New Financial Architecture
|
ABOUT
|
CONTACT
|
GOOD PEOPLE
|
|
Fair value accounting guidance set out by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is consistent with that published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Read original article.
IN PUBLIC, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be arcane, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. Read original article.European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to be “piecemeal”, but the pressure to fold when it completes its overhaul of rules later this year is strong. On April 1st Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks’ shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are sceptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
Convergence to IFRS is essential if the global economy is to receover, according to reports released by the ACCA and the ICAEW. Read original article.Two of the UK's leading accounting bodies, the ACCA and the ICAEW, are calling for leaders to champion the global adoption of IFRS at this April's G20 summit.
The ACCA has released a discussion paper arguing that G20 leaders should endorse the benefits of IFRS because they will bring ‘transparency, comparability and clarity to reporting in the interests of shareholders, business and the wider public’.
ICAEW chief Michael Izza also spoke out, suggesting that convergence towards IFRS is losing momentum and that the new US administration should make a concerted effort to get onto the IFRS roadmap.
"We live in a world where global issues require global solutions", said Izza. "A fragmented financial reporting system will continue to hamper comparability and transparency across borders".
ACCA president Richard Aitken Davis called it a 'major failing' that IFRS is not already the global accounting language for all finance professionals, and argued: "Priority must be placed on ensuring that existing legislative and regulatory measures are implemented and enforced effectively. Rushing through large swathes of new legislation is not the answer"
The G20 leaders’ summit is due to take place in London on 2 April.
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has issued a range of amendments to disclosure requirements relating to fair value rules.
Many thanks to Greg Millman for posing this marvellous question.
I am looking forward to hearing your views on this.
Most International Finance Professionals in
The best argument against the adoption of IFRS, comes from the extra financial burden that this will place on US companies. The timing is not great either. However, future savings will be made by reporting in just one format, and not having to perform reconciliations between different reporting methods. As to the timing, maybe that isn’t so bad either, IFRS implementation will certainly generate a lot of work for finance professionals!
The best way out of a recession in my opinion is to work your way out of it. Wealth creation must come before wealth distribution. We have years of catching up to do.
IFRS has the huge advantage of being a tried and tested platform for the unification of accounting practices across the globe. For stakeholders too, one common reporting language will simplify decision making and make financial statements more transparent.
The other glaring advantage is that it works. USGAAP is rules orientated whilst IFRS is based on a conceptual framework. The “IFRS resistance” often seizes on this phrase as a major downside. I would simply point out that UKGAAP has been based on the same conceptual framework for a very long time. The
Sarbanes Oxley was designed to save USGAAP from a re-run of these high profile corporate failures; however the heavyweight tag team, Sox and USGAAP, could not stop the current financial crisis. Most commentators agree that this crisis emanated from the
Over the last twenty years the
It really is a matter of when, and not if IFRS is adopted in the


Four themes have emerged from the first meeting of the Financial Crisis Advisory Group, set up by the IASB and FASB:
The group will continue its discussions in February and March. For further information see the IASB website.
The SEC has recommended against the suspension of fair value accounting standards but identified eight improvements to their application. These include reconsidering the accounting for impairments and the development of additional guidance for determining fair value of investments in inactive markets, including situations where market prices are not readily available.
Read the SEC press release.
New US president Obama’s nominee for the role of SEC chairman, Mary Schapiro, expressed concerns about the adoption of IFRS in the US during her nomination hearing.
While recognising the benefits of a single set of accounting standards used around the world, Schapiro believes that IFRS are not as detailed as the US standards and leave a lot to interpretation. In addition, she has significant concerns about the independence of the IASB and the amount of rigor that exists in the IASB’s standard-setting process. Schapiro indicated that the SEC would proceed with caution and would not necessarily feel bound by the existing roadmap.
View the webcast of Schapiro’s nomination hearing.
The meeting's agenda included:
General Overview Session and Issues Briefing:
- Basel Committee of Banking Supervisors - Sylvie Matherat
- Committee of European Securities Regulators - Fernando Restoy
- International Association of Insurance Supervisors - Monica Mächler
- Japan Financial Services Agency - Junichi Maruyam
Go the the IASB website here to access these files in full and for free
More than a billion people are using the internet

THE number of people going online has passed one billion for the first time, according to comScore, an online metrics company. Almost 180m internet users—over one in six of the world's online population—live in China, more than any other country. Until a few months ago America had most web users, but with 163m people online, or over half of its total population, it has reached saturation point. More populous countries such as China, Brazil and India have many more potential users and will eventually overtake those western countries with already high penetration rates. ComScore counts only unique users above the age of 15 and excludes access in internet cafes and via mobile devices.
An essential element in the government's forthcoming package to stem the pernicious shrinkage of credit in the economy will be measures to compensate for the devastating impact on many companies of the withdrawal of trade credit insurance.
That probably sounds deeply dull and technical. But please read on, because this stuff matters to all of us.
For smaller companies, the importance of trade credit insurance is often that they can't borrow from banks, unless they've insured their sales to corporate customers.
The banks make this stipulation because it absolves them from having to assess the credit-worthiness of their borrowers in detail - because at least part of the credit risk has been laid off to an insurance company.
So the availability of such insurance is literally a matter of life and death for many businesses.
Woolworths is one of the more extreme examples.
When insurers would no longer provide cover to Woolies' suppliers in the autumn, that was the penultimate nail in the coffin of the ailing general retailer - because suppliers insisted that Woolworths pay cash upfront to them for orders, which meant that Woolies was forced to draw on its borrowing facilities, which in turn took the retailer up to the limit of what its bankers were prepared to lend.
And the rest is the sorry story you know: the demise of a historic high street name that was forced to liquidate everything so that the bankers could get their money back.
The point is that trade credit insurance is central to hundreds of billions of pounds in trade and the provision of finance to companies of all sizes.
When it's withdrawn, as has been happening for months, small companies are unable to fulfil valuable orders placed by big companies and those bigger companies lose access to vital supplies.
So a rational decision by insurers to scale back their cover on sales to companies perceived as vulnerable to our economic contraction is rippling through the economy in a damaging way: cover is being withdrawn because we appear to be in a sharp recession, and its withdrawal is making that recession significantly worse.
Part of the problem is that the insurers seem to me to have massively underpriced the cover they provide. Just as banks charged ludicrously low rates of interest during the years of the credit bubble, so the trade credit insurers insured hundreds of billions of pounds of trade for tiny premiums.
According to statistics from the Association of British Insurers, there were £334m of premiums written by the insurers in 2007, covering £282bn of sales by British companies.
Or, to put it another way: insurers were receiving premiums equivalent to the turnover of a medium-size business to protect more than 20% of the output of the entire British economy.
Scary or what?
Those aggregated premiums were equivalent to a minute 0.1% of the sum insured - down from 0.26% in 1995. Which would only make economic sense in a world where there are never recessions.
One illustration that the premium was too low is that claims received by insurers in 2008 are likely to have been rather more than total aggregated gross premiums received in the previous year, extrapolating from trends in the first nine months of the year.
But the insurers have been protecting themselves from the worst losses by simply withdrawing cover for new orders to companies seen as weak. In other words, unlike insurance provided to you and me on our homes, for example, the trade credit insurers have been able to withhold protection as soon as they detected stormy conditions.
To restate the painful paradox: insurance designed to give confidence to companies that they would be paid by corporate customers is being scaled back in a way that's magnifying the woes of businesses big and small.
What's to be done?
Well, in France, a new system is being implemented whereby taxpayers are sharing the insurance risk with private-sector insurers on supplies to viable companies.
And I would expect the Business Department and the Treasury to implement a similar system of co-insurance by taxpayers.
But that can only be a short-term solution.
In the longer term, the supply of finance to small and medium-size businesses has to be overhauled, so that the viability of those businesses is no longer dependent on insurance that's only available when the sun is shining.
Updated Map of Status of International Financial Reporting Standards 3/1/2009