Experts expose seven misconceptions about international financial reporting standards.
Marie Leone, CFO.com | US
October 14, 2010
Mandating global IFRS when thier exists no global government to police global entities who engage in deceptive global accounting practices is the core issue of transitioning to a global standard. The sovereignty of the USA is not a myth. Please take a few minutes to read my public comment to the SEC Roundtable from August 2008 just prior to the financial collapse of too big to fail global financial institutions: http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-564/4564-4.pdf We have little evidence that criminal aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley laws are enforced here in the USA. Please read my public comment to the SEC from August 2010: http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-ix/short-sale-disclosure/shortsaledisclosure-11.htm There is even less evidence of IFRS global consequences for IFRS global accounting fraudsters. Other than being reliable, tried, and true, what is the problem with US GAAP? Is IFRS just an attack on Capitalism in general? Global Ingenuity and Global Innovation have been stagnate since the creation of the global too big to fail myth. No global government - no single accounting standard - no more IFRS myth busting is necessary. Transnationalists need to live with today's reality. One size does not fit all. USA will lead the global recovery and US GAAP will be the measure of a commercial success - without having to pass social norms tests, or demonstrate compliance with artificial environmental behavior tests - The "triple bottom line" measures promoted by global accounting "deciders of economic value" and other supporters of IFRS where measured profit is the lowest of their priorities. It was a plan too big to fail, until of course, it failed and oil prices failed to sustain the hockey stick (MTM) price chart. Reinstate Glass-Stegall like segregation of financial responsibilities and end the too big to fail:failed global banking cabal and cartel. Their plans failed. They are failures.
Posted by Joe Jefferis | October 27, 2010 09:36 am
While it is true that GAAP is based on principles with many (necessary) clarifications added throughout the years, we have to realize that in a short time IFRS will look just like GAAP. Prepares, auditors, etc. want guidance and clarification as they need to defend their actions (oftentimes legally). They will continue to request guidance and clarifications under IFRS. One day we will wonder why we converted in the first place.
Posted by Jason Swartzlander | October 26, 2010 03:21 pm
If you are going to be a cheerleader at least get the right attire. This article sounds like it was ghost-written by a Big 4 publicity department, who are licking their chops at the prospects of selling IFRS transition services and staffing their firms the way their IT shops are staffed; plenty of eager bright young H1B's isolated from family.
Posted by Super Heater | October 25, 2010 11:35 pm
A major foreign corporation doing business in the US and reporting financial results in accordance with IFRS recognized a component of their 2009 revenue based on a letter certifying that a project was 90% complete during fiscal and calendar year 2009. My research indicated that this practice was permitted in IFRS, but not in US GAAP in 2009. Therefore, IFRS could be interpreted to be less conservative than US GAAP, at least with regard to revenue recognition.
Posted by Dan Logan | October 15, 2010 02:35 pm© CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.