Overview
The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published a Staff
Paper1 outlining a possible approach for incorporating IFRS into the US financial
reporting system. This approach was first described by Deputy Chief Accountant,
Paul Beswick, in December 2010 colloquially referred to as “condorsement”.
The approach would establish an endorsement protocol for the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) to incorporate new or amended IFRSs into US GAAP. During
a defined transition period (e.g., five to seven years), the FASB would eliminate
differences between IFRS and US GAAP through standard setting.
The staff notes that this approach is one of several ways that IFRS could be
incorporated into the US financial reporting system and that the SEC has not yet
decided whether to move ahead with incorporation. SEC Chairman, Mary Schapiro,
has indicated the SEC expects to make this decision in 2011.
The SEC expects to make a decision in 2011 on whether, and
if so, when and how to incorporate IFRS into the US financial
reporting system.
Background
The SEC staff has been studying issues
outlined in its 2010 Work Plan2 to help the
Commission decide whether, and if so,
when and how to incorporate IFRS into
the US financial reporting system.
As noted in the staff’s October 2010
Progress Report3 on its Work Plan and
again in the Staff Paper, other jurisdictions
have generally incorporated or intend to
incorporate IFRS into their reporting
requirements for listed companies by
either: (1) full use (without intervening
review) of IFRS as issued by the IASB; or
(2) use of IFRS after a national or
multinational incorporation process, which
could lead to the full use of IFRS as issued
by the IASB or to a local variation of IFRS.
Note that local variations of IFRS would not
constitute compliance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB.
Jurisdictions using a national
incorporation process generally have
either converged their local standards
with IFRS without fully incorporating IFRS
(the convergence approach) or they have
endorsed IFRS by incorporating individual
IFRSs into their local standards (the
endorsement approach). In his speech
in December, Mr Beswick proposed
combining these two approaches.
Framework
The staff notes that the following
approaches for incorporating IFRS have
been discussed:
• Full adoption of IFRS on a specified date
without any endorsement mechanism
• Full adoption following a transition period
• An option for US issuers to apply IFRS
And
• Continued convergence of US GAAP
with IFRS
The SEC staff believes the approach
described in its paper could achieve the
goal of a single set of high-quality
accounting standards and could minimise
the cost and effort needed to incorporate
IFRS into the financial reporting system
for US issuers. Under this possible
framework, the FASB would be retained as
the US standard-setter and IFRS would be
incorporated into US GAAP during a
transition period of, for example, five to
seven years. At the end of this period, the
objective would be that a US issuer
compliant with US GAAP should also be
able to represent that it is compliant with
IFRS as issued by the IASB. Following the
transition period, the SEC staff envisages
the roles of the FASB and the SEC and
their constituents as follows:
Role of the FASB in the US
The SEC staff believes the US should
play an active role in international
standard-setting, proactively identifying
financial reporting issues and ensuring
that US interests are addressed. The staff
believes the FASB would be best suited to
fill this role. The staff envisages the FASB
participating in the development of IFRS,
rather than focusing on developing or
modifying US GAAP.
The Staff Paper describes the FASB’s role
in international standard setting as:
• Providing input and support to the
International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB) in standards development
• Advancing the consideration of US
perspectives
• Incorporating IFRS into US GAAP
through an endorsement process
• Educating US constituents about IFRS
2In the endorsement process, the FASB
would have the authority to modify or add
to the requirements of IFRSs. However,
the staff said it expects modifications to
be rare. Any modifications would be
subject to an established protocol, which
could consider whether a standard meets
an established threshold (e.g., a threshold
that considers the public interest and
the protection of investors). The FASB
would also retain the authority to add
supplemental or interpretive guidance to
US GAAP as needed.
Role of the SEC
The SEC would continue to oversee the
FASB and would actively follow — but
not directly oversee — the IASB’s
standard-setting activities. The staff notes
that, under any incorporation approach,
the SEC would continue to be responsible
for protecting investors, maintaining fair,
orderly and efficient markets and
facilitating capital formation. The SEC
would therefore maintain its authority to
prescribe accounting principles and
standards for US issuers. However, the
staff would expect to issue guidance or
interpretations infrequently to avoid
conflict with IFRS.
Role of US constituents
To ensure that US constituents have a
voice in the IASB’s standard-setting
process, the staff says they would have
to engage with the IASB, as they now do
with the FASB. While the FASB would
continue to operate and would work with
the IASB, individual constituents should
not rely on the FASB’s interaction with
the IASB to ensure that their opinions
are heard.
Transition to IFRS
The Staff Paper describes a possible
transition period during which current
US guidance would be replaced with the
guidance in IFRS. IFRS would be fully
incorporated into US GAAP following an
implementation programme developed
and executed by the FASB, under the
oversight of the SEC. The paper discusses
possible transition plans for three
categories of standards.
MoU projects
The FASB and IASB plan to complete
certain joint projects described in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in
2011. The Staff Paper assumes that the
projects will result in reasonably converged
standards.
IFRSs subject to standard setting
The FASB would identify IFRSs expected
to be issued or significantly modified
in the near term. The FASB would
participate in the IASB’s standard-setting
process for these standards, and US GAAP
in these areas would remain unchanged
until the IASB issues new or modified
standards. The FASB would review the
new or modified standards to assess how
to incorporate them into US GAAP.
IFRSs not subject to standard setting
The FASB would first assess IFRSs that
are not subject to standard-setting for
incorporation into US GAAP. The FASB
would then determine whether these
IFRSs should be incorporated into US
GAAP at the same time or whether they
should be phased in. If the FASB chose to
phase them in, the FASB would need to
carefully manage the transition. The
transition plan for these IFRSs would allow
for prospective application when possible.
Benefits and risks
The Staff Paper describes the benefits
and risks of this approach, including:
• The framework may allow for a flexible
transition that is tailored to the needs
of US constituents, but any benefits
might evaporate if the transition plan is
not well-developed, comprehensive and
responsive to changing circumstances.
• The framework could provide a gradual
transition that would cost less than
incorporating all of IFRS at a point in
time, but some US issuers may prefer
full adoption or the option to adopt IFRS
on a single date. A gradual transition
also could be perceived as a lack of
US commitment to IFRS and could
potentially confuse US constituents
during the transition period.
• The framework could provide greater
investor protection than direct
incorporation of IFRS. However, if
modifications to IFRS are more
than infrequent, the US would risk
developing its own version of IFRS.
• The framework retains US GAAP as
the basis of financial reporting for
US issuers, which would be significant
because of US laws, regulations and
contracts that cite US GAAP.
How we see it
Many questions remain about how this
approach would be implemented. The
transition the staff envisages, for
example, might conflict with the general
premise of IFRS 14, which requires
companies to apply IFRS as if it had
always been followed. Because of this
requirement, it may be difficult for US
issuers to meet the staff’s stated goal of
asserting compliance with IFRS as issued
by the IASB. Also unclear is how the
FASB would determine what is in the
best interest of the public and investors
and what would happen if the FASB and
the IASB cannot agree.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Public Accountability - who’s in and who’s out?
IFRS for SMEs Blog
Home
Thinking
IFRS for SMEs Blog
Public Accountability - who’s in and who’s out?
Popular
Video Posts (0)
All Articles (1)
Public Accountability - who’s in and who’s out?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 | Posted by: Grant Thornton
Categories: UK GAAP | Tags: IFRS, UK GAAP, ASB
Our comment letter on the future of UK GAAP has now been submitted, two days before the 30 April deadline. Why is it that no matter how organised you try to be, these things always go down to the wire? I suppose that when the subject is this big and this important, then discussion of the issues will always expand to fill the time available.
One of those issues has been the definition of public accountability, and therefore which entities will need to adopt full IFRS. There is a widely-held view that the current guidance isn’t clear enough, but how to fix it isn’t as obvious.
The ‘publicly-traded’ part of the definition isn’t the problem. This is pretty clear cut; either your shares or loan notes are listed or they aren’t.
No, the issue is with the second part of the definition; ‘holds assets in a fiduciary capacity for a broad group or outsiders and/or it is a deposit taking entity for a broad group of outsiders’. The draft standard includes some guidance about who is an ‘outsider’, but there is still uncertainty around the words ‘holds assets’, ‘broad’ and ‘group’.
For example, to ‘hold assets’ do they have to be on your balance sheet? What if they are held in escrow? Is a group of company directors considered to be ‘broad’? What about a group of employees of the same company? And how many outsiders do you need to make a group? 10? 5? 2?
The issues really arise around the borders of the definition. We really don’t want to get in a situation where management say their company isn’t publicly accountable but their auditor says it is. That would be a disagreement with a major impact on the audit report!
So, what’s our solution? Well, we think that the best option is a relatively narrow interpretation of ‘broad group of outsiders’ so that it is taken to mean the general public.
This would mean that banks and building societies which take deposits from the public would be publicly accountable, but a credit union whose membership is restricted to a small pool of people would not. An insurance company offering life cover to the general public would be caught, but a pension scheme which is restricted to employees of a particular company would not.
We think that this solution would lead to a more sensible list of entities which would be considered publicly accountable. It would also remove the need of an exemption for small, prudentially regulated entities since, if they are small because they have few members, they wouldn’t meet the definition in the first place.
Home
Thinking
IFRS for SMEs Blog
Public Accountability - who’s in and who’s out?
Popular
Video Posts (0)
All Articles (1)
Public Accountability - who’s in and who’s out?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 | Posted by: Grant Thornton
Categories: UK GAAP | Tags: IFRS, UK GAAP, ASB
Our comment letter on the future of UK GAAP has now been submitted, two days before the 30 April deadline. Why is it that no matter how organised you try to be, these things always go down to the wire? I suppose that when the subject is this big and this important, then discussion of the issues will always expand to fill the time available.
One of those issues has been the definition of public accountability, and therefore which entities will need to adopt full IFRS. There is a widely-held view that the current guidance isn’t clear enough, but how to fix it isn’t as obvious.
The ‘publicly-traded’ part of the definition isn’t the problem. This is pretty clear cut; either your shares or loan notes are listed or they aren’t.
No, the issue is with the second part of the definition; ‘holds assets in a fiduciary capacity for a broad group or outsiders and/or it is a deposit taking entity for a broad group of outsiders’. The draft standard includes some guidance about who is an ‘outsider’, but there is still uncertainty around the words ‘holds assets’, ‘broad’ and ‘group’.
For example, to ‘hold assets’ do they have to be on your balance sheet? What if they are held in escrow? Is a group of company directors considered to be ‘broad’? What about a group of employees of the same company? And how many outsiders do you need to make a group? 10? 5? 2?
The issues really arise around the borders of the definition. We really don’t want to get in a situation where management say their company isn’t publicly accountable but their auditor says it is. That would be a disagreement with a major impact on the audit report!
So, what’s our solution? Well, we think that the best option is a relatively narrow interpretation of ‘broad group of outsiders’ so that it is taken to mean the general public.
This would mean that banks and building societies which take deposits from the public would be publicly accountable, but a credit union whose membership is restricted to a small pool of people would not. An insurance company offering life cover to the general public would be caught, but a pension scheme which is restricted to employees of a particular company would not.
We think that this solution would lead to a more sensible list of entities which would be considered publicly accountable. It would also remove the need of an exemption for small, prudentially regulated entities since, if they are small because they have few members, they wouldn’t meet the definition in the first place.
IFRS 13 unites fair value standards
Among a wave of new standards issued last week was IFRS 13 ‘Fair Value Measurement’, which will unite international and US GAAP treatments from 1 January 2013.
The IASB characterised IFRS 13 as a five-year consolidation project that brought together existing requirements around the use of “mark to market” valuations into a new document that will be “nearly identical” to the guidance issued by the US Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB).
However volatile market-based valuations were identified by many bankers and analysts as a contributory factor to the global financial crisis, so IFRS 13 also represents the IASB’s response. There was a heavy focus on financial instruments because of the global financial crisis, but IFRS 13 is wider than that, explained board member Warren McGregor in an IASB webcast. “This is a standard that applies to any asset or liability that requires you to make a valuation,” he said.
The new standard does not extend the use of fair value accounting, but provides guidance on how it should be applied where its use is already required or permitted by other standards within IFRSs or US GAAP, the board said.
Aside from the close alignment with US GAAP, the most significant point within IFRS 13 is the stipulation that the exit price will stand as the single definition for fair value measurement and disclosure.
Pre IFRS 13, the definitions used didn’t match any concrete formulations for buyers or sellers, so companies applied it differently, explained IASB project manager Hilary Eastman in the webcast. The standard-setters wrestled with a number of options before choosing the exit price.
IFRS will apply from 1 January 2013, but early adoption will be permitted. The ISAB will not require disclosure of comparatives going forward when it comes into effect. Further information on IFRS 13 is available from the IASB's fair value measurement page.
The IASB characterised IFRS 13 as a five-year consolidation project that brought together existing requirements around the use of “mark to market” valuations into a new document that will be “nearly identical” to the guidance issued by the US Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB).
However volatile market-based valuations were identified by many bankers and analysts as a contributory factor to the global financial crisis, so IFRS 13 also represents the IASB’s response. There was a heavy focus on financial instruments because of the global financial crisis, but IFRS 13 is wider than that, explained board member Warren McGregor in an IASB webcast. “This is a standard that applies to any asset or liability that requires you to make a valuation,” he said.
The new standard does not extend the use of fair value accounting, but provides guidance on how it should be applied where its use is already required or permitted by other standards within IFRSs or US GAAP, the board said.
Aside from the close alignment with US GAAP, the most significant point within IFRS 13 is the stipulation that the exit price will stand as the single definition for fair value measurement and disclosure.
Pre IFRS 13, the definitions used didn’t match any concrete formulations for buyers or sellers, so companies applied it differently, explained IASB project manager Hilary Eastman in the webcast. The standard-setters wrestled with a number of options before choosing the exit price.
IFRS will apply from 1 January 2013, but early adoption will be permitted. The ISAB will not require disclosure of comparatives going forward when it comes into effect. Further information on IFRS 13 is available from the IASB's fair value measurement page.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Origins and Rationale for IFRS Convergence
Table of contents
* Executive Summary
* Introduction
* Why Convergence Is Necessary
* The Development of Global Standards
* Use in International Capital Markets
* Convergence on a Worldwide Standard
* Conclusion
* Case Study
* Making It Happen
Executive Summary
*
Worldwide convergence on international standards for financial reporting will make investment and financial reporting more efficient.
*
Investors gain access to more investment opportunities and the cost of capital comes down.
*
As more countries use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), so international groups can use them for subsidiary reporting and group reporting.
*
The International Accounting Standards Committee, the international standard-setter, came into existence in 1973 as an initiative by the accounting profession to address the emerging needs of cross-border business.
*
The standard-setter negotiated a role with the international co-ordinator of stock exchange regulators as a supplier of rules for secondary listings.
*
The International Accounting Standards Board, the successor body, was created in 2000 at the time when the European Union announced it would adopt IFRS for listed companies.
*
IFRS are now mandatory or permitted in more than 100 countries. China, Japan, India, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea are set to adopt IFRS in 2011.
*
Companies using IFRS can list in the United States without preparing a costly reconciliation of their numbers to US GAAP.
Back to top
Introduction
How did an internal phone call in a Sydney hotel in 1972 lead 40 years later to a worldwide movement that is changing financial reporting radically and opening up international investment?
Thanks to that conversation, companies can more and more easily access different stock markets, and investors can step across national and cultural boundaries. Investment should be getting more efficient. Since 2001, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have been set in London by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), a privately financed independent body. Their standards are used for listed companies within the European Union and in many other places. In 2011 China, Japan, India, Brazil, and South Korea will start using them. Even the United States is considering abandoning its rules in favor of the international ones.
Back to top
Why Convergence Is Necessary
Evidently, having different national accounting systems is costly for companies and investors. Companies have to keep duplicate accounting systems, and investors are wary about buying shares of companies whose accounts they do not understand. The problem arises because accounting regulation has developed over a couple of centuries in national economies whose needs have differed from each other, and whose ways of regulating people’s activities have also differed. What people are looking for from accounting is often different.
Much accounting regulation is contingent: you get an accounting failure, then you get rules to shut the stable door; so, for example, the Enron debacle was followed by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This has been going on ever since there were accounting rules. The first government requirements were developed because of a spate of bankruptcies in Paris in the seventeenth century. Consequently, while much of the basic methodology (double entry bookkeeping, balance sheet, etc.) is the same everywhere, the details can differ—especially when it comes to the more complex situations where there is no obvious best solution.
This has a number of consequences, which in turn bring costs. Internally within a multinational group there is usually a network of national subsidiaries (e.g. Nestlé has more than a thousand) spread across the world. They have to report nationally using their national GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and also have to report to the parent, which has to prepare consolidated statements using parent company GAAP. This means that either the subsidiary has dual accounting systems, or the parent has to maintain a special team to adjust the accounts of subsidiaries to parent GAAP. This is costly, and it also means that it is not that easy to transfer accounting staff around the world because of the different local requirements, and it is more expensive to train them.
The group consolidated financial statements are then used to communicate to present and potential shareholders. If the company is listed on several stock exchanges, this means the possibility of having to provide information adjusted to the requirements of the individual foreign stock exchanges—as in the case of the SEC reconciliation to US GAAP. Investors are not comfortable with financial statements that are not prepared under the GAAP they are used to. Consequently they either do not invest, or they will require a higher risk premium to do so.
This situation has the effect of limiting the extent to which international capital markets are truly international. A company may choose not to list in a major market because of the reporting costs, and therefore cuts itself off from investors based there who for legal, cultural, and other reasons will not invest outside that market. Equally there is a cost for investors because their choice is restricted. The US investor cannot directly compare Whirlpool with Electrolux or Siemens. If they could directly compare all washing machine manufacturers around the globe, they could choose the most efficient, and global wealth would increase.
Back to top
The Development of Global Standards
The 1972 phone call that launched what are now the International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, was made by Douglas Morpeth, then a partner in the international audit firm Touche Ross (now Deloitte) and also president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, to Henry Benson, a partner in Coopers & Lybrand (now part of PricewaterhouseCoopers). They were at a conference of the international accounting profession. Benson had just made a presentation about the future international organization of the profession. Morpeth asked why Benson’s committee had not also suggested setting up an international standard-setter.
They called a meeting with representatives of the US and Canadian professional bodies, and by June the next year the board of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), comprising representatives of nine national professional bodies, was holding its first meeting in London.
The initiative should be seen in context: international trade started to grow significantly from the 1960s, and by the early 1970s was starting to register as an issue that needed to be addressed. People were staring to transact more frequently across borders and would need a common accounting language, or at least Morpeth and Benson thought so. The second current was the development of standard-setters. The present US standard-setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) also started work in 1973. The United Kingdom’s first standard-setter started to appear in 1969. Douglas Morpeth was deputy chairman of the Accounting Standards Committee as the UK body was eventually called. He thought that the United Kingdom’s new standards could be usefully recycled for international use.
Benson was the first chairman of the IASC. It was a very small organization with a single employee based in London and a voluntary chairman and board members supported by professional accounting associations. After the initial enthusiasm for doing something international, two problems emerged. It became clear that the national bodies were doing very little about getting International Accounting Standards (IAS) adopted in their home countries, so no one was actually using these standards. Second, as standards were being developed, individuals were reluctant to see their national practices banned or ignored, and so IAS were written that included options within them. Two companies could adopt radically different stances on an issue and both be in compliance with the same standard.
By the 1980s the IASC’s standards were being voluntarily adopted by multinationals in countries such as Switzerland, France, and Italy (e.g. Nestlé, Roche, Aérospatiale, Cap Gemini) to make up for a lack of detailed rules for consolidated financial statements. They were also being used as a model in developing countries that were members of the British Commonwealth to build on to the model they had inherited from the British Empire. Outside that use, they were much cited in debates about standards, but very rarely directly applied. When they were used voluntarily by individual companies, often those companies followed some but not all of the standards.
Back to top
Use in International Capital Markets
However, change was on its way. From 1985 a new secretary general, David Cairns, set about transforming the situation. He initiated an agreement with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), a body that links national stock exchange regulators, for the IASC to supply standards to be used in conjunction with secondary listings. At the time, most stock exchanges required foreign issuers either to provide financial statements according to local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or to provide reconciliations to them. IOSCO’s idea was that all stock exchanges would sign up to a single set of listing requirements for foreign issuers, so dramatically cutting the costs of a secondary listing.
At the same time Cairns set out to widen the funding base of the body so that he could expand its work, and to try to involve national standard-setters as well as professional bodies. The idea that the accounting profession should set its own standards was disappearing and standards were increasingly being set by dedicated independent committees. He agreed with IOSCO a program to improve International Accounting Standards by removing options and also by extending the range.
The road proved to be rocky, and took more than ten years. Cairns resigned in 1994, to be replaced by Bryan Carsberg, an accounting practitioner turned academic turned government regulator (he had been director-general of fair trading in the United Kingdom). Under Carsberg the program was finally completed, including the difficult standard on financial instruments, IAS 39. A strategy committee was also established to recommend how the future standard-setter should be organized.
The year 2000 was pivotal. In May IOSCO voted to approve the body on International Accounting Standards (if with some reservations). In June, the European Commission announced that it was going to propose legislation to require the use of the standards by EU listed companies from 2005, and in July the international accounting profession, meeting in Edinburgh, agreed to relinquish its control of the IASC and let the IASB be set up in its place.
The IASB is a small committee of professional standard-setters. It has a large technical team, based in London still, and is funded through voluntary contributions from companies, audit firms, and various institutions, both national and international. It adopted the predecessor body’s standards, but used a different name (IFRS instead of IAS) for its own standards. IFRS is also the generic term for all the standards together with the interpretations issued by the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC).
Back to top
Convergence on a Worldwide Standard
Where the IASC was part of a world of “harmonization”—or movement toward each other—the IASB is firmly committed “to develop, in the public interest, a single set of high quality, understandable and enforceable global accounting standards” and “to bring about convergence of national accounting standards and IFRSs to high quality solutions” (Preface to IFRS, London: IASC Foundation). Though it has not focused exclusively on the United States, the IASB’s main driver is convergence with US GAAP. It entered into an agreement with the FASB in 2002 to pursue convergence through a joint program of removing differences and developing new standards together.
This program yielded a big prize in 2007. The Securities and Exchange Commission decided that it would recognize financial statements prepared under IFRS as issued by the IASB as equivalent to US GAAP. Until then, foreign registrants with the SEC were obliged to file annually either a set of accounts using US GAAP, or a reconciliation of annual earnings and equity at balance sheet date with how they would have been measured under US GAAP. This was a big burden to companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ and a major disincentive to foreign companies to list there. In 2007 the chief financial officer of AXA told the SEC at a round table that the company budgeted $20 million a year to produce the reconciliation. Another part of the cost is that the companies end up publishing two, or even three, sets of figures (see the Cadbury case study) and then having to discuss with analysts and journalists which is the “correct” profit.
The removal of the reconciliation requirement means that, for example, European companies that are using IFRS can simply file with the SEC the same accounts that they file with their primary stock exchange. Of course the SEC has other requirements that still have to be complied with, including management’s discussion and analysis of results. However, companies no longer have to be able to restate their figures to US GAAP, nor retain teams to monitor US GAAP.
Back to top
Conclusion
Convergence on IFRS is taking us to a bright new world where investors can indeed take their pick from around the globe, and where companies maintain a single accounting basis throughout their network. IFRS are already either compulsory or permitted for listed companies in more than 100 countries around the world. When the next wave of adopters joins in 2011, a large slice of the world economy will be IFRS conversant.
It will take time for investors to become confident about reading IFRS accounts—although that happened quickly within the European Union. But multinational companies should quickly reap the benefits of having uniform systems across the globe and will be able to exploit the opportunities of being listed on several stock exchanges at much lower cost.
Back to top
Case Study
Cadbury Changes to IFRS from UK GAAP
In common with all companies listed on EU stock exchanges, Cadbury PLC (at the time Cadbury Schweppes PLC) officially switched to IFRS in 2005, as required by the EU IAS Regulation. In practice, the real transition moment was the beginning the 2004 financial year: IFRS require that a company provides previous-year comparative figures with the annual financial statements. Consequently, when reporting the 2005 results, the company had also to provide 2004 figures according to IFRS. However, the company had also had to report 2004 under local GAAP (in Cadbury’s case, UK GAAP), and IFRS 1, the standard dealing with transition, requires that a company also provide a reconciliation between the local GAAP figures for 2004 and the IFRS figures for 2004. From an investor’s perspective, therefore, every company provides a statement comparing its pretransition figures with the same transactions reported under IFRS.
Cadbury is also listed in the US and therefore is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Consequently, at that time it was also obliged to provide a reconciliation of its annual earnings and its equity to US GAAP. This means that, for 2004, an investor could observe the earnings and net assets of Cadbury under three different sets of GAAP: UK GAAP, IFRS, and US GAAP. The figures show that—despite the fact that all three sets of accounting rules belong to the same underlying tradition of Anglo-Saxon accounting, with financial reporting oriented toward informing investors—there still remain significant differences of measurement at a detailed level. This illustrates how difficult it is to compare the results of companies that are using different comprehensive bases of accounting, and why investors and international companies are keen to move to a different global standard.
If we take equity—the net worth of the group after deducting all liabilities from assets—the Cadbury figures at the end of 2004 were:
£ million
UK GAAP 3,088
IFRS 2,300
US GAAP 3,998
There is a presentational difference in that the US definition of “equity” at the time excluded minority interests. For comparative purposes I have added these to the US GAAP number in the above table.
It is not particularly productive to make a detailed analysis of why the differences occur. Basically, they reflect different ways of accounting for business combinations that had occurred in the past, different treatment of pension liabilities, and the significantly different treatment of deferred tax in the United Kingdom from that under IFRS and US GAAP. There is a detailed analysis in the notes to the 2005 Cadbury (Cadbury Schweppes) annual report.
If we take net earnings, the numbers are:
£ million
UK GAAP 453
IFRS 547
US GAAP 484
We can see that in 2003 investors had two sets of figures to choose from, while in 2004 the convergence initiative meant that in the transitional phase they had three different measures of the same performance. However, in 2007, when the SEC removed the US GAAP reconciliation requirement, they would have come down to a single view of performance which was comparable to that used in 100 countries.
It should be emphasized that, of course, the company’s cash flows do not change with the different accounting bases: what drives the differences is different timing assumptions, different measurement rules for some transactions, and different allocations across time periods.
You can only know absolutely how much profit a company has made when it has stopped trading and all its assets and liabilities have been liquidated. The only profit that is irrefutable is the lifetime’s net increase or net decrease in cash.
This is not much help for investors, and financial reporting is a means of estimating what part of the lifetime profit has been earned in a particular year, in order to help investors decide whether to buy, sell, or hold the company’s securities. However, the annual profit is only an estimate, it is not a fact. All estimates are based on assumptions—change the assumptions and you have a different profit.
So none of the three sets of figures Cadbury published for 2004 is “correct” or “incorrect”—they are all justifiable estimates. It is not surprising that investors ask for a single agreed accounting standard.
Back to top
Making It Happen
*
Using IFRS at group level is mandatory in many countries, but is voluntary in some. It is often voluntary at subsidiary level: both parent and subsidiaries need to choose this option to access the benefits.
*
Using IFRS makes access to capital markets outside the country where the group has its primary listing much easier and cheaper. In what markets would there be special benefits for your company? Remember that a secondary listing is not just about access to foreign investors, it is about credibility and flexibility in that market.
*
Are your group accounting and internal audit professionals able to move easily from one foreign subsidiary to another? Using IFRS would facilitate their work and potentially improve internal control.
*
Do professional fund managers and analysts that you deal with understand IFRS? Talk to them about whether they are IFRS literate and ask if they see benefits in switching.
*
What do your group auditors think? The large international firms are fully geared up for IFRS. They will help you switch.
* Executive Summary
* Introduction
* Why Convergence Is Necessary
* The Development of Global Standards
* Use in International Capital Markets
* Convergence on a Worldwide Standard
* Conclusion
* Case Study
* Making It Happen
Executive Summary
*
Worldwide convergence on international standards for financial reporting will make investment and financial reporting more efficient.
*
Investors gain access to more investment opportunities and the cost of capital comes down.
*
As more countries use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), so international groups can use them for subsidiary reporting and group reporting.
*
The International Accounting Standards Committee, the international standard-setter, came into existence in 1973 as an initiative by the accounting profession to address the emerging needs of cross-border business.
*
The standard-setter negotiated a role with the international co-ordinator of stock exchange regulators as a supplier of rules for secondary listings.
*
The International Accounting Standards Board, the successor body, was created in 2000 at the time when the European Union announced it would adopt IFRS for listed companies.
*
IFRS are now mandatory or permitted in more than 100 countries. China, Japan, India, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea are set to adopt IFRS in 2011.
*
Companies using IFRS can list in the United States without preparing a costly reconciliation of their numbers to US GAAP.
Back to top
Introduction
How did an internal phone call in a Sydney hotel in 1972 lead 40 years later to a worldwide movement that is changing financial reporting radically and opening up international investment?
Thanks to that conversation, companies can more and more easily access different stock markets, and investors can step across national and cultural boundaries. Investment should be getting more efficient. Since 2001, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have been set in London by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), a privately financed independent body. Their standards are used for listed companies within the European Union and in many other places. In 2011 China, Japan, India, Brazil, and South Korea will start using them. Even the United States is considering abandoning its rules in favor of the international ones.
Back to top
Why Convergence Is Necessary
Evidently, having different national accounting systems is costly for companies and investors. Companies have to keep duplicate accounting systems, and investors are wary about buying shares of companies whose accounts they do not understand. The problem arises because accounting regulation has developed over a couple of centuries in national economies whose needs have differed from each other, and whose ways of regulating people’s activities have also differed. What people are looking for from accounting is often different.
Much accounting regulation is contingent: you get an accounting failure, then you get rules to shut the stable door; so, for example, the Enron debacle was followed by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This has been going on ever since there were accounting rules. The first government requirements were developed because of a spate of bankruptcies in Paris in the seventeenth century. Consequently, while much of the basic methodology (double entry bookkeeping, balance sheet, etc.) is the same everywhere, the details can differ—especially when it comes to the more complex situations where there is no obvious best solution.
This has a number of consequences, which in turn bring costs. Internally within a multinational group there is usually a network of national subsidiaries (e.g. Nestlé has more than a thousand) spread across the world. They have to report nationally using their national GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and also have to report to the parent, which has to prepare consolidated statements using parent company GAAP. This means that either the subsidiary has dual accounting systems, or the parent has to maintain a special team to adjust the accounts of subsidiaries to parent GAAP. This is costly, and it also means that it is not that easy to transfer accounting staff around the world because of the different local requirements, and it is more expensive to train them.
The group consolidated financial statements are then used to communicate to present and potential shareholders. If the company is listed on several stock exchanges, this means the possibility of having to provide information adjusted to the requirements of the individual foreign stock exchanges—as in the case of the SEC reconciliation to US GAAP. Investors are not comfortable with financial statements that are not prepared under the GAAP they are used to. Consequently they either do not invest, or they will require a higher risk premium to do so.
This situation has the effect of limiting the extent to which international capital markets are truly international. A company may choose not to list in a major market because of the reporting costs, and therefore cuts itself off from investors based there who for legal, cultural, and other reasons will not invest outside that market. Equally there is a cost for investors because their choice is restricted. The US investor cannot directly compare Whirlpool with Electrolux or Siemens. If they could directly compare all washing machine manufacturers around the globe, they could choose the most efficient, and global wealth would increase.
Back to top
The Development of Global Standards
The 1972 phone call that launched what are now the International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, was made by Douglas Morpeth, then a partner in the international audit firm Touche Ross (now Deloitte) and also president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, to Henry Benson, a partner in Coopers & Lybrand (now part of PricewaterhouseCoopers). They were at a conference of the international accounting profession. Benson had just made a presentation about the future international organization of the profession. Morpeth asked why Benson’s committee had not also suggested setting up an international standard-setter.
They called a meeting with representatives of the US and Canadian professional bodies, and by June the next year the board of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), comprising representatives of nine national professional bodies, was holding its first meeting in London.
The initiative should be seen in context: international trade started to grow significantly from the 1960s, and by the early 1970s was starting to register as an issue that needed to be addressed. People were staring to transact more frequently across borders and would need a common accounting language, or at least Morpeth and Benson thought so. The second current was the development of standard-setters. The present US standard-setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) also started work in 1973. The United Kingdom’s first standard-setter started to appear in 1969. Douglas Morpeth was deputy chairman of the Accounting Standards Committee as the UK body was eventually called. He thought that the United Kingdom’s new standards could be usefully recycled for international use.
Benson was the first chairman of the IASC. It was a very small organization with a single employee based in London and a voluntary chairman and board members supported by professional accounting associations. After the initial enthusiasm for doing something international, two problems emerged. It became clear that the national bodies were doing very little about getting International Accounting Standards (IAS) adopted in their home countries, so no one was actually using these standards. Second, as standards were being developed, individuals were reluctant to see their national practices banned or ignored, and so IAS were written that included options within them. Two companies could adopt radically different stances on an issue and both be in compliance with the same standard.
By the 1980s the IASC’s standards were being voluntarily adopted by multinationals in countries such as Switzerland, France, and Italy (e.g. Nestlé, Roche, Aérospatiale, Cap Gemini) to make up for a lack of detailed rules for consolidated financial statements. They were also being used as a model in developing countries that were members of the British Commonwealth to build on to the model they had inherited from the British Empire. Outside that use, they were much cited in debates about standards, but very rarely directly applied. When they were used voluntarily by individual companies, often those companies followed some but not all of the standards.
Back to top
Use in International Capital Markets
However, change was on its way. From 1985 a new secretary general, David Cairns, set about transforming the situation. He initiated an agreement with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), a body that links national stock exchange regulators, for the IASC to supply standards to be used in conjunction with secondary listings. At the time, most stock exchanges required foreign issuers either to provide financial statements according to local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or to provide reconciliations to them. IOSCO’s idea was that all stock exchanges would sign up to a single set of listing requirements for foreign issuers, so dramatically cutting the costs of a secondary listing.
At the same time Cairns set out to widen the funding base of the body so that he could expand its work, and to try to involve national standard-setters as well as professional bodies. The idea that the accounting profession should set its own standards was disappearing and standards were increasingly being set by dedicated independent committees. He agreed with IOSCO a program to improve International Accounting Standards by removing options and also by extending the range.
The road proved to be rocky, and took more than ten years. Cairns resigned in 1994, to be replaced by Bryan Carsberg, an accounting practitioner turned academic turned government regulator (he had been director-general of fair trading in the United Kingdom). Under Carsberg the program was finally completed, including the difficult standard on financial instruments, IAS 39. A strategy committee was also established to recommend how the future standard-setter should be organized.
The year 2000 was pivotal. In May IOSCO voted to approve the body on International Accounting Standards (if with some reservations). In June, the European Commission announced that it was going to propose legislation to require the use of the standards by EU listed companies from 2005, and in July the international accounting profession, meeting in Edinburgh, agreed to relinquish its control of the IASC and let the IASB be set up in its place.
The IASB is a small committee of professional standard-setters. It has a large technical team, based in London still, and is funded through voluntary contributions from companies, audit firms, and various institutions, both national and international. It adopted the predecessor body’s standards, but used a different name (IFRS instead of IAS) for its own standards. IFRS is also the generic term for all the standards together with the interpretations issued by the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC).
Back to top
Convergence on a Worldwide Standard
Where the IASC was part of a world of “harmonization”—or movement toward each other—the IASB is firmly committed “to develop, in the public interest, a single set of high quality, understandable and enforceable global accounting standards” and “to bring about convergence of national accounting standards and IFRSs to high quality solutions” (Preface to IFRS, London: IASC Foundation). Though it has not focused exclusively on the United States, the IASB’s main driver is convergence with US GAAP. It entered into an agreement with the FASB in 2002 to pursue convergence through a joint program of removing differences and developing new standards together.
This program yielded a big prize in 2007. The Securities and Exchange Commission decided that it would recognize financial statements prepared under IFRS as issued by the IASB as equivalent to US GAAP. Until then, foreign registrants with the SEC were obliged to file annually either a set of accounts using US GAAP, or a reconciliation of annual earnings and equity at balance sheet date with how they would have been measured under US GAAP. This was a big burden to companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ and a major disincentive to foreign companies to list there. In 2007 the chief financial officer of AXA told the SEC at a round table that the company budgeted $20 million a year to produce the reconciliation. Another part of the cost is that the companies end up publishing two, or even three, sets of figures (see the Cadbury case study) and then having to discuss with analysts and journalists which is the “correct” profit.
The removal of the reconciliation requirement means that, for example, European companies that are using IFRS can simply file with the SEC the same accounts that they file with their primary stock exchange. Of course the SEC has other requirements that still have to be complied with, including management’s discussion and analysis of results. However, companies no longer have to be able to restate their figures to US GAAP, nor retain teams to monitor US GAAP.
Back to top
Conclusion
Convergence on IFRS is taking us to a bright new world where investors can indeed take their pick from around the globe, and where companies maintain a single accounting basis throughout their network. IFRS are already either compulsory or permitted for listed companies in more than 100 countries around the world. When the next wave of adopters joins in 2011, a large slice of the world economy will be IFRS conversant.
It will take time for investors to become confident about reading IFRS accounts—although that happened quickly within the European Union. But multinational companies should quickly reap the benefits of having uniform systems across the globe and will be able to exploit the opportunities of being listed on several stock exchanges at much lower cost.
Back to top
Case Study
Cadbury Changes to IFRS from UK GAAP
In common with all companies listed on EU stock exchanges, Cadbury PLC (at the time Cadbury Schweppes PLC) officially switched to IFRS in 2005, as required by the EU IAS Regulation. In practice, the real transition moment was the beginning the 2004 financial year: IFRS require that a company provides previous-year comparative figures with the annual financial statements. Consequently, when reporting the 2005 results, the company had also to provide 2004 figures according to IFRS. However, the company had also had to report 2004 under local GAAP (in Cadbury’s case, UK GAAP), and IFRS 1, the standard dealing with transition, requires that a company also provide a reconciliation between the local GAAP figures for 2004 and the IFRS figures for 2004. From an investor’s perspective, therefore, every company provides a statement comparing its pretransition figures with the same transactions reported under IFRS.
Cadbury is also listed in the US and therefore is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Consequently, at that time it was also obliged to provide a reconciliation of its annual earnings and its equity to US GAAP. This means that, for 2004, an investor could observe the earnings and net assets of Cadbury under three different sets of GAAP: UK GAAP, IFRS, and US GAAP. The figures show that—despite the fact that all three sets of accounting rules belong to the same underlying tradition of Anglo-Saxon accounting, with financial reporting oriented toward informing investors—there still remain significant differences of measurement at a detailed level. This illustrates how difficult it is to compare the results of companies that are using different comprehensive bases of accounting, and why investors and international companies are keen to move to a different global standard.
If we take equity—the net worth of the group after deducting all liabilities from assets—the Cadbury figures at the end of 2004 were:
£ million
UK GAAP 3,088
IFRS 2,300
US GAAP 3,998
There is a presentational difference in that the US definition of “equity” at the time excluded minority interests. For comparative purposes I have added these to the US GAAP number in the above table.
It is not particularly productive to make a detailed analysis of why the differences occur. Basically, they reflect different ways of accounting for business combinations that had occurred in the past, different treatment of pension liabilities, and the significantly different treatment of deferred tax in the United Kingdom from that under IFRS and US GAAP. There is a detailed analysis in the notes to the 2005 Cadbury (Cadbury Schweppes) annual report.
If we take net earnings, the numbers are:
£ million
UK GAAP 453
IFRS 547
US GAAP 484
We can see that in 2003 investors had two sets of figures to choose from, while in 2004 the convergence initiative meant that in the transitional phase they had three different measures of the same performance. However, in 2007, when the SEC removed the US GAAP reconciliation requirement, they would have come down to a single view of performance which was comparable to that used in 100 countries.
It should be emphasized that, of course, the company’s cash flows do not change with the different accounting bases: what drives the differences is different timing assumptions, different measurement rules for some transactions, and different allocations across time periods.
You can only know absolutely how much profit a company has made when it has stopped trading and all its assets and liabilities have been liquidated. The only profit that is irrefutable is the lifetime’s net increase or net decrease in cash.
This is not much help for investors, and financial reporting is a means of estimating what part of the lifetime profit has been earned in a particular year, in order to help investors decide whether to buy, sell, or hold the company’s securities. However, the annual profit is only an estimate, it is not a fact. All estimates are based on assumptions—change the assumptions and you have a different profit.
So none of the three sets of figures Cadbury published for 2004 is “correct” or “incorrect”—they are all justifiable estimates. It is not surprising that investors ask for a single agreed accounting standard.
Back to top
Making It Happen
*
Using IFRS at group level is mandatory in many countries, but is voluntary in some. It is often voluntary at subsidiary level: both parent and subsidiaries need to choose this option to access the benefits.
*
Using IFRS makes access to capital markets outside the country where the group has its primary listing much easier and cheaper. In what markets would there be special benefits for your company? Remember that a secondary listing is not just about access to foreign investors, it is about credibility and flexibility in that market.
*
Are your group accounting and internal audit professionals able to move easily from one foreign subsidiary to another? Using IFRS would facilitate their work and potentially improve internal control.
*
Do professional fund managers and analysts that you deal with understand IFRS? Talk to them about whether they are IFRS literate and ask if they see benefits in switching.
*
What do your group auditors think? The large international firms are fully geared up for IFRS. They will help you switch.
Scrap mark-to-market accounting or face further crisis, warn investors
The interrogation of Barclays' newly-installed chief executive Bob Diamond by the Treasury committee of the House of Commons last Tuesday was an unsatisfactory affair.
The two and half hour session gave the politicians the opportunity to “grandstand” and channel popular anger about bankers’ bonuses, tax avoidance and reluctance to lend to SMEs.
But the politicians on the panel seemed keener on venting their spleens than on getting their heads around more complex issues such as addressing the flawed structures and accounting standards that continue to jeopardize the banking sector.
This brings me on to a more productive parliamentary session in the UK - the meeting of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on January 11th.
During this session a group of leading UK-based fund managers told the Lords what they thought of the audit profession. There was near unanimity that revising accounting rules and auditing standards would be a good starting point if further crisis is to be avoided.
The fund managers told the committee that International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) had enabled banks to live in a fool's paradise where risk could be buried and profits and bonuses inflated. In a report in Financial News, the financial journalist Mike Foster explained:
"The devastating assessment of the accounting rules was articulated for the first time by some of Britain's biggest institutional investors."
Iain Richards, head of corporate governance at Aviva Investors, told the lords that IFRS, or mark-to-market accounting, was a distorting prism through which to look at bank performance. He said this was because it legitimized giving fantastically high valuations to assets at the peak of the credit bubble - even though the market for such assets was thin or non-existent.
Richards was also concerned that the use of IFRS meant that banks made very light provisioning for bad debts ahead of the crisis.
Instead of highlighting problems, IFRS had exacerbated them, enabling banks to deceive their investors - enabling them to portray themselves as massively profitable when in fact they weren't.
This enabled the banks to make imprudent payouts to both executives (in the shape of bonuses) and to shareholders (in the shape of dividends) which in reality they could ill afford to make. This cavalier approach to their own finances is one reason they ended up costing taxpayers such a fortune to bailout. Richard said:
“IFRS is extremely pro-cyclical.It facilitated and exacerbated the credit bubble ...There were some very clear risks inherent (in the banks)...the risks were extremely material."
It was only once the banking and financial crisis struck and liquidity froze in 2007 that the distortions became apparent, said Richards. He added:
"The double-digit billions pumped into the banks went to plug the gap created by both bonus distribution and dividend distributions that were made just preceding the crisis."
His assessment was backed up by other senior fund managers in the session, including David Pitt-Watson of Hermes; Guy Jubb of Standard Life Investments; and Robert Talbut of Royal London Asset Management.
Pitt-Watson said "we as investors and society" need to see the re-introduction of a principle-based accounting system that includes prudential and on-going assessments of risks.
As Telegraph financial journalist Louise Armitstead points out, Tim Bush, a City veteran and a former fund manager at Hermes, last year warned the government that IFRS amounted to a "regulatory fiasco" that had contributed to the crisis and continued to pose a severe danger to the system.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Bush believes that the use of IFRS may even have obliged the boards of UK banks to commit illegal acts. He said following IFRS, as applied in the UK, was:
“...positively contrary to the objective of directors discharging their duties properly. False profits, hidden losses and hidden gearing (note: hidden losses are also hidden gearing as capital is overstated) are possible with IFRS.”
Richards and the other investors on the panel argued that auditors ought to be allowed to speak directly to shareholders and that the lack of competition in the audit market must be addressed.
Currently the “Big Four” firms - PWC, Deloitte, KPMG and Ernst & Young - have the market sewn up, which commentators such as Re: The Auditors' Francine McKenna argue makes them unassailable and more prone to audit sloppily.
The panel of investors said the dominance of the Big Four ought to be broken up, perhaps with the help of mandatory retendering. “Eight seems to be a credible number,” Jubb said.
Robert Talbut, chief investment officer at Royal London Asset Management, summed up the problem:
“Prudence has been considerably lost in the way accounting standards has been operating.”
The two and half hour session gave the politicians the opportunity to “grandstand” and channel popular anger about bankers’ bonuses, tax avoidance and reluctance to lend to SMEs.
But the politicians on the panel seemed keener on venting their spleens than on getting their heads around more complex issues such as addressing the flawed structures and accounting standards that continue to jeopardize the banking sector.
This brings me on to a more productive parliamentary session in the UK - the meeting of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on January 11th.
During this session a group of leading UK-based fund managers told the Lords what they thought of the audit profession. There was near unanimity that revising accounting rules and auditing standards would be a good starting point if further crisis is to be avoided.
The fund managers told the committee that International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) had enabled banks to live in a fool's paradise where risk could be buried and profits and bonuses inflated. In a report in Financial News, the financial journalist Mike Foster explained:
"The devastating assessment of the accounting rules was articulated for the first time by some of Britain's biggest institutional investors."
Iain Richards, head of corporate governance at Aviva Investors, told the lords that IFRS, or mark-to-market accounting, was a distorting prism through which to look at bank performance. He said this was because it legitimized giving fantastically high valuations to assets at the peak of the credit bubble - even though the market for such assets was thin or non-existent.
Richards was also concerned that the use of IFRS meant that banks made very light provisioning for bad debts ahead of the crisis.
Instead of highlighting problems, IFRS had exacerbated them, enabling banks to deceive their investors - enabling them to portray themselves as massively profitable when in fact they weren't.
This enabled the banks to make imprudent payouts to both executives (in the shape of bonuses) and to shareholders (in the shape of dividends) which in reality they could ill afford to make. This cavalier approach to their own finances is one reason they ended up costing taxpayers such a fortune to bailout. Richard said:
“IFRS is extremely pro-cyclical.It facilitated and exacerbated the credit bubble ...There were some very clear risks inherent (in the banks)...the risks were extremely material."
It was only once the banking and financial crisis struck and liquidity froze in 2007 that the distortions became apparent, said Richards. He added:
"The double-digit billions pumped into the banks went to plug the gap created by both bonus distribution and dividend distributions that were made just preceding the crisis."
His assessment was backed up by other senior fund managers in the session, including David Pitt-Watson of Hermes; Guy Jubb of Standard Life Investments; and Robert Talbut of Royal London Asset Management.
Pitt-Watson said "we as investors and society" need to see the re-introduction of a principle-based accounting system that includes prudential and on-going assessments of risks.
As Telegraph financial journalist Louise Armitstead points out, Tim Bush, a City veteran and a former fund manager at Hermes, last year warned the government that IFRS amounted to a "regulatory fiasco" that had contributed to the crisis and continued to pose a severe danger to the system.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Bush believes that the use of IFRS may even have obliged the boards of UK banks to commit illegal acts. He said following IFRS, as applied in the UK, was:
“...positively contrary to the objective of directors discharging their duties properly. False profits, hidden losses and hidden gearing (note: hidden losses are also hidden gearing as capital is overstated) are possible with IFRS.”
Richards and the other investors on the panel argued that auditors ought to be allowed to speak directly to shareholders and that the lack of competition in the audit market must be addressed.
Currently the “Big Four” firms - PWC, Deloitte, KPMG and Ernst & Young - have the market sewn up, which commentators such as Re: The Auditors' Francine McKenna argue makes them unassailable and more prone to audit sloppily.
The panel of investors said the dominance of the Big Four ought to be broken up, perhaps with the help of mandatory retendering. “Eight seems to be a credible number,” Jubb said.
Robert Talbut, chief investment officer at Royal London Asset Management, summed up the problem:
“Prudence has been considerably lost in the way accounting standards has been operating.”
The AICPA Talks to Going Concern About the New CPA Exam
By Adrienne Gonzalez
Because I genuinely care about the well-being of you little CPA exam candidates out there, I recently put aside the inflammatory nonsense for a moment and took some time out of my busy schedule to chat with the AICPA about the new CPA exam that they were proud to say launched early this month without a hitch. We’re pretty excited about that too, mostly because it means we can finally stop talking about 2011 changes and get back to talking CPA exam strategy, which is largely unchanged as a result of CBT-e.
We here at Going Concern value reader input (even if we do value chastising said reader just as equally) and therefore reached out to get your input on the sorts of questions we should ask. You spoke and we listened so let’s cut right to the chase and give you some answers.
John Mattar, Ed.D., Director of Psychometrics and Research and Mike Decker, Director of Operations and Development, both of the AICPA Examinations Team, were kind and brave enough to speak with me and give me plenty of insight on the brain behind the new CPA exam.
First of all, we need to talk scoring as that’s the one thing you guys have complained about consistently since the exam went computerized in 2004 (except for written communication but that is an entirely different issue). We’re proud to tell you that we can finally say with certainty that the AICPA will not be changing the passing score from 75 moving forward. That’s right, put down your flaming pitchforks, all you 74s who were ready to flip should the score have been lowered to 70. “In terms of the score reported to candidates, right now the passing score on that reported scale is a 75 and it’s going to remain there because we want to have consistency over time,” John told us.
That means a 75 last year might not necessarily be the same as a 75 this year but a 75 is still passing and that’s what matters. As we all know, the AICPA uses a complicated and mysterious psychometric formula to determine weights for each question and bases a candidate’s score on this formula. It isn’t for you, little candidate, to worry about how they come up with their numbers nor should you feel as though the AICPA gets some sick thrill out of seeing you get a 74. Believe it or not, they’re neutral. They don’t care if you pass or fail, they only care about overseeing a professional examination that successfully tests the knowledge base of entry-level CPAs in the United States. That’s it.
Second, while the AICPA will be using a single score release formula for at least the first three testing windows of the year, candidates can anticipate a new and improved score release system that will hopefully be introduced by the end of the year. This means all candidates who test early in their window will be eligible to receive their scores in the first release and all other candidates can expect to receive their scores in more frequent batches through the end of that window’s blackout month. So forget the Wave 1/Wave 2 nonsense. “Due to a lot of the work we’re doing on the backend, we’re going to be able to release scores faster. We’re not actually going to be able to release the scores earlier until the 4th quarter because we need to do a greater analysis in the first three quarters,” Mike said. So while you guys see the new simulations and international content on the frontend, it’s important to remember that a lot of time and effort went into improving the backend of the CPA exam and faster scoring is one such improvement that we can expect to see by the end of the year. But these changes come at a price so be patient while the AICPA works through the first three windows of this year to finalize their new scoring process.
If you haven’t already, I recommend you check out How the CPA Exam is Scored for more details on this process. Expect an update to that document when new scoring takes effect later in the year.
As for CBT-e content, I initially congratulated the AICPA for finally streamlining some questionable areas of the exam (especially BEC) in the updated CSOs/SSOs but forgot that they don’t actually come up with content on their own. You can thank an extensive practice analysis and subsequent input from practicing CPAs for the CPA exam you know and love today, a process that takes into account input from the profession on what entry-level CPAs should know. That means the introduction of international financial reporting and auditing standards is entirely independent of the SEC’s do-we-or-do-we-not IFRS roadmap. This should be a comfort to some of you who are wondering just how much IFRS will appear on the exam in coming windows as it means the exam will most likely continue to test remedial international content and will mostly focus on major differences between IFRS and GAAP. Entry-level CPAs in the U.S. are not expected to be experts in IFRS, just as they are not expected to be experts in cost accounting, government accounting, non-profit accounting or any number of areas that have been consistently tested on the CPA exam for years now.
The best news is that though the e in CBT-e stands for evolution, those expecting to take the exam in 2012 or beyond shouldn’t expect such a large overhaul as we just saw any time soon. “We don’t plan to change the exam,” John said. “What we plan to do is keep the exam current with the profession to protect the public interest. If we do have significant changes in test content we would have to let candidates know in advance.”
That being said, the largest takeaway I got from my conversation with the AICPA was that they are simply interested in providing a consistent examination that continues to evolve to meet the needs of the profession. I swear to you that they really don’t get a sick thrill out of torturing you guys with changes, scoring delays and new content though it may appear that way sometimes, especially if you’re in the 74 x 3 club. It’s their job to make sure that the CPA exam represents the best interests of the profession, which means revising their strategy to keep up with the evolution of the industry.
We applaud the AICPA on a job well done and congratulate them for a successful CBT-e launch. So far, candidate feedback I have gotten on the new exam format has been mostly positive, which means that their hard work was totally worth it.
Because I genuinely care about the well-being of you little CPA exam candidates out there, I recently put aside the inflammatory nonsense for a moment and took some time out of my busy schedule to chat with the AICPA about the new CPA exam that they were proud to say launched early this month without a hitch. We’re pretty excited about that too, mostly because it means we can finally stop talking about 2011 changes and get back to talking CPA exam strategy, which is largely unchanged as a result of CBT-e.
We here at Going Concern value reader input (even if we do value chastising said reader just as equally) and therefore reached out to get your input on the sorts of questions we should ask. You spoke and we listened so let’s cut right to the chase and give you some answers.
John Mattar, Ed.D., Director of Psychometrics and Research and Mike Decker, Director of Operations and Development, both of the AICPA Examinations Team, were kind and brave enough to speak with me and give me plenty of insight on the brain behind the new CPA exam.
First of all, we need to talk scoring as that’s the one thing you guys have complained about consistently since the exam went computerized in 2004 (except for written communication but that is an entirely different issue). We’re proud to tell you that we can finally say with certainty that the AICPA will not be changing the passing score from 75 moving forward. That’s right, put down your flaming pitchforks, all you 74s who were ready to flip should the score have been lowered to 70. “In terms of the score reported to candidates, right now the passing score on that reported scale is a 75 and it’s going to remain there because we want to have consistency over time,” John told us.
That means a 75 last year might not necessarily be the same as a 75 this year but a 75 is still passing and that’s what matters. As we all know, the AICPA uses a complicated and mysterious psychometric formula to determine weights for each question and bases a candidate’s score on this formula. It isn’t for you, little candidate, to worry about how they come up with their numbers nor should you feel as though the AICPA gets some sick thrill out of seeing you get a 74. Believe it or not, they’re neutral. They don’t care if you pass or fail, they only care about overseeing a professional examination that successfully tests the knowledge base of entry-level CPAs in the United States. That’s it.
Second, while the AICPA will be using a single score release formula for at least the first three testing windows of the year, candidates can anticipate a new and improved score release system that will hopefully be introduced by the end of the year. This means all candidates who test early in their window will be eligible to receive their scores in the first release and all other candidates can expect to receive their scores in more frequent batches through the end of that window’s blackout month. So forget the Wave 1/Wave 2 nonsense. “Due to a lot of the work we’re doing on the backend, we’re going to be able to release scores faster. We’re not actually going to be able to release the scores earlier until the 4th quarter because we need to do a greater analysis in the first three quarters,” Mike said. So while you guys see the new simulations and international content on the frontend, it’s important to remember that a lot of time and effort went into improving the backend of the CPA exam and faster scoring is one such improvement that we can expect to see by the end of the year. But these changes come at a price so be patient while the AICPA works through the first three windows of this year to finalize their new scoring process.
If you haven’t already, I recommend you check out How the CPA Exam is Scored for more details on this process. Expect an update to that document when new scoring takes effect later in the year.
As for CBT-e content, I initially congratulated the AICPA for finally streamlining some questionable areas of the exam (especially BEC) in the updated CSOs/SSOs but forgot that they don’t actually come up with content on their own. You can thank an extensive practice analysis and subsequent input from practicing CPAs for the CPA exam you know and love today, a process that takes into account input from the profession on what entry-level CPAs should know. That means the introduction of international financial reporting and auditing standards is entirely independent of the SEC’s do-we-or-do-we-not IFRS roadmap. This should be a comfort to some of you who are wondering just how much IFRS will appear on the exam in coming windows as it means the exam will most likely continue to test remedial international content and will mostly focus on major differences between IFRS and GAAP. Entry-level CPAs in the U.S. are not expected to be experts in IFRS, just as they are not expected to be experts in cost accounting, government accounting, non-profit accounting or any number of areas that have been consistently tested on the CPA exam for years now.
The best news is that though the e in CBT-e stands for evolution, those expecting to take the exam in 2012 or beyond shouldn’t expect such a large overhaul as we just saw any time soon. “We don’t plan to change the exam,” John said. “What we plan to do is keep the exam current with the profession to protect the public interest. If we do have significant changes in test content we would have to let candidates know in advance.”
That being said, the largest takeaway I got from my conversation with the AICPA was that they are simply interested in providing a consistent examination that continues to evolve to meet the needs of the profession. I swear to you that they really don’t get a sick thrill out of torturing you guys with changes, scoring delays and new content though it may appear that way sometimes, especially if you’re in the 74 x 3 club. It’s their job to make sure that the CPA exam represents the best interests of the profession, which means revising their strategy to keep up with the evolution of the industry.
We applaud the AICPA on a job well done and congratulate them for a successful CBT-e launch. So far, candidate feedback I have gotten on the new exam format has been mostly positive, which means that their hard work was totally worth it.
IFRS ordinance may be issued early next month: Govt Sources
An ordinance to formalise International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) converged standards or what will now be called IndAS is expected by early next month. Sources tell us that while companies will have to prepare financial statements based on IFRS for investors, dividend and tax liability is likely to be computed based on Indian GAAP, reports CNBC-TV18’s Malvika Jain.
That’s right an ordinance to notify IFRS is likely to be promulgated by early next month. Sources tell us that IFRS convergence standards, what will now be called IndAS have been vetted by the ministry of law. Infact the changes which need to be made to the companies act for IFRS convergence have also been approved by the law ministry.
We are picking up that these new standards will be notified under the Companies Act 1956. As you probably know these are based on the concepts of fair valuation and time value of money. These two concepts have been used in India for the purpose of financial decision making, but are very new for purposes of accounting.
What we have also learnt is that now all companies whether they are listed or unlisted will have to prepare consolidated financial statements for the purpose of being more investor friendly as is required by IFRS. But the dividends and the tax liabilities will be computed on the basis of financial statements prepared as per Indian GAAP which practically means that the companies will have to prepare two sets of accounts.
That’s right an ordinance to notify IFRS is likely to be promulgated by early next month. Sources tell us that IFRS convergence standards, what will now be called IndAS have been vetted by the ministry of law. Infact the changes which need to be made to the companies act for IFRS convergence have also been approved by the law ministry.
We are picking up that these new standards will be notified under the Companies Act 1956. As you probably know these are based on the concepts of fair valuation and time value of money. These two concepts have been used in India for the purpose of financial decision making, but are very new for purposes of accounting.
What we have also learnt is that now all companies whether they are listed or unlisted will have to prepare consolidated financial statements for the purpose of being more investor friendly as is required by IFRS. But the dividends and the tax liabilities will be computed on the basis of financial statements prepared as per Indian GAAP which practically means that the companies will have to prepare two sets of accounts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
