ABOUT    |    CONTACT    |    GOOD PEOPLE    |     SUBSCRIBE
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

November 17, 2010

Masters in Accounting - Great USA site by Mark Macaluso

Masters in Accounting was created as a nonprofit resource to serve students considering enrolling in a masters in accounting program. Actively maintained, Masters in Accounting is the only nonprofit website which lists and links to every accredited masters in accounting program as well as answers some basic questions about the degree so that students have a single unbiased resource from which they can begin their research.


About Us

Who and Why?

Masters in Accounting was created by Mark Macaluso in June 2010. Mark, a MSA graduate, decided to create Masters in Accounting because despite the fact that you can find almost anything online, there were to-date no reliable nonprofit websites devoted to presenting prospective students with an understanding of what a masters in accounting program entails, which schools offer the degree, what differences exist between various masters in accounting programs and sub-specialities, etc.

Contact

Feedback is always welcomed. While I generally try not to give advice about specific schools and programs in an attempt to remain unbiased, I will be happy to answer questions relating to other aspects of the degree, career options, etc. So please don’t hesitate to email me, Mark Macaluso, at: info #at# mastersinaccounting #dot# net.

May 28, 2009

New Financial Architecture

From www.weforum.org



On January 15, 2009, the World Economic Forum released its initial report from the New Financial Architecture project, “The Future of the Global Financial System: A Near-Term Outlook and Long-Term Scenarios.” The effort was mandated by the World Economic Forum’s investors and financial services communities in January 2008 to explore the driving forces that are shaping the global financial system and how these forces might affect governance and industry structure.

Press release
Project Steering Committee and executive summary of report (PDF 1.6 MB)
Full report “The Future of the Global Financial System” (PDF 11.8 MB)
Compendium - Driving Forces (PDF 1.7MB)

Key conclusions from phase one report – “The Future of the Global Financial System”
The phase one report identifies a near-term industry outlook characterized by an expanded scope for regulatory oversight, back to basics in the banking sector, some restructuring by alternative investment firms and the emergence of a new set of winners and losers.

Over the long-term, a range of external forces and critical uncertainties will further shape the industry. In particular, our study found that the pace of power shifts from today’s advanced economies to the emerging world and the degree of international coordination on financial policy are the two most critical uncertainties for the future of the global financial system. The report therefore explores four challenging scenarios.

Driving forces and critical uncertainties
In phase one of the New Financial Architecture project, the World Economic Forum engaged more than 250 industry practitioners, policy-makers and academics in workshops, interviews and participation in a survey to identify and prioritize the key driving forces expected to shape the future of the global financial system between today and 2020. The engagement process resulted in an inventory of 34 prioritized driving forces (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Survey results: prioritization of key driving forces on the future of wholesale financial markets



The phase one long-term scenarios were developed using industry facts, figures and forecasts for key underlying driving forces, which are summarized in the following compendium:
Key driving forces on the future of the wholesale financial markets

Four scenarious for the future of the global financial system

Financial regionalism is a world in which post-crisis blame-shifting and the threat of further economic contagion create three major blocs on trade and financial policy, forcing global companies to construct tripartite strategies to operate globally.

Fragmented protectionism is a world characterized by division, conflict, currency controls and a race-to-the bottom dynamic that only serves to deepen the long-term effects of the financial crisis.

Re-engineered Western-centrism is a highly coordinated and financially homogenous world that has yet to face up to the realities of shifting power and the dangers of regulating for the last crisis rather than the next.

Rebalanced multilateralism is a world in which initial barriers to coordination and disagreement over effective risk management approaches are overcome in the context of rapidly shifting geo-economic power.

Phase two priorities
In phase two of the New Financial Architecture project, the World Economic Forum will work closely with industry stakeholders to delve deeper into the implications of this analysis, with the goal of exploring collaborative strategies and areas of systemic improvement. This will involve an examination of the potential future sources of systemic risk, as well as opportunities to reposition the industry for sustainable, long-term growth in ways that maximize the stability and prosperity of both the financial and real economies.

Figure 2: Transition from phase one to phase two


The World Economic Forum will be hosting workshops with key stakeholders throughout 2009
January 28 - February 1: Davos-Klosters, Switzerland
March (TBC), London, United Kingdom
May 14, Dead Sea, Jordan
September 10, Dalian, China
September (TBC), New York, United States

For more information, please contact:
Max von Bismarck, Director and Head of Investor Industries, max.vonbismarck@weforum.org
Bernd Jan Sikken, Associate Director and Head of Emerging Markets Finance, berndjan.sikken@weforum.org
Nicholas Davis, Associate Director, Scenario Planning, nicholas.davis@weforum.org




May 26, 2009

Accountants in Demand

THE humble accountant is in high demand. Despite the rising ranks of the unemployed, many companies still suffer from a shortage of skilled finance and accounting staff, according to a new survey of 4,800 hiring managers by Robert Half International, a recruiting firm. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported difficulty finding appropriate candidates for finance roles, with the most acute shortages reported in Hong Kong, Brazil and Japan. When compared to an identical poll last year, some of the largest jumps in frustrated recruiters were in continental Europe, namely France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By contrast, companies in America are finding it easiest to hire skilled financial talent, perhaps reflecting the masses of qualified candidates cut loose from the country’s stricken financial services sector in recent months.

April 28, 2009

IASB publishes fair value findings...

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.

That is the conclusion of a review by the IASB aimed at ensuring consistency in the way such rules are applied.

Following the accelerated 30-day consultation on the issue, relevant guidance from the FASB's Staff Positions on fair value measurement will be included when the IASB publishes an exposure draft on the same subject next month.

Sir David Tweedie, IASB chairman, said: "We have heard a clear and consistent message on financial instruments accounting - fix this once, fix it comprehensively, and fix it in an urgent and responsible manner."

This is why the IASB has set out a six-month timetable for replacing current standards relating to the subject, he added.

Earlier this month, the FASB launched two draft proposals aimed at improving guidance relating to fair value measurement and impairments.

SEC IFRS Roadmap moves slowly and relentlessly forward

NEW YORK, April 27, 2009 – PricewaterhouseCoopers’ leading International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) experts will be discussing the most recent and important developments in the move to adopt international accounting standards in the United States in a live webcast tomorrow afternoon. The discussion will address the latest thinking on IFRS from regulators, standard setters and other constituents on the debate over when, and how, IFRS should be adopted for use by U.S. domestic registrants.

Beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, the event will be a 75-minute live video webcast, including a Q&A session at the end. Read original article.

To register for the webcast, please go to http://www.meetpwc.com/rsvp/invitation/invitation.asp?id=/m2c53c-1RHZ5W5F6LNWI. Once you register, you will receive a confirmation email with a link and access instructions for joining the webcast.

The deadline expired Monday on the 150-day comment period for the SEC's "Road Map" to adoption of IFRS. Amid uncertainty in the U.S. and global economies, and notwithstanding concerns that have surfaced from a wide range of constituents about costs and timing, the drive toward creating a unified set of high-quality financial reporting standards continues to move forward.

According to a newly released PwC report, IFRS is already affecting U.S. companies independently of moves to eventually adopt IFRS in the United States. The impact will broaden considerably over the next few years as ongoing convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS brings key changes to U.S. financial reporting. Those changes will have numerous implications for U.S. businesses, most notably revenue recognition, leases, consolidations and pensions. In these areas, in particular, companies may need to rethink certain business operations, strategies and agreements as a result of convergence (ranging from sales staff compensation to compliance with certain debt covenant agreements).

Meanwhile, companies are already feeling the indirect effect of IFRS adoption by their foreign subsidiaries and counterparties, particularly in customer and vendor transactions. These two simultaneous movements—ongoing IFRS adoption around the globe and convergence in the United States—will bring near-constant change to US financial reporting for years to come.

The discussion, which will highlight PwC’s point of view, and what the Firm sees as the next steps the SEC will take in moving toward adopting IFRS in the US, will be moderated by the Firm’s US IFRS Practice Leader, John J. Barry. Also taking part will be:
    • David B. Kaplan, PwC partner and leader of the International Accounting Consulting Services team;

    • David Schmid, PwC partner and leader of U.S. Global Accounting and Consulting Services;

    • Angie Blomberg, partner in the firm's Transaction Services practice and a leader in the firm's IFRS efforts in the financial services industry;

    • Richard Fuchs, PwC partner and IFRS Steering Committee member with extensive experience in IFRS conversion during postings in Germany, London and Hong Kong.

April 22, 2009

Video Advice on Surviving the Recession

From the Economist

Google has launched a new channel on its YouTube video site, dubbed “Survival of the Fastest”. Among the corporate executives, business-school professors and London mayors providing “bite-sized insights” for managers to help them navigate the downturn is Jason Karaian of CFO Europe. He discusses how the recession will reshape relationships among board members and why companies will focus much more on cash in the years to come.

April 17, 2009

IASB amends 12 standards


The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has made a range of amendments to 12 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). Read original article.

All the changes are part of the board's annual improvements project, which is used to make non-urgent adjustments to IFRSs.

The latest amendments reflect issues that were initially raised in proposals published in October 2007, August 2008 and January 2009.











A spokesperson for the IASB said: "By presenting the amendments in a single document rather than as a series of piecemeal changes, the IASB aims to ease the burden of change for all concerned."

The changes are effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1st 2010, unless otherwise specified, he added.

However, the IASB has decided to postpone reconsideration of two issues raised in the proposed changes of August 2008 due to comments received during the consultation period.

Recently, the board announced it is working on the proposals made by the leaders of the G20 nations at their meeting earlier this month.

April 14, 2009

To reveal, but not to regulate

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.

On April 2nd, after a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, decried those who “impugn our motives”. Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management”.

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.

To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. Japan’s procrastination prolonged its crisis. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by appeasing critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.

Standard-setters should defuse the argument by making clear that their job is not to regulate banks but to force them to reveal information. The banks, their capital-adequacy regulators and politicians seem to dream of a single, grown-up version of the truth, which enhances financial stability. Investors and accountants, however, think all valuations are subjective, doubt managers’ motives and judge that market prices are the least-bad option. They are right. A bank’s solvency is a matter of judgment for its regulators and for investors, not whatever a piece of paper signed by its auditors says it is. Accounts can inform that decision, but not make it.

Banks’ regulators have to take responsibility. If they want to remove the mechanical link between drops in market prices and capital shortfalls at banks, they should take the accounts that standard-setters create for investors and adjust them when they calculate capital. They already do this to some degree. But the banks’ campaign to change the rules is making inevitable a split between two sets of accounts, one for regulators and another for investors. The FASB and IASB can help regulators to create whatever balance-sheet they want. But in doing so they must not compromise their duty to investors.

March 19, 2009

Cost savings on IFRS conversion?


From Accounting Principles

In response to the economic crisis and continued regulatory uncertainty surrounding IFRS, 71% of companies are slowing their implementation efforts, specifically holding off allocating staff to the project, or postponing their accounting differences diagnostics. However, companies need to ensure that these cuts do not compromise their long-term plans, and must use 2009 for low-cost, targeted assessment and preparation activities.

Waiting Game:
In the last few months, companies have been slowing-but not suspending-their IFRS implementation efforts. This is manifested in two key areas – companies have avoided ramping up their overall project teams, either by cutting back on their budgets, or by holding off allocating staff. At the same time firms are postponing accounting and IT diagnostics, or conducting them internally instead of using more costly consultants as initially planned.




Other Things on the Plate:


There are two main reasons for this slowdown:
Regulatory Uncertainty: Companies are holding back because of the uncertainty surrounding the IFRS Roadmap; including conflicting comments by senior policymakers about whether the SEC will continue ‘full speed ahead’ towards adoption, and strong dissatisfaction with having to wait until 2011 for the ‘go/no-go’ decision. This should be temporary, and will probably go away when the administration’s intentions become clearer, but as of now, companies are scared of committing to an expensive, company-wide set of changes, only to revert back because of policy shifts.


The Economic Crisis:

Companies have much more immediate spending needs than IFRS – currency exchange issues, higher pension costs, and other ‘distractions’ all crowd out increasingly scarce dollars, and are making it difficult for companies to justify spending for an IFRS transition that may not happen until 2014.


Don’t Cut Back Too Far:
While cutting back on IFRS may be an attractive option, companies need to be wary of stopping their IFRS efforts altogether. IFRS is a long term process, and even with the current uncertainty, companies must lay the groundwork in 2009 for the ongoing project in targeted, low-cost ways, including:


Conducting preliminary IFRS accounting research:

As IFRS standards are still being written, conducting highly detailed accounting diagnostics may be counterproductive at this stage. However, companies should dedicate an individual to track and evaluate IASB standards as part of their job, determine which ones are in flux, and which are stable, and use publicly-available and Roundtable resources to understand the key differences. This allows you to prioritize your future workplans.


Evaluate your organization for IFRS competency: Even if you don’t plan to form your project team yet, use 2009 to evaluate your company for people with good project management skills (including ‘big project’ experience in SOX or an ERP implementation), as well as those who have practical IFRS experience, perhaps through a foreign subsidiary. Determine whether you will be able to move these people onto your team, and determine any competency gaps that might need to be filled by outside consultants.


Start reaching out to key stakeholders:

IFRS will have a broad impact on corporate functions, and you need to start making stakeholders aware of IFRS. Start letting IT know you may need to change your General Ledger and other systems (and make sure you are in their long-term work plans), and inform legal and treasury about any debt covenants and contracts that mention US GAAP terms, and may need to be changed.

The key is not to commit to expensive changes – the external environment may not give you that flexibility, and many of the detailed changes are unknowable at this point anyway-but to get an understanding of the specific challenges you face, so that you will be in a good position to start detailed planning when its appropriate.

March 18, 2009

G20 must promote IFRS

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.

March 12, 2009

NYSE chief looks to reinstate a version of the uptick rule

By Anuj Gangahar in New York

Mounting political pressure will result in an incarnation of the so-called uptick rule, abolished amid a chorus of criticism before the worst of the financial crisis, but the exact form of these curbs remains in question, according to Duncan Niederauer, chief executive of NYSE Euronext.

Mr Niederauer on Wednesday met top officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission and discussed, among other matters, the possible reinstatement of the rule or similar measures.

He said the next step was likely to involve equity market centres, working in concert with regulators, coming up with two or three ideas for the best way in which some form of the uptick rule could be reintroduced. This could involve a price test that takes the greater speed of today’s markets into account or stock-specific rules that would be triggered by a certain degree of short interest in particular stocks among other possibilities.

The so-called uptick rule was scrapped by the SEC in July 2007 just as the credit crisis was beginning to take hold and before the worst equity market volatility of the recession of the past 18 months. It allowed short selling only when the last tick in a stock’s price was positive. This rule was implemented after the 1929 market crash to prevent short sellers from driving the price of a stock down in a bear run.

Several critics have blasted the SEC for its 2007 decision and the news that it is considering reinstating the rule now has been met with incredulity in many quarters.

Robert Ellis, senior vice president of the wealth management group at Celent, a Boston-based consulting firm, said: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The 2007 decision by the SEC was one of the worst and most irresponsible in terms of leading to the overall decline that has wiped out trillions of dollars in wealth from Americans’ investment portfolios.”

“Making this change now is a lot like bolting the barn door after the horse has left the barn, the county and possibly the state,” he said, adding that many average investors had lost so much faith in the equity markets that it would be years, if not generations, before they return.

March 10, 2009

US Congress to discuss fair value rules...

Possible changes to fair value accountancy rules are set to be debated by the US House of Representatives. Read original article.

The rules, which are also known as mark-to-market regulations, have proved controversial in the wake of the economic downturn, with some claiming they are partly to blame for the liquidity problems facing banks.

Congressman Paul Kanjorski, who is to convene a meeting by the House Financial Services Subcommittee on the matter, explained that although there are currently problems with valuing sizable assets, this does not necessarily mean the rules should be scrapped.

He said: "While companies need stability, investors still need accurate information. We therefore cannot allow for fantasy accounting that wishes away bad assets by merely concealing them."

The subcommittee meeting will take place on Thursday March 12th.

Last week, the International Accounting Standards Board made changes to International Financial Reporting Standard 7 which relates to fair value practices, to bring it into line with the equivalent US rule.

March 06, 2009

IASB updates fair value rules ...

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has issued a range of amendments to disclosure requirements relating to fair value rules.

Under the changes, firms will now have to supply additional information about the relative reliability of their fair value measurements.

The amendments, which take into account the views of the G20 group of nations, brings International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 into line with the equivalent US rule.

Sir David Tweedie, chairman of the IASB, said: "The financial crisis has shown that a clear understanding of how entities determine the fair value of financial instruments, particularly when only limited information is available, is crucial to maintaining confidence in the financial markets."

The changes announced today will boost the clarity of financial reports, Sir David added.

Amendments to IFRS 7 will apply for annual periods beginning on or after January 1st 2009.

Meanwhile, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board is also conducting its own review into how fair value rules can be improved.

February 27, 2009

What do you think of the recent controversy around convergence in the US?

Many thanks to Greg Millman for posing this marvellous question.

I am looking forward to hearing your views on this.


I understand there is some controversy over the adoption of IFRS in the US. This is nothing new… the IFRS resistance has been pretty strong in the US for a number of years. I understand the reluctance of professionals who, having had to study one thick book on USGAAP, are dreading the thought of studying another thick book on IFRS.


Most International Finance Professionals in Europe had to do exactly that. First study local GAAP, which varies from country to country, and then figure out how it all related to USGAAP… Only a determined few still had the energy to go on to study IFRS.


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 UK has suffered some embarrassing corporate failures, but there has never been anything on the scale of Enron, Worldcom or Global Crossing - all these occurred on USGAAP’s rules based watch. I believe that USGAAP with its prescriptive approach to accounting issues has become too cumbersome to be truly effective.


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 United States. Many other countries played their own part in making things worse, but it was the American subprime mortgage issue that brought down the whole house of cards.


Over the last twenty years the US has been resisting IFRS, yet these International Standards have been slowly and persistently adopted by many countries around the world. With Canada Brazil, Mexico and India now poised to adopt IFRS, the US is looking more and more isolated in its stance, and so I believe that USGAAP’s days are numbered.


It really is a matter of when, and not if IFRS is adopted in the US.


February 24, 2009

SEC Delivers Final XBRL Mandate

By Mitchell Feldman:  image of A.E. Feldman Logo A.E. Feldman Blog

Insight on Hot Issues, News and Trends in Employment in Financial Services, Accounting and Legal plus Expert Advice on the Executive Search Process


The SEC has finally delivered its mandate that corporations start filing financial statements using XBRL technology. Read original article.


The final version of its rule mandating eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) for public companies has been posted. The 500 largest public companies must start XBRL compliance this June, followed by other large filers in 2010, and all remaining companies in 2011. The new rule requires public companies to begin filing their financial statements in an interactive data format, allowing investors to download them more easily into spreadsheets and other software. According to the SEC, the technology is “intended not only to make financial information easier for investors to analyze (across companies and industries), but also to assist in automating regulatory filings and business information processing.” The SEC also contends that interactive data has the potential to increase the speed, accuracy and usability of financial disclosure, and eventually reduce costs.

XBRL is a language for the electronic communication of business and financial data which is transforming global business reporting with the promise of greater efficiency and improved accuracy. This technology involves computer “tags” similar to the bar codes used to identify groceries in the supermarket. According to the SEC, the tags uniquely identify individual items in a company’s financial statement so they can be easily searched, downloaded, reorganized, and put to any number of other comparative and analytical uses.

The technology is being developed by an international non-profit consortium of approximately 500 major companies, organizations and government agencies, according to XBRL.org. Right now, implementations of XBRL are growing rapidly around the world. Read more...


February 23, 2009

More management ideas

“The Economist Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus”, by Tim Hindle
(Profile Books; 322 pages; £20).

The guide has the low-down on over 100 of the most influential business-management ideas and more than 50 of the world’s most influential management thinkers. To buy this book, please visit our online shop

IFRS impairment model is superior to USGAAP mark to market

Extracts from:

Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities Regulation

Commentary and musings on the complex, fascinating and peculiar world that is securities regulation



The FASB is to conduct an intensive review of fair value accounting. Read original article here.

While praising FASB’s initiative, the American Bankers Association is concerned that critical problems regarding the issue of other than temporary impairment are being overlooked. The ABA is disappointed that FASB has ignored the need to directly repair the problems regarding other than temporary impairment in the planned projects. The ABA noted that the recent SEC study recommended that FASB re-examine such impairment expeditiously.

In the ABA’s view, the international model for other than temporary impairment used by the IASB, which is based on credit impairment rather than fair value, represents a superior approach to US GAAP. As a result, U.S. companies are needlessly required to report higher paper losses than their international competitors. The trigger for determining such impairment in the U.S should be based on actual credit impairment, said the ABA, and the accompanying mark down should be made for the amount of that credit impairment as opposed to marking it to market. Recoveries of impairment should be reversed through earnings, as they are for international accounting.

Read more...

February 22, 2009

China’s Fistful of Dollars

By Geoff Dyer in Beijing


China employment

The flotation of Blackstone in June 2007 has already gone down as one of the symbolic events in America’s financial bubble – the end-of-an-era deal when some of Wall Street’s savviest insiders decided to cash out.

Yet the listing of the private equity group could also be the turning point in another chapter of financial history; one that will shape the world that emerges from the current crisis: the moment when China really began to question its deep financial entanglement with the US.

China Investment Corporation, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, had not even begun formally operating when it spent $3bn on a 9.9 per cent stake in the private equity group. With Blackstone’s shares down 84 per cent since flotation, CIC’s new executives have become the target of furious attacks by bloggers who think China was conned. “They are worse than wartime traitors,” says one recent chat-room posting. “Blind worship of the US by so-called ‘experts’,” complains another.

China’s near $2,000bn (£1,380bn, €1,560bn) in reserves, the world’s largest, are often viewed outside the country as a great strength – an insurance policy against economic turbulence. But within China, they are increasingly seen by the public and even some policymakers as something of an albatross – a huge pool of resources not being used at home that will plunge in value if the US dollar collapses. Why, people ask, should such a relatively poor country bankroll such a rich one?

Even at the elite level, the sense of frustration occasionally bubbles over. “We hate you guys,” Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), complained last week on a visit to New York. “Once you start issuing $1-$2 trillion ... we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there is nothing much we can do.”

As China’s economy slows sharply, the debate on how to manage its reserves is intensifying. Some propose spending the money at home; others want more diversification of investments. But the consensus behind recycling foreign currency into US government securities is coming under attack.

The discussion is hugely important for the Obama administration. At the very least, the Chinese government is likely to become much more forceful in trying to influence US economic policy. “There should be more give and take; some sort of guarantee that our interests will be defended,” says Yu Yongding, a leading economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Given the vital role that China has played in financing US deficits, Washington “should at least be a little nicer”, he says.

The explosion in China’s foreign exchange reserves has been one of the more remarkable episodes in recent financial history. The official total is $1,950bn, but Brad Setser, of the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think-tank, who tracks China’s foreign assets, puts the real figure at nearer $2,300bn – equivalent to more than $1,600 for every Chinese citizen.

From that total, Mr Setser calculates that about $1,700bn is invested in dollar assets, making the Chinese government by far the largest creditor of the US. Last year, when its economy was under extreme stress, China lent the US more than $400bn – equivalent to more than 10 per cent of Chinese gross domestic product. “Day after day, China is the single biggest buyer of Treasury bonds in the market,” he wrote in a recent report. “Never before has the US relied so heavily on another country’s government for financing.”

MR RENMINBI:

Tough talker

China’s point man for financial issues is Wang Qishan, a former banker and mayor of Beijing who became a vice-premier last year. Tough-talking and blunt, he has a record of pushing though difficult reforms and led a dialogue between China and the US last year.

But like most senior leaders, he rarely talks publicly about the Chinese currency. Analysts say any significant shift in policy either on the exchange rate or on foreign reserves would have to be approved by the nine-member standing committee of the Communist party political bureau.

Within China, a popular backlash against the scale of these investments in the US has been building for some time. Founded in 2007, CIC controls assets equivalent to only about 10 per cent of the total reserves, yet it has become a lightning rod for criticism. Not only has its Blackstone investment gone sour, but CIC also invested $5bn in Morgan Stanley before the bank’s shares slumped. CIC also had money in Reserve Primary Fund, the US money market fund which froze redemptions after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

A European banker who has been advising CIC on its overseas strategy says: “This is a completely unique situation for Chinese bureaucrats to face – having their every decision debated, analysed and often attacked in the media and on the internet. I get the feeling that they are all shell-shocked.”

Almost every week, a new proposal is launched to find a better way of investing the money. State media reported this week that a fund might be set up using reserves to back overseas investments by oil companies. Such ideas follow a flurry of recent natural-resources deals involving Chinese companies – most notably Chinalco’s planned investment in Rio Tinto – although none of these deals has directly involved foreign exchange reserves.

Another much-touted plan is for China’s finance ministry to “borrow” dollar reserves from the central bank, which would be swapped into local currency and spent on social projects.

Even the body that manages the bulk of the reserves, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (Safe), admitted last week that it was debating new approaches. “We will actively expand channels and ways to use the foreign exchange reserves. In particular, we will explore how the reserves can better serve domestic economic development,” said Deng Xianhong, deputy director of Safe.

Yet officials recognise that there are still powerful reasons for China to keep buying Treasury bonds. If the authorities want to maintain most of their vast holdings in liquid assets, there are few options that match the depth of the US government bond market. And if China did not want to accumulate so many reserves, it would have to let its currency strengthen – exactly what the government does not want at a time when exports are crumbling.

China’s leaders have made it clear that, in the short-term at least, they will keep supporting US markets. They want to be thought of as responsible global citizens during the crisis. They also know that a strong signal that China was backing away from dollar investments would damage the value of the enormous holdings it already has.

“We believe that to maintain a stable international financial market is in the interests of shoring up market confidence ... and facilitating early recovery of the international markets,” said Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, although he hinted at a shift in strategy when the crisis was over. As Arthur Kroeber, managing editor of the China Economic Quarterly, puts it: “China’s default policy is to pursue stability at all costs. They do not want to rock the boat when things are unstable.”

Yet if China has few options but to keep buying US Treasuries, it can still try to turn its investments into some sort of leverage. Think-tanks close to the government have been given the task of devising concessions that China can seek in recognition of its bigger role in international economic affairs. Zha Xiaogang, of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, has published an “economic wish-list”, which includes a relaxation of US restrictions on exports of sophisticated technology to China.

China economy

Chinese policymakers are also becoming increasingly critical of US financial policies. Last week’s barbed comments from Mr Luo of CBRC were the most colourful indication of Chinese fears of a dollar crisis (see above right). But there have been other hints from senior leaders. “We hope the US side will ... guarantee the safety of China’s assets and investments in the US,” Wang Qishan, a vice-premier, told Hank Paulson when the former US Treasury secretary visited Beijing in December. Given public scepticism over the reserves, a tougher approach from Beijing would be well-received at home.

One of the ideas being discussed in Beijing is pushing for the International Monetary Fund to have greater authority to issue critical judgments about the health of the US economy and its financial system. Officials also hope to use purchases of US debt as a diplomatic weapon against protectionist measures in the US.

Arguably, China has already shown it can influence US decisions. One of the reasons the Bush administration was forced to recapitalise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last year, economists say, was because China had started to sell its bond holdings in the US agencies in favour of Treasuries. “China is beginning to behave like a normal creditor,” says Mr Setser.

Ultimately, China’s influence on US policy faces two big constraints. The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency gives the US huge flexibility that other countries with large deficits do not enjoy, much to the frustration of many Chinese officials. China’s unwillingness to let its currency appreciate more also limits its leverage.

But the political debate is likely to be very different. The Sino-US relationship used to involve lectures from Washington about China’s undervalued currency and its closed financial markets. Now they will include Chinese warnings on the risks of inflation in the US and dollar weakness. Fiscal conservatives in the US, worried about the country’s impending borrowing binge, have an unlikely new ally: Beijing.

BEIJING’S KEY ROLE IN THE AMERICAN DEBT MOUNTAIN

The level of Chinese demand for US Treasury paper could play a crucial role in determining the interest rates the US government has to pay for its rapidly growing debt pile.

In the past year, Chinese investors – mainly its central bank – have become the biggest foreign holders of US Treasuries, increasing their holdings 15 per cent last year to nearly $700bn (€545bn, £485bn).

Foreign investors now own about $3,000bn of US Treasuries, or more than half of the amount publicly available. Whether Chinese buying continues to increase this year at the same pace could be an important factor in the outlook for the Treasury market.

In turn, the level of demand from China depends on the health of the US economy. The fewer Chinese goods Americans buy, the fewer dollars China will have to invest in dollar-denominated assets.

“China has become such an important player in US Treasury holdings that it will be critical to the direction of yields whether new money continues to be invested by China in US government debt,” says Alex Li, a strategist at Credit Suisse.

Chinese buying cannot be taken for granted. For example, in November, China sold $9.2bn of Treasury debt, the first month of net selling from the country since June 2008. By December, the last month for which data exist, China was a buyer again – highlighting the potential for swings.

Officially, China remains committed to the US Treasury market. But at a recent conference in New York, Luo Ping, a senior official of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), expressed an ambivalence that is shared by senior officials from Saudi Arabia to Japan, also big buyers.

“US Treasuries are the safe haven; it is the only option,” said Mr Luo. “Once you start issuing $1-$2 trillion ... we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys, but there is nothing much we can do.”

Although these remarks were made with a smile, the CBRC quickly sent a note to the foreign press saying that China’s policies remained unchanged.

In addition, analysts are becoming conscious of growing opposition within China to the policy of investing so much wealth in low-yielding dollar assets.

“This is an area of criticism [China] will increasingly be sensitive to as it seeks to reduce its reliance on export-led growth,” said Chris Wood in his weekly publication for CLSA, the regional brokerage.

“It may all be a giant game of chicken. But it cannot be taken for granted that China will be willing to buy US paper for ever.”


February 18, 2009

XBRL : découvrez comment optimiser vos activités de reporting







Cher(e) collègue,

Dans le prolongement de ses différentes actions visant à promouvoir les nouvelles technologies auprès de ses membres et amis, la DFCG vous propose une session de formation pour vous initier au langage XBRL.

Ce standard, libre de droits et dérivé du XML, révolutionne progressivement le monde de la finance ; permettant l’échange, la publication et l’analyse de données financières.

En participant à la formation du 16 mars prochain, vous bénéficierez de tout le savoir-faire technologique développé par l’Association XBRL France, sur un langage qui est au cœur du métier des décideurs financiers et des contrôleurs de gestion.

lundi 16 mars 2009, Paris

Au programme de cette journée :

MATINEE
  • Le standard XBRL : origines comptables et principaux concepts
  • Les taxonomies et les rapports : les fondements XML de XBRL, les outils à disposition du marché et exemple de rapport financier
  • Les réalisations avec XBRL : les premières réalisations, les projets en cours et l’actualité
  • Les atouts de XBRL : pour les directeurs financiers, les analystes et les contrôleurs de gestion

APRES-MIDI

  • Les principales notions du langage XBRL : taxonomie, rapports et notions avancées
  • Cas pratiques : lire les taxonomies IFRS et comptes annuels, création d’un rapport simple (principes et validation), se préparer à l’utilisation de XBRL
  • Exemples concrets : les comptes annuels déposés au Greffe, la rémunération des mandataires sociaux
  • Les opportunités : le reporting interne (données financières et de gestion)


Pour plus d’informations et pour toute inscription, contactez Christine NICOL par mail cnicol@cs.experts-comptables.org ou par téléphone au 00 33 1 44 15 62 54.

February 11, 2009

The age of XBRL has arrived


The Securities and Exchange Commission is officially moving corporate regulatory filings into the Internet Age. This morning the SEC issued a rule mandating that the 500 largest public companies start to file their financial results using the interactive data tagging language known as XBRL by April 13. Read original article.

XBRL tagging is said to make financial statements more searchable and comparable.

By 2010, all so-called accelerated filers, amounting to about 1,800 public companies, must comply with the new rule, and by 2011 all public companies must do so.

During their first year of filing, companies are required to use XBRL for the three primary financial statements -- the income statement, the cash flow statement, and the balance sheet -- as well as for footnotes to the statements, which can be presented in a "block" format. However, by the second year, footnotes must be formatted in a detailed manner.

Companies will have a bit of breathing room regarding their first submission. The SEC is allowing the first XBRL filing to be submitted 30 days after the traditional filing on the regulator's EDGAR database system. But all subsequent financial results must be filed on EDGAR and with XBRL tagging at the same time.

From a global perspective, some observers believe the adoption of XBRL will help move companies toward international financial reporting standards. Indeed, many experts believe that the tagging language makes it easier for companies to migrate from local generally accepted accounting principles to IFRS. Both U.S. and international accounting rulemakers have been working since 2002 to converge local GAAPs with IFRS in an effort to produce one set of global standards. Anything seen as moving that effort forward is viewed as strengthening and adding transparency to financial reporting, in general.