Mr. Ryan sat in a front-row seat in the George Washington University auditorium Wednesday while Mr. Obama unveiled his plan to constrain growing levels of federal debt. Mr. Ryan grew visibly annoyed during the speech, shaking his head in disgust. He feverishly took notes, and when Mr. Obama finished he stood up and bolted from the auditorium. The only person apparently running faster towards the exit tugged on Mr. Ryan’s sleeve near the doorway and reached out to shake his hand. “Hi, Mr. Chairman, Gene Sperling,” Mr. Obama’s director of the National Economic Council said to Mr. Ryan in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture. “Oh, I thought you were a reporter,” Mr. Ryan said, explaining why he didn’t immediately turn around when his name was called. [WSJ]
Related Posts
One More Voice For Ending U.S. GAAP
- Adrienne Gonzalez
- December 7, 2010
It’s been said before so the argument that GAAP is bulky and pointless is really nothing new but in a WSJ op-ed this morning, guest writer Mike Michalowicz insists that GAAP is wrong… for profits, that is.
The GAAP actually directs us to spend first, then pay ourselves, and call the leftovers profit. How are you going to grow a successful business and accumulate wealth using that method? Generate more revenue, you say? Well, sure. Except that you’re going to spend it. So you’re right back where you started—working with the leftovers, if you have any.
I propose a new type of accounting: Profit First Accounting (PFA). The difference between GAAP and PFA is simple: Deduct profit first, from the top down. On a PFA income statement, the first line item is revenue, followed by a profit deduction, then your salary, followed by cost of goods and all other expenses.
Hey, guess what? We already have an alternative accounting system lurking in the wings. Allegedly IFRS will help companies that spend quite a bit on R&D buff up equity as R&D costs are considered assets, isn’t that an improvement over GAAP? IFRS also allows for financial statements to come together in whatever order, however those preparing the statements feel is most relevant to the entity’s economic picture. So what’s to stop them from slapping them together as the author suggests above?
GAAP is not meant to transform internal accounting departments into psychics and I doubt any U.S. companies use it because they feel it helps construct a useful picture of the entity that can be used for goal-setting and forecasting. That’s just not what it’s there to do and I think we can all agree on that.
Oh and by the way, Mike is the author of The Toilet Paper Entrepreneur, which he will be able to follow up with a sequel if we actually take his suggestion and try this Profit First idea. Yes business is all about profit but I think Mike is forgetting that companies file for the good of investors and regulatory bodies breathing down their necks, not necessarily for their own good or for the good of their almighty profits.
(UPDATE) Will the Herz and Tweedie Retirements Put the Kibosh on Convergence?
- Caleb Newquist
- August 25, 2010
~ Update includes comment from IFAC President Robert Bunting of Moss Adams
Maybe! After all, anything’s possible. The Herz retirement wasn’t exactly expected but since Roberto had two years left in his terms but it’s been suggested that it’s been a rough two years since Barney Frank gave him the tongue lashing of his life over the whole mark-to-market thing.
Regardless, The Journal put it out there that the timing of Herz’s departure causes hella handwringing, most notably on the convergence efforts:
FASB will now have to replace Mr. Herz at the same time that the IASB is already cessor to its chairman, David Tweedie, whose terms expires in June 2011. This means that both bodies will have new heads as they enter what could prove to be the end game for the often-thorny process of converging two accounting standards.
This, of course, causes the U.S. GAAP Hawks to squeal with glee and those in pro-IFRS camp to get anxious and will likely lead to heavy lobbying for a replacement that will keep Tweeds dream alive for “one high quality set of global standards” or whatever they’re calling it these days.
Despite the Journal’s anxiety, International Federation of Accountants President Bob Bunting sees the change as an opportunity and things will continue to progress, “While the changes of leadership at the FASB and the IASB offer the opportunity for a fresh look at the convergence process, I would be surprised if any radical change in direction occurs,” Mr Bunting wrote in an email to GC, “The financial market forces and public interest arguments for convergence of the two standards, and possible eventual adoption of IFRS as a single standard continue to be very strong.”
However, since the FASB is expanding back to seven members, that will likely slow the process down (which makes some people happy) even further, especially with empty seats at the table:
The lack of a full board is likely to slow many of FASB’s projects, particularly the move to converge with international rules, said former FASB Chairman Dennis Beresford. “They’re not going to issue anything important on the basis of having only four board members,” he said, adding that Mr. Herz’s departure came as “a complete surprise.”
So, with those seeds of doubt planted, let’s put it to a vote.
Let’s Play ‘Spot the Cliché!’ Drinking Game with This Email From the AICPA
- Adrienne Gonzalez
- February 20, 2015
In an email — presumably — sent out to AICPA members, AICPA President, CEO, and […]
