Fim do US GAAP 4

A medida da SEC foi comentada pelo New York Times (U.S. Moves Step Closer To Universal Accounting, Floyd Norris) destacando a questão da necessidade de aprender as novas regras:

While there is widespread agreement that one set of standards would have advantages for investors, there are concerns about the transition and about how uniform the accounts will be. American companies and auditors will have to learn new accounting rules.

da flexibilidade de sua adoção (através do exemplo da União Européia)

The European Union has asserted the right to approve or modify each standard issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, and did allow banks to ignore part of one standard. In an effort to deal with that issue, the S.E.C. has said it would accept filings using international standards only if they complied fully with the standards as issued by the board.

a possível alteração na estrutura do Iasb no futuro:

The international authorities are considering establishing a new monitoring body that would include regulators from many countries, which might have the power to approve or reject appointments to the board. If that group also had power to reject standards, it would raise fears that political considerations could damage the independence of the rule makers.

da aplicação uniforme das regras:

There would also be the question of uniform application of the rules. Early this year, the French regulator evidently approved a decision by a French bank, Societe Generale, which moved losses from a scandal from 2008, when they occurred, to the previous year. That move outraged some members of the international accounting board, and some regulators, but nothing was done about it.

das diferenças entre o Iasb e o Fasb. A questão de padrões baseados em princípios ou regras e suas implicações:

While it is often said that the international rules are based on standards, and the American ones on rules, the differences are more in degree than nature. Still, in many cases the international rules will require more professional judgment from auditors. Some auditors have liked rules, because they enable them simply to tell a company that a proposed accounting treatment violates a rule. Also, rules ostensibly provide a defense if the accounts are later challenged in a lawsuit.

In a world with more professional judgment, the auditors would be expected to tell companies that a given accounting treatment violates a standard because it produces a misleading result. Whether they would be willing to do that, and whether all would be equally willing, could become an issue.

The major accounting firms have broadly endorsed the move. The international standards provide ''the best opportunity to achieve the goal of a single set of high quality standards'' around the world, said David Kaplan, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. ''The commission took a significant step today toward that objective.''

a questão do financiamento do Iasb

Another issue is the financing of the International Accounting Standards Board, which now comes from contributions from companies and accounting firms. The Financial Accounting Standards Board used to be financed in the same way, but the Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in 2002 changed that, instead giving it the right to levy charges on public companies. That was viewed as necessary to assure its independence.

Conrad Hewitt, the chief accountant of the S.E.C., said he was confident that within five years the international board would have secured a stable financing mechanism.