Contauria Financiera

ARTÍCULO 1.

The question of IFRS adoption: a very long engangrenent.

Over the past decade, more than 120 countries worldwide have committed, in some form, to adopting a common set of accounting standards - International Financial Reporting Standards (TFRS) - including members of the European Union, China, India, and Japan. The United States has also been an important player in the global movement toward IFRS, but it has acted in the unique role of a hyperinfluential outsider. While not formally committed to IFRS adoption, the United States remains a key influence in the determination of IFRS principles. In 2011, four of the 15 IFRS standards setters, five of the 20 IFRS trustees, and the IFRS Foundation's top staffer were American.

But all this may change when the SEC issues a decision on the U.S. strategy for IFRS harmonization, expected in a few months, according to the Journal of Accountancy ("SEC Won't Decide on IFRS for At Least a Few More Months," December 5, 2011, www.journalof arcomtaney.com/Web/201 14857.htm) and Wall Street Journal (Michael Rapoport, "U.S. Nears Accounting Shift," February 21, 2012, p. C3, http://onhne.wsj.com/ article/SB 100014240529702041310045772 35480168228286.html). In this author's opinion, the best course of action for the SEC is to prolong its engagement with the IFRS' s standards-setting body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Doing so is likely to provide the United States with more influence over the IASB than either an explicit adoption or rejection of IFRS.

Weighing the Pros and Cons

The U.S. decision on IFRS, regardless of the course of action decided upon, is likely to be one of the most important events in the globalization of corporate regulations in the coming years. On one hand, a firm commitment to IFRS principles would signal that the United States is serious about global regulation. Such a stance would also enhance the reputation and desirability of IFRS for smaller countries. On the other hand, forgoing a formal commitment to IFRS would probably strike a major blow to IFRS's momentum worldwide, potentially decelerating the pace of accounting globalization that has been building since 2000.

There are strong, sensible arguments both for and against the United States' adoption of IFRS. Among the former, the United States is likely to benefit from IFRS harmonization, which would lower the costs to participate in U.S. capital markets for international investors. Given the alarming decline in the size of U.S. capital markets, relative to those in Asia (Hong Kong, for example, is now the world's largest initial public offering |TPO] market), pursuing a policy that can attract international capital back to American stock exchanges is prudent Adoption would also send a strong signal of U.S. faith in the legitimacy and credibility of IFRS.

Pitted against these benefits is the uncertainty of whether IFRS actually improves upon U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Several academic studies have shown that corporate financial reports prepared under GAAP are at least as informative as those under IFRS. Moreover, GAAP is generally considered more conservative than IFRS, meaning that it is believed to reduce managers' abilities to manipulate the financiáis. There are also concerns about the future direction of IFRS. As a set of standards that is expected to satisfy a broad international constituency, IFRS is shaped by a complex interaction of political forces and interest groups. And with the number of players jockeying for influence likely to grow as emerging powers come on board, future versions of IFRS may not be in the best interests of U.S. capital markets.

This analysis leads to the question of what action the SEC should take. A large fraction of U.S. influence over IFRS stems from the allure of U.S. adoption. The IASB's non-American constituents have accommodated American influence in IFRS in hopes of enticing the SEC to commit to the international standards. But just as a vigorous courtship often ebbs when marital vows have been exchanged, the United States can expect international enthusiasm for its influence at the IASB to diminish once it has formally committed to IFRS. And with that diminished role, the United States will find itself engaging in the messy political process of IFRS standards setting. (For more information on this process, see "The International Politics of IFRS Harmonization," by Karthik Ramanna, Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper No. 11132, http://ssm.com/abstract=1875682.) That said, outright rejection of IFRS and an explicit strategy of "going it alone" won't endear U.S. interests to the IASB.

Given this dynamic, the SEC should neither commit to nor reject IFRS as an option. Instead, it should continue to court the IASB - perhaps for another 10 years. There is little danger that the IASB will lose interest in the United States because, for the foreseeable future, the IASB needs the United States more than the United States needs the IASB. This way, both the IASB and the United States reap the benefits of a long engagement without the pitfalls that can come with a more formal and binding relationship.

Síntesis

Durante la última década, más de 120 países de todo el mundo se han comprometido, en alguna forma, con la adopción de las Normas Internacionales de Información Financiera (IFRS) incluyendo miembros de la Unión Europea, China, India y Japón. Los Estados Unidos ha sido un jugador muy importante en el movimiento global hacia los IFRS, pero ha actuado en el papel único de un poderoso influenciable. Aunque no es formalmente comprometido con la adopción de IFRS, Estados Unidos sigue siendo una influencia clave en la determinación de las NIIF.

Pero todo esto puede cambiar cuando la SEC emita una decisión sobre la estrategia de EEUU para la armonización de las IFRS, que se espera sea en unos meses, de acuerdo con el Diario de Contabilidad.

La decisión de EEUU sobre las IFRS, independientemente de la acción decidida, es probable que sea uno de los eventos más importantes de la globalización de las regulaciones empresariales en los próximos años. Por un lado, un compromiso firme con las IFRS sería una señal de que Estados Unidos es serio acerca de la globalización global. Por otras parte, la renuncia a un compromiso formal con las IFRS sería un golpe importante para el impulso de las normas en todo el mundo, lo que podría desacelerar el ritmo de la globalización de la contabilidad que ha se ha estado construyendo desde el 2000.

Hay argumentos fuertes, sensibles tanto a favor como en contra de la adopción por los Estados Unidos de la IFRS. Uno de ellos es que reduciría el costo

...