March 8, 2007
A Closer Look At Convergence of Accounting Standards: The Reality of Our World
Analysis of:
Found in Translation: A guide to using foreign financial statements | www.aicpa.org
This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Implications: 1. The need for convergence of accounting standards is real.
2. The ability to converge accounting standards is challenging due to cultural and legal issues.
3. Although convergence will ultimately occur, it will occur with a broad based framework that may be adjusted by countries. The adjustment will be a function of cultural and legal issues.
Analysis: Very few people debate the need to have a consistent set of accounting principles for our global world of business. Yet the reality of achieving convergence is another matter.
Expectations should not be raised beyond a reasonable point. Cultural and legal issues must be considered. Let me give two examples.
Example one - China
China is one of the fastest growing, most significant players in the global investment and financing market. Yet they have not adopted IFRS or US GAAP. The only Chinese companies using IFRS or US GAAP are companies traded on exchanges requiring IRFS/US GAAP. Many of China's standards are based on IFRS and US GAAP, however China's cultural and legal system does not permit it to fully embrace all such standards. Intercompany ownership and transactions cannot and will not be reported under global standards in the near future. Liabilities and costs of defined benefit pension plans likewise create problems for Chinese policy makers.
Example two - US
US GAAP is based on conservatism due to the legal structure of the US. Accountants worry about being sued. To compensate, US GAAP is a blend of current cost and historical costs. An example is lower-of-cost-or-market. Current value is only recorded if it is lower than historical costs. IFRS is trying to move to current values, whether such values are below or above historical costs. However IFRS is based in Europe, which has a different legal system. Suing accountants is more challenging in Europe.
To conclude, I believe we will see accounting standards converge in the future. This is a positive. However exact and total convergence in the near future is not realistic. I believe we will see a broad framework. I also believe that countries will be able to create their own principles, within the broad framework, based on that country's culture and legal system. (An example is Britain's pension standard and how it fits into IFRS.) Financial analysis will remain complex. Reconciling accounting standards used around the world will still remain a reality. Financial analysts will be challenged for the foreseeable future.
2. The ability to converge accounting standards is challenging due to cultural and legal issues.
3. Although convergence will ultimately occur, it will occur with a broad based framework that may be adjusted by countries. The adjustment will be a function of cultural and legal issues.
Analysis: Very few people debate the need to have a consistent set of accounting principles for our global world of business. Yet the reality of achieving convergence is another matter.
Expectations should not be raised beyond a reasonable point. Cultural and legal issues must be considered. Let me give two examples.
Example one - China
China is one of the fastest growing, most significant players in the global investment and financing market. Yet they have not adopted IFRS or US GAAP. The only Chinese companies using IFRS or US GAAP are companies traded on exchanges requiring IRFS/US GAAP. Many of China's standards are based on IFRS and US GAAP, however China's cultural and legal system does not permit it to fully embrace all such standards. Intercompany ownership and transactions cannot and will not be reported under global standards in the near future. Liabilities and costs of defined benefit pension plans likewise create problems for Chinese policy makers.
Example two - US
US GAAP is based on conservatism due to the legal structure of the US. Accountants worry about being sued. To compensate, US GAAP is a blend of current cost and historical costs. An example is lower-of-cost-or-market. Current value is only recorded if it is lower than historical costs. IFRS is trying to move to current values, whether such values are below or above historical costs. However IFRS is based in Europe, which has a different legal system. Suing accountants is more challenging in Europe.
To conclude, I believe we will see accounting standards converge in the future. This is a positive. However exact and total convergence in the near future is not realistic. I believe we will see a broad framework. I also believe that countries will be able to create their own principles, within the broad framework, based on that country's culture and legal system. (An example is Britain's pension standard and how it fits into IFRS.) Financial analysis will remain complex. Reconciling accounting standards used around the world will still remain a reality. Financial analysts will be challenged for the foreseeable future.
Report a Concern
More GLG News in
Accounting & Financial Analysis
Most Popular:
Source Article | Expert Analyses
Could Bank Rules Break The Fair Value Debate
www.cfo.com
Derivatives:Giving Credit Where It is Due
www.economist.com
Centrica secures LNG cargo from Qatar
www.ogj.com
SFAS Exposure Draft On Going Concern
www.fasb.org
The Future of Fair Value Accounting and Mark to Market (FASB 157)
November 19, 2008
The Changing Effects of Economic and Political Consequences on Accounting Rules - The Fair Value Debate
November 14, 2008
LNG - The Cross Border, Global Arbitrage Opportunity?
November 10, 2008
The Global Financial System - Required and Expected Changes - A Look at Expectations
November 10, 2008

