Financial Reporting for the U.S. Changes from GAAP to FRS

The United States is currently going through a big decision. It is deciding on whether to fully adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or to stay with the current U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Since this is such a major decision, now would be an opportune time to take a look at what the pros and cons would be of switching to this new way of financial reporting, and in doing so, show why I believe the costs (both financial and otherwise) are too high to adopt a new set of reporting standards.

The issue of adoption of international financial reporting standards (IFRSS) in Australia has been controversial issue since the first time Australian Financial Reporting council (FRC) announced the policy in 2002. Many believe that IFRSS adoption will lead to great advantages such as enhance financial report comparability, improve quality of financial reporting, attract more foreign investor, and other significant advantages. However, some also believe that the adoption merely result in disadvantages and cost for Australian business, accounting profession and even Australian government.

Mr. Brown readily admitted that he was not at ease discussing the most recent approaches to risk reduction or hedging. He had received his MBA from Harvard in the 1960s and had spent most of his career working for a company that had little international exposure. Moreover, he was not familiar with derivatives such as currency options, which until recently were not widely traded. However, Mr. Brown had recently hired an assistant, Mr. Dan Pross, who had some knowledge of hedging and derivatives. As a student at UCLA, Mr. Pross had traded various types of derivatives for his own portfolio and was familiar with how they were traded. Although Mr. Pross did not have a finance background, he was, in Mr. Brown’s opinion, extremely intelligent and highly capable. Mr. Brown suggested that Mr. Pross make a presentation to the senior management on the use of derivatives to reduce risk.

The U.S is moving toward IFRS (Forgeas, 2008). In the near future, all US company may need to report financial statements under IFRS. This makes the adaptation of IFRS unavoidable. Recently, some large multinational

This research project will inform the reader of the difference between the United States accounting standards and International accounting standards. The United States uses the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to issue financial reporting procedures. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). There are proposals for the United States to adopt the International standards. Financial reporting procedures are debated about the United States using the Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP) or following the global procedures. This

Management’s assessment of risk associated with interest rates is high. Exposure to market risks results primarily from fluctuations in interest rates. Their objective is to enter into derivative instruments to primarily decrease volatility of net earnings and cash flow associated with fluctuations in interest rates. They have financial instruments that are sensitive to changes in interest rate, as well as several outstanding interest rate swap agreements.

With the growth of international business there is a need to standardize financial statements globally. Presently there are “approximately 120 foreign private issuers currently that report to the Commission using IFRS financial statements.” By standardizing accounting practices investors will be able to make informed decisions based on comparability and accuracy of financial statements. The SEC released this statement in 2008, “We believe that IFRS has the potential to best provide the common platform on which companies can report and investors can compare financial information.” The SEC has created a “Roadmap” or plan to convert US GAAP over to IFRS. According to The Committee of

Although the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) have a lot of similar guidelines and expectations, they also differ in many ways. The IFRS employs more of a “principles based” accounting standards whereas GAAP utilizes more of a “rules based” approach. Even though there are differences between terminology, revenue recognition, gains and/or losses, and statement presentation, both standards do follow the same conceptual guidelines. With the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, the standards expected of foreign countries are significantly less than those that reside as publically

Over a decade ago, it was believed that the whole world would likely adopt the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). At the point in time, the International Financial reporting Standards (IFRS) was only about ten years old. In the last decade, the IFRS has been adopted in many growing countries. Currently, it is anticipated that the U.S. will converge its GAAP with the international IFRS, leaving behind only a modified IFRS. This may occur as early as 2014.

This paper will also analyse the various studies to identify whether firms have changed since the conversion to IFRS from GAAP. Furthermore we were unable to clearly identify whether there were any changes within firms that have converged from the previous GAAP towards

Analyze the derivatives market and determine the use of derivatives to efficiently manage investment risks in an investment portfolio.

Still in flux: Future of IFRS in U.S. remains unclear after SEC report. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2015, from http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2012/Sep/20126059.htm

In my opinion, I do not think they should have used derivatives. I think that they should have found a different solution to compete than such a complex and risky source of assets.

There are a number of differences between GAAP and IFRS in the area of accounting for pensions and other post-retirement and postemployment benefits (Deloitte, 2004). Some differences will result in less earnings volatility, while others will result in more. Under IFRS, a company can adopt a policy that would allow recognition of gains/losses in other comprehensive income. Gains/losses treated in accordance with this election would not be subsequently recycled through the income statement. This election generally reduces the volatility of pension expense recorded within the company’s income statement because gains/losses would be recorded only within other comprehensive income. Other policy elections available under IFRS for gain/loss recognition are similar to those under GAAP. Under IFRS, companies are not required to present the full-funded status of the postemployment benefit plans on the balance sheet. However, companies are required to disclose the full-funded status within the notes to the financial statements. GAAP permits the use of a calculated asset value to spread market movements over periods up to five years in the determination of expected returns of plan assets. IFRS prohibits the use of calculated value and required that the actual fair value of plan assets at each measurement date be used. Differences between GAAP and

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has recently released four new standards: FRS 100 Application of Financial Reporting Requirements; FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework; FRS 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland; and FRS 103 Insurance Contacts. FRS 100 basically describes who does what with the new UK GAAP. It describes which principles apply to which type of business; when a business can apply the reduced disclosure framework; and when a business should follow a statement of recommended practices, or SORP. FRS 101 lays out a reduced disclosure framework for entities. Certain entities can choose to use this reduced disclosure framework while creating their financial statements. FRS 102