Tag: IASB

SEC Votes to String this IFRS Thing Along

AS PREDICTED. And It was unanimous. Sure, it wasn’t the boldest call we’ve ever made here at GC but we thought it was worth pointing out that the SEC really didn’t have much of a choice.

The good news is that the Commission doesn’t need to sweat this for now. They’re just letting everyone know that they’re tepidly re-re-committing to International Financial Reporting Standards but ONLY if the IASB and FASB can pull off meaningful convergence and the IASB stops being a bunch of lily-livered bean counters and tells the pols to BTFO.


Web CPA reports, “In the commission’s vote Wednesday, the SEC reiterated its cautious support for IFRS, contingent upon reaching a number of milestones, including convergence of U.S. GAAP with IFRS and improved governance of the International Accounting Standards Board.”

And even if that happens, the SEC staff has to check everything out so that everyone knows exactly what will result from the U.S. adopting IFRS (probably the rapture). Once that’s settled then we can talk about how this will get done.

Mary Schapiro’s words:

“In 2011, upon conclusion of the fact-gathering and analysis set forth in the work plan – and assuming completion of the convergence projects – the commission will then be in a position to determine whether to incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S. public companies. Until that time, we will expect staff to provide periodic written public reports to the commission on the progress of its efforts.”

Back to work everybody. There are future meetings to be planned.

SEC Votes on Work Plan for Incorporating IFRS [Web CPA]
Earlier: SEC Meeting on Roadmap Will Likely Lead to More Meetings on Roadmap

Accounting News Roundup: Is the IASB Giving Up on the FASB?; Wake Forest Grads Crush the CPA Exam; NFL Looking at Rams Buyer’s BDO Tax Shelter Connection | 02.16.10

• IASB softens stance on convergence [FT]
We’re not jumping to any conclusions but yesterday the IASB made the statement that it “would no longer pursue convergence with its US peer as ‘an objective in itself'”. Now we’re not entirely sure what “an objective in itself” means but it kinda, sorta sounds like “to hell with you FASB, we’ve got our own plans.”

This revelation was part of “constitution review” in order for the IASB “to justify its public accountability” to its critics. In this review the IASB seemed to be changing its tone on just what convergence is:

In a review of its constitution published on Monday the IASB’s oversight board addressed this concern over the convergence project and said it would “emphasise that convergence is a strategy aimed at promoting and facilitating the adoption of IFRS, but it is not an objective by itself”.

So just spreading the good word about IFRS without any stated objective? Does that sound about right? It sounds a little like financial reporting evangelism.


• Wake graduates get highest passing rates on CPA exam [Winston Salem-Journal]
This is in no way presented to make you feel bad about yourself. Here are the 2008 (the most recent data available) passing rates at WF: 93% on FAR; 87.5% on Audit; 83.22% on regulation; 93.7% on BEC. The overall passing rate was 89.7%. The University has had the highest scores five years running.

If you need to go cry in the bathroom, you may do so now.

• Rams buyer’s $85 million battle with IRS [Chicago Tribune]
Shahid Khan announced last week that he was buying 60% of the St. Louis Rams. Great news right? Ordinarily, yes but now the NFL is looking into his association with a BDO tax partner that was convicted of helping clients avoid taxes through shelters.

The IRS said in court papers that the Khans hired the Chicago-based BDO Seidman accounting firm and met with tax partner Robert Greisman. The Khans engaged in at least five questionable tax shelters, with names like Son-of-Boss and Dad, and paid BDO $8.5 million in fees, about 10 percent of the alleged tax savings, according to court documents.

Yet when the revenue agency questioned Khan about his returns, he was unable to identify what services BDO provided, an IRS agent said in court documents. In April 2007, the IRS made formal requests for information to Greisman and one of his partners in Michigan in connection with its investigation of the Khans.

Greisman pleaded guilty last July to conspiracy charges related to the creation of the shelters and BDO is currently being sued by Khan for negligence and malpractice. The NFL may have saved them themselves the trouble by letting Rush Limbaugh own part of the team…

Sir David Tweedie’s New Promise: To Retire in 2011

Every knight lays down his sword at some point and Tweeds is no exception. The IASB Chairman will hang up his 10-key when his current term ends in June 2011.

According to Emily Chasan at Reuters, DT thought about calling it quits last year after the pols torpedoed mark-to-market in the name of bank lobbyists. Sensing that the true Holy Grail was within reach, Tweedie stayed on:

[H]e has said he stayed because he wanted to continue the convergence process, which is beginning to reach its goal of having a single set of high quality accounting standards used around the globe. The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board and the IASB have redoubled efforts to complete their major convergence projects by a June 2011 deadline set by the G20 group of leading countries.

Now the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, which oversees the board, is on the search for the next bean counter in shining armor. Since Tweeds gave plenty of notice, it won’t likely be the shitshow search like Bank of America has on its hands (until very recently perhaps) but the IASCF is searching all the corners of the world for the replacement and they need to come up with somebody good.
If they put some empty suit in there, the likes of Silvio Berlusconi will be writing the revised contingent liabilities standard. Lord knows we don’t need that. We need someone that doesn’t mind telling pols to BTFO of accounting biznass. Pols like Eddy “If you had just involved us in the monitoring of the IASB we wouldn’t be in this mess” Wymeersch, who probably couldn’t tell the difference between his ass and the basic accounting equation. Feel me, IASCF?
Now since that’s clear, if you’ve got any suggestions or purely want to speculate on who you will be in the big chair next (Tim Flynn? Mary Schapiro? Phil Mickelson? that smug guy in the cube next to you that got a 98 on FARE?) drop them in the comments.
IASB’s Tweedie to retire when term ends in 2011 [Emily Chasan/Reuters]
Trustees seek nominations for Chairman of the IASB from 2011 [Press Release]
See also: Kroeker Stresses Importance of Investors in IFRS Decision; Search Is On For Next Chairman Of IASB When Tweedie Retires in 2011 [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]

You’d Think that Once You’re Knighted You Wouldn’t Get Hassled by Non-Knights

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for tweedie.jpgDoes there happen to be a law in the EU that says that if you’re not a knight you have to keep your piehole shut when it comes to accounting rules? Because if there isn’t, there needs to be. We may give Sir David Tweedie a hard time here (mostly because we’re jealous of the prefix) but we hardly think that he needs pressure from anyone on double-entry accounting.


Despite the knighted one keeping his promises, Eddy Wymeersch, chairman of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) has made it known that the IASB isn’t floating his boat and he would like to go back to the bureaucratic drawing board.
Reuters:

Wymeersch questioned whether there was adequate accountability at the IASB, a London-based body that has already made several changes to its governance, such as setting up a new monitoring group.
“I can remind you the CESR thought it should be in the monitoring group but that did not take place. In my view, this has to be drawn up again and start from scratch,” he said.

Please, non-knight Eddy Wymeersch, remind us that you suggested that you should be allowed to stick your beak into the IASB’s business. We have trouble remembering that politicians all across the blue marble so desperately want to be involved in the oversight of accounting rules.
EU regulator calls for accounting overhaul [Reuters]

FASB’s Final Word on Fair Value Disclosures?

silenced.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
Of the 111 comment letters FASB published on Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements”, this one was my favorite:

Please don’t require Companies not SEC registered to spend any more money on reports under this rule.
Lloyd Amundson

Amen, brother.


The usual suspects left the usual complaints; BDO said excessive disclosures would be both costly and useless, Uncle Ernie implied it was an interesting concept but an expensive flop in practical application, and PwC prefers once a year disclosures instead of quarterly.
Verizon even got in on the action, insisting, “proposed additional extended sensitivity disclosures would unnecessarily complicate financial statement disclosures without providing any meaningful benefit to financial statement users.”
I think it is entirely reasonable to point out that FASB is feeling the pressure to converge and the IASB is encouraging slightly less optimistic financial statements. The IASB openly admits that it is under outside pressure to adopt such a stance:

Responding to requests by the G20 leaders and others, in June 2009 the IASB published a Request for Information on the practicalities of moving to an expected loss model. The responses have been taken into account by the IASB in developing the exposure draft.

The IASB continues:

The IASB will also cooperate closely with the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) with a view to agreeing a common approach to the impairment of financial assets.

Since when is this for the IASB to decide?
Political influences are nothing new to accounting rulemakers but what happens when those influences come from foreign bodies far outside of our control? It is a known fact that the European Union has a large stake in IASB, so how can we be sure their intentions are pure as we move forward at their urging?
The Financial Crisis Advisory Group, an international body set up by the IASB and FASB to advise them on standard-setting issues related to the financial crisis, warned recently that that political pressure on accounting standard-setters posed a threat to “the very existence of international accounting standards.”
Integrity in financial statements? Keep looking, not going to find any of that here.

The Knighted One Keeps His Promises

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for tweedie.jpgSir David Tweedie and his fellow non-knighted wonks have released IFRS 9, Financial Instruments today to much anticipation. For those companies that were chomping at the bit, you can adopt pronto but nothing is mandatory until the end of 2012.
You got to hand it to Tweeds. The BSD at the G20 demanded that the IASB take another look (read: change) at this fair value thing ASAP and he delivered, AS PROMISED:

We have delivered on our commitment to the G20 and stakeholders internationally to provide an improved financial instrument standard for the classification and measurement of financial assets for use in 2009. Benefiting from unprecedented levels of consultation with stakeholders around the world, the IASB has made significant changes in its initial proposals to improve the standard, provide enhanced transparency and respond to stakeholder concerns.

Very impressive, so the ball is your court, Norwalk. You better get off your asses and come up with something good because none of you have knighthood and we haven’t seen much evidence of your re-quadrupled efforts. We already know that you’re talking Plan B but give us something, anything. You’re worried about Congress, sure but the Europeans are making you look bad. Is there any American knight-ish equivalent that Bob Herz could get that would help give him a boost in confidence?
If you’ve got suggestions, leave them in the comments. We’re at a total loss.
IASB completes first phase of financial instruments accounting reform [IASB Press Release]
New fair value standard rushed out by IASB [Accountancy Age]

Apparently Accounting Rule Convergence Is Not 100% Total Convergence

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for merge.jpgYesterday the FASB and IASB got together and spent 23 pages convincing everyone that convergence of accounting rules will happen by June 2011. If you haven’t been convinced by the steps one paragraph statement that was issued saying how ‘encouraged’ she is about the latest re-re-affirming.
There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that there will be a single set of accounting rules — for the entire financial reporting universe — rolled out and everything will be right with the world in June 2011.


But will it be a single set of standards? Edith Orenstein of FEI Financial Reporting Blog:

It is interesting to note that the FASB-IASB joint statement speaks in some places of converging to a ‘single’ set of standards, and in other places of converging to a ‘common’ set of standards. To some, these terms can mean a world of difference. However, the terms are often used interchangably by many different parties. For example, here are some excerpts from the joint statement:

We are redoubling our efforts to achieve a single set of high quality standards within the context of our respective independent standard-setting processes.
Our goal is to develop together common standards that improve financial reporting in the US and internationally and that foster global comparability. Achieving such improvements is consistent with the objectives of the IASB that are set out in the Constitution of the IASC Foundation. It also fulfils the responsibility the FASB has under US law and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2003 Policy Statement to consider, in developing standards, whether international convergence is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and investor protection.

(emphasis original)
That clears it up, doesn’t it? So it’s either a “single set” or “common standards”? FEI Blog thinks it’s a progression, “Presumably, once a set of ‘common standards’ is acheived, the next step would be to officially adopt one set (again, presumably, IFRS, which is used in over 100 countries) as the ‘single’ global standard.”
While this may be the case it still doesn’t mean that everything will be the same.
CFO:

“Convergence doesn’t necessarily mean the same,” says D.J. Gannon, a Deloitte audit partner and the firm’s expert on international financial-reporting standards. In fact, Gannon says, there is no expectation that any of “the lingering differences” between rules that are already converged will be handled through standard-setting. “So the bottom line is that companies [reporting results under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles] are going to have to deal with those differences if they apply international financial-reporting standards at some point in the future.”

Good lord. So for all practical purposes, it sounds like there will still be differences. Frankly, we’re disappointed in this revelation. If someone had told us from the get-go that it wasn’t going to be 100% the same accounting rules we wouldn’t have made such a big stink about the absolute impossibility of the endeavor. Going forward we’ll be taking this even less serious.
FASB, IASB Reaffirm Convergence By June, 2011 [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]
“Convergence Doesn’t Necessarily Mean the Same.” [CFO]

IASB, FASB Are Really, Really Getting Serious About Convergence

Thumbnail image for merge.jpgDo you have doubts about the IASB and FASB’s commitment to accounting rule convergence? What? The name change idea didn’t convince you?

Well, David Tweedie and Bob Herz both addressed doubters attendees at a joint conference of the American Institute of CPAs and the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation in New York to let them know that they are redoubling and in some cases, retripling their efforts to get this done.

The boards intend to hold more joint face-to-face meetings, in some cases by video conference, in order to make faster progress.

“We’re going to work on these issues together every month,” said Tweedie. “That’s why we think we’ll make our June 2011 target date.”

Monthly meetings. Some will be face-to-face. When they can’t do that, there will be video conferencing. Is there any doubt how serious they are taking this? This should be a piece of cake now. Oh sure, maybe they’re going to agree to disagree on the fair value thing but who said that’s important?

Wait a minute. Sir David Tweedie’s confidence seems shaky:

The approach may or may not work, and Tweedie acknowledged that some of the standards may take several years to be finalized. In many cases, they will be moving targets. But the goal of achieving a June 2011 convergence of the two sets of standards still seems doable, he insisted, and it would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Good lord. Which is it people? Let’s just agree that accounting standards will be kinda-sorta converged by June 2011 and the rest of them will be converged “at a date yet to be determined”. We understand that the pressure is tough. No need to commit to anything.

IASB and FASB to Meet Monthly on Standards Overhaul [Web CPA]
Accounting Standard-Setters Will Get Much Chummier [Web CPA Debits & Credits]
Earlier: IASB: You Want a New Fair Value Rule? You Got It. Just Don’t Ask Us About Convergence

Accounting Rulemakers Already Talking Plan B on Fair Value

Thumbnail image for tweedie.jpgSounds like Bob Herz and Sir David Tweedie are phoning it in with regards to fair value rules.
Herz and Tweedie and their respective accounting wonks met in Norwalk, CT on Monday and they’re all but admitting that there’s no chance that they’ll get on the same page:

At a joint meeting in Norwalk, Connecticut on Monday, members of the London-based International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) sparred over whether fair value, or “mark-to-market,” accounting rules should be expanded to a broader array of financial assets, such as loans and deposits.
In a move opposed by the banking industry, the FASB has proposed that all financial instruments be valued at market levels, while the IASB has proposed to have those assets valued at “amortized cost,” which would mostly provide information about expected cash flows.
“If FASB and IASB can’t agree on mixed model or full fair value model … the next best thing is something to move between the two,” Sir David Tweedie, chairman of the IASB, said on Monday…”By the end of 2010… if we can’t get it together, we should be appreciably together,” Tweedie said.

Plan B is already in full effect! Instead of one fair value rule, the two standard setters will provide a “presentation for fair value for more financial assets on corporate balance sheets so that investors would be able to quickly reconcile numbers in U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).”
Some board members are worried that this approach may be too confusing, however. Confusing financial statements? That’s only a problem for average investors. No biggie.
Oh, well. We know 2010 is coming up fast and those politicians get impatient when the bank lobbyists are threatening to cut off the money. Thanks for trying guys. You did your best.
Accounting boards try to reconcile fair value views [Reuters/Emily Chasan]

IASB: You Want a New Fair Value Rule? You Got It. Just Don’t Ask Us About Convergence

tweedie.jpgThere’s no doubt that you’ve been awaiting the IASB’s new fair value rule with feverish anticipation. Well, your wait is nearly over because when Sir David Tweedie says he’s going to do something, by God, he means it:

In an address to a meeting of European Finance Ministers, which have in the past been critical of the IASB’s response to the financial crisis, Tweedie has sought to ease concerns by announcing that he is on track to deliver a new fair value standard by the end of this year.
“I gave a commitment to deliver on this timetable. We will publish the new standard in November,” he said.

This is all very exciting for Tweedie and the IASB since it feels pretty damn good anytime you stick it to your critics but…
Small problem: The new rule still won’t require loans to be marked to fair value which is the exact opposite plan of Bob Herz and the FASB, “FASB’s proposal will see all assets measured at fair value. The IASB’s mixed measurement model would see banks’ loan books valued on an amortised cost basis.”
Obviously the two rulemakers, fresh off the tongue lashings they received from their respective governments for their part in the worldwide economic meltdown, decided that they had no choice but to put out the fair value fire pronto. Meanwhile, convergence of accounting standards (what the IASB is really serious about and could be the next Big 4 gravy train) remains a pipe dream.
Fair value standard will be released next month: Tweedie [Accountancy Age]

Hopefully the IASB Gets the Point

stephen-colbert.jpgAfter learning yesterday about the Accountancy Age Awards we thought that the celebration of accounting couldn’t get any better. And by “better”, we mean incredibly lame.
Satire being a common theme here, we definitely appreciate Christian Aid‘s attempt to help accountants, most specifically the CRAPASS IASB, to reconsider their indirectly screwing of poor countries:
Continued, after the jump

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has been handed a tongue-in-cheek award from Christian Aid, after winning the charity’s Greatest Potential for Tax Reform award…PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PwC), KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche also collected awards…Campaigners want the Board…to instigate urgent and far-reaching reforms – including forcing companies trading internationally to report profits made and taxes paid in every country where they operate. Christian Aid estimates that countries in the developing world are deprived of $160 billion annually in lost revenues by companies disguising their tax liabilities.

This is probably the closet thing to a Razzie that exists for the accounting industry so we’re happy to support them for the sake of argument.
If you’ve got other ideas about other awards that accountants deserve and who the recipients are, submit them in the comments.
Accounting Standards given tongue-in-cheek reform award [politics.co.uk]

Dear FASB, I’m Breaking Up With You

begging.jpgEditor’s note: Adrienne Gonzalez is founder and managing editor of Jr Deputy Accountant as well as regular contributor to leading financial/investment sites like Seeking Alpha and GoldmanSachs666. By day, she teaches unlicensed accountants to pass the CPA exam, though what she does in her copious amounts of freetime in the evening is really none of your business. Follow her adventures in Fedbashing and CPA-wrangling on Twitter @adrigonzo but please don’t show up unannounced at her San Francisco office as she’s got a mean streak. Her favorite FASB is 166.
I can’t take it anymore. I’m serious, this is BS. It has been nothing but up and down, agony and ecstasy for as far back as I can remember on fair value and I want off this ride.
More agony, after the jump


Via SmartBrief:

The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s updated fair-value rules will require companies to fully understand fair-value and mark-to-market concepts and extensively document their analysis of illiquid assets, as this article notes. The FASB gave companies some new latitude in applying fair-value principles but stood firmly behind the importance of fair value in preparing meaningful financial statements.

Stop, please. This is getting to be abusive.
Remember when you whispered in our ear, “Certainly, to those who say that accounting should better reflect true economic substance, fair value, rather than historical cost, would generally seem to be the better measure” in 2003, Bob Herz? We totally fell for it. Who wouldn’t? Swept off of our feet and still hurting from Enron, we needed a rebound and fair value totally worked.
Now what?
I truly wish you and IASB the best of luck in whatever you two decide to do with your miserable little lives.
WebCPA:

While FASB may be pushing back in the other direction and mulling the use of fair value and mark-to-mark with bank loans in addition to assets like mortgage-backed securities, the IASB seems to be tacking in an alternative direction. That could be leading them on the road to divergence, not convergence.

And I’m defriending you on Facebook, Bob. At least you know your new girlfriend does fair value.
Love,
AG