected to finally set off a crush of U.S. preparation for IFRS, not just by companies, but also by accounting schools, textbook writers, certification programs, other regulators (think the IRS), and so on. When it becomes apparent what a major change it will be, there may be a few more voices questioning the move. |
Video
