Posts

IASB vs. FASB: What’s the difference?

The SEC is expected to issue a recommendation before the end of the year that may require publicly held companies to adopt international accounting standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). If this happens, it’s not clear how the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) would work together to support and issue future international accounting standards. In a recent speech, FASB chair Leslie F. Seidman stated that FASB “should continue to have a strong role in influencing what goes on the international agenda, the process by which these issues are analyzed, the level of implementation guidance provided, and the outreach that is conducted in the United States.” Although IASB and FASB are similar—both establish and improve standards of financial accounting and reporting—there are some distinct differences.

The FASB is part of the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), which is overseen by a board of trustees, and is independent of all businesses and professional organizations. It is funded by fees paid by issuers. The IASB is overseen by trustees as well, but it is accountable to a Monitoring Board of capital market authorities. It also is funded by market participants, but is funded by relevant regulatory authorities as well.

The FASB currently has seven board members appointed by FAF’s board of trustees, and each may serve up to two five-year terms. The IASB currently has 15 members appointed by trustees through an open and rigorous process that includes advertising vacancies and consulting relevant organizations.

The biggest difference: post-implementation
Probably the most distinct difference between the two organizations lies in the area of post-implementation of standards. The FASB has no formal process for reviewing the effect of a newly issued accounting standard. Post-implementation issues can be dealt with through an SEC action (Staff Accounting Bulletin) or an American Institute of Certified Public Accountants action (EITF), which may result in an update to the Code. The IASB, on the other hand, has a formal, two-year post-implementation review on all standards it issues.

Last, the operating budgets for 2011 for these two organizations are vastly different. For the FASB, its budget is $53.3 million USD. For the IASB, its budget is £20.1 million (approximately $31.4 million). These amounts are incongruent given the relative size of each organization’s board.

What does it all mean?
We don’t really know how the move to international standards, with the attendant IASB oversight, will affect U.S. public companies. The IASB does have the same purpose as the FASB, but I would note the IASB has more structure when it comes to evaluating new accounting pronouncements. I think this additional structure is something public companies would welcome. It also seems that the IASB is able to operate in a streamlined manner!

 

/by

A mismatched set of semi-global accounting standards—was that our goal?

Conceptually, a single set of high-quality global accounting standards sounds great: every company in every country follows the same rules and reports financial information in the same light. And with a growing number of countries adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), it’s no wonder that IFRS is touted as “the” set of standards that can help us accomplish this goal. But the design and execution of this concept has presented insurmountable challenges, and the solutions being offered up leave much to be desired in terms of accomplishing the original goal … a single set of standards.

Adoption turns to endorsement. The SEC’s proposed roadmap issued in late 2008 considered adoption of IFRS, while the most recent SEC staff paper issued last May is considering an endorsement protocol, which would allow the FASB and SEC to cherry-pick the standards issued by the Internal Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and possibly supplement them with additional guidance.

Convergence becomes less converged. The FASB and IASB have been working together to converge the guidance of newly issued standards since they entered into the Norwalk agreement in 2002. However, some of the boards’ first major joint projects, including stock-based compensation and purchase accounting, resulted in substantial convergence upon issuance of the final standards—most of the guidance is the same but key differences remain. While their respective drafts of the proposed revenue recognition guidance are very close (after more than 10 years of effort, I might add), there are a number of differences of opinion in terms of other standards in the works, including leases, consolidation and insurance contracts. Speculation is that the best we’ll get here is also substantial convergence … if that.

Input adds to confusion. In early July, the SEC held a roundtable session to help evaluate the possible incorporation of IFRS into the U.S. reporting structure. The roundtable consisted of three panels of investors, smaller public companies and regulators. The result: a very mixed bag of reactions. The investor panel generally supported incorporation of IFRS but raised concerns about consistency in the application of the IASB’s principles-based standards. The panel of small public companies said the costs of such a substantial change outweighed the benefits. And then there was the regulatory panel, which ranged from cautiously supportive to very much against IFRS incorporation.

The SEC is still expected to make a decision by the end of this year about whether to incorporate IFRS and if so, how and when. Although nothing has been decided yet, it appears we are headed toward IFRS—International Financial Reporting Sometimes.

/by
,

FASB & IASB: a match made in heaven or a recipe for disaster?

The lofty goal: To develop a single set of high-quality, international accounting standards that companies worldwide would use for both domestic and cross-border financial reporting.

Last month the FASB and IASB issued a progress report on their convergence projects. Although the boards have made a commitment to issue final standards for the items they consider to be most critical (financial instruments, revenue recognition, leases, fair value measurement and statement of comprehensive income), they have put four projects on hold—the most notable being the financial statement presentation project.

Exposure drafts have been issued for all of the priority projects, with revenue recognition currently getting the most attention. Why is this? Of the exposure drafts that have been issued this year as a part of the convergence effort, the proposed standard on revenue recognition from contracts with customers could arguably have the biggest impact on the most companies.

This exposure draft proposes a single principles-based model (we’ve heard it a million times—we’re getting away from a rules-based model!) under which revenue is recognized as the performance obligations in contracts are satisfied.  The obligations are deemed satisfied when control of the promised goods or services is transferred to the customer. The final standard would replace all existing guidance, including all industry-specific guidance. Thirty-six technology companies provided comment letters to the boards during the commenting period deadline. In general, they support the proposed single revenue recognition model.

The following concerns, however, were noted:

  • Recognizing revenue based on an estimated transaction price in a contract that has a variable transaction price may be difficult to apply in practice.
  • Including credit risk as a factor in measuring revenue does not seem appropriate.
  • Retrospective application is a huge undertaking, where the cost of tracking and reporting could outweigh the benefits (two-thirds of those who submitted comment letters disagreed with the full retrospective application of the standard!).

Last month the IASB and FASB held four public roundtable discussions, both in the United States and abroad, to further understand the concerns about the items presented in the exposure draft. We should expect a final standard on revenue recognition by June 30, 2011.

This seems like quite a task for the IASB and FASB to undertake, and there are four other areas for which final standards are due to be issued during 2011 (financial instruments, leases, fair value measurement and statement of comprehensive income). Will the two boards be able to compromise? Will they listen to the concerns of the public?  Will the convergence of the IASB and FASB be a perfect marriage?

Only time will tell! We’ll keep you posted.

/by