Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

FASB Wants to Make a Comment Period Longer, But How Can You Make Punctuation Longer? Maybe If It’s a Comment Ellipsis!

Everybody's sick of banks being too big to fail. The only thing Americans ever liked that was too big to fail was Oprah Winfrey. Then she lost some weight, and then she started OWN. So for a while she wasn't too big, and now she clearly failed. Problem solved! For Oprah, not for banks.

So here comes the FASB riding in to save the day like the Lone Ranger in shining armor, just there are seven members, so it's more like seven Lone Rangers that work together, so "lone" isn't really a good descriptor. The FASB is like seven rangers. But I guess the Lone Ranger wasn't really alone either because of Tonto which means "stupid" in Spanish, and some people think that Kee Mo Sabe was derived from the Spanish phrase "que no sabe" which, loosely translated means "clueless one." So maybe the metaphor is apt because everybody on FASB is so stupid and clueless! Haha! Suck it, Seidman! Metaphorically. It's totally inappropriate otherwise.
How exactly will a standards-setting board save the day? You guessed it. By making a proposal. But the only proposal I ever liked was with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. I thought it was going to be a total chick flick, and it was, but it was funny enough for me not to care about that anymore. FASB's proposal is not funny, nor does it have any hunky/hot celebrities.
[FASB's] proposal aims to improve financial reporting about expected credit losses on loans and other financial assets held by banks, financial institutions, and other public and private organizations.
Banks are supposed to start reporting expected credit losses? The Detroit Tigers are more willing to report expected losses than banks are, and the Tigers are expected to lose everything. Haha! Suck it, Detroit! And this time, not in exchange for crack.
FASB’s proposed model would use a single “expected credit loss” measurement objective for the recognition of credit losses, replacing the multiple existing impairment models in U.S. GAAP.
Why would they want to use a single measurement when they can use a married filing jointly measurement? Haha! Suck it, marriage penalty! Which is ironic because of the decreased frequency of fellatio after marriage.
The current models generally require that a loss be “incurred” before it is recognized. Under FASB’s proposal, management would be required to estimate the cash flows that it does not expect to collect using all available information, including historical experience and reasonable and supportable forecasts about the future.
A strict interpretation of "all available information" would also include facts gleaned from a $2.99/min. phone conversation with Miss Cleo at the Psychic Hotline. Better tell her your sign is Pisces because financial statement figure requiring that much subjectivity is going to be pretty fishy. Haha! Suck it, Cancers!
The new comment deadline on Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Subtopic 825-15) is May 31, 2013.
Yeah, I'll be sure to spend all of Memorial Day weekend contemplating the intricacies of expected loss reporting. That would be very tonto. That means stupid!