FASB’s Final Word on Fair Value Disclosures?

silenced.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
Of the 111 comment letters FASB published on Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements”, this one was my favorite:

Please don’t require Companies not SEC registered to spend any more money on reports under this rule.
Lloyd Amundson

Amen, brother.


The usual suspects left the usual complaints; BDO said excessive disclosures would be both costly and useless, Uncle Ernie implied it was an interesting concept but an expensive flop in practical application, and PwC prefers once a year disclosures instead of quarterly.
Verizon even got in on the action, insisting, “proposed additional extended sensitivity disclosures would unnecessarily complicate financial statement disclosures without providing any meaningful benefit to financial statement users.”
I think it is entirely reasonable to point out that FASB is feeling the pressure to converge and the IASB is encouraging slightly less optimistic financial statements. The IASB openly admits that it is under outside pressure to adopt such a stance:

Responding to requests by the G20 leaders and others, in June 2009 the IASB published a Request for Information on the practicalities of moving to an expected loss model. The responses have been taken into account by the IASB in developing the exposure draft.

The IASB continues:

The IASB will also cooperate closely with the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) with a view to agreeing a common approach to the impairment of financial assets.

Since when is this for the IASB to decide?
Political influences are nothing new to accounting rulemakers but what happens when those influences come from foreign bodies far outside of our control? It is a known fact that the European Union has a large stake in IASB, so how can we be sure their intentions are pure as we move forward at their urging?
The Financial Crisis Advisory Group, an international body set up by the IASB and FASB to advise them on standard-setting issues related to the financial crisis, warned recently that that political pressure on accounting standard-setters posed a threat to “the very existence of international accounting standards.”
Integrity in financial statements? Keep looking, not going to find any of that here.

silenced.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
Of the 111 comment letters FASB published on Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: “Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements”, this one was my favorite:

Please don’t require Companies not SEC registered to spend any more money on reports under this rule.
Lloyd Amundson

Amen, brother.


The usual suspects left the usual complaints; BDO said excessive disclosures would be both costly and useless, Uncle Ernie implied it was an interesting concept but an expensive flop in practical application, and PwC prefers once a year disclosures instead of quarterly.
Verizon even got in on the action, insisting, “proposed additional extended sensitivity disclosures would unnecessarily complicate financial statement disclosures without providing any meaningful benefit to financial statement users.”
I think it is entirely reasonable to point out that FASB is feeling the pressure to converge and the IASB is encouraging slightly less optimistic financial statements. The IASB openly admits that it is under outside pressure to adopt such a stance:

Responding to requests by the G20 leaders and others, in June 2009 the IASB published a Request for Information on the practicalities of moving to an expected loss model. The responses have been taken into account by the IASB in developing the exposure draft.

The IASB continues:

The IASB will also cooperate closely with the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) with a view to agreeing a common approach to the impairment of financial assets.

Since when is this for the IASB to decide?
Political influences are nothing new to accounting rulemakers but what happens when those influences come from foreign bodies far outside of our control? It is a known fact that the European Union has a large stake in IASB, so how can we be sure their intentions are pure as we move forward at their urging?
The Financial Crisis Advisory Group, an international body set up by the IASB and FASB to advise them on standard-setting issues related to the financial crisis, warned recently that that political pressure on accounting standard-setters posed a threat to “the very existence of international accounting standards.”
Integrity in financial statements? Keep looking, not going to find any of that here.

Have something to add to this story? Give us a shout by email, Twitter, or text/call the tipline at 202-505-8885. As always, all tips are anonymous.

Related articles

FASB’s CECL Standard Is a Disaster Waiting to Happen

“A simple accounting standard is going to decimate the people in my district’s ability to have home mortgages. This has got to stop. This can’t continue. You should stop and look at the damage you’re going to be doing to the citizens of this country. And in essence after that happens, it’s going to devastate […]

FAF Did Not Pick You to Be FASB’s Next Chairman

Unless your name is Richard Jones and you’re chief accountant and partner at EY, then the Financial Accounting Foundation did pick you, congratulations. Jones will succeed nice neighborhood dad Russell Golden as FASB chairman after Golden’s term ends on June 30. Golden, a former Deloitte partner, has sat in FASB’s big chair since July 1, […]