Albrecht affirms that the best way to determine the viability of adopting a new course of action is by use of incremental analysis in which the benefits of the change should outweigh its cost. The decision of the US moving to IFRS has triggered a lot of debate, with many participants narrowing its effect to the various parties. Among them are the investors whose protection is included in the SEC mission.
According to Albrecht two key elements defining financial markets under the U.S. GAAP are the low cost of seeking capital and the highest ROIs as compared to other markets in the world. This has to a major extent been attributed to the good rules that have been developed, challenged and shaped for several years, which has led to “bright lines” in reporting unlike in IFRSs where managers can manipulate numbers. If the adoption occurs the U.S. companies may experience a reduction in market value in stocks and bonds to unknown levels.
According to Parks the cost of adoption could be approximately $32 million per company. In fact British Petroleum CEO said that for his company $100 million was spent for the first year and roughly $150 million for the second and third year. This is a huge cost against revenue and it’s likely to affect the profit margins and consequently returns on investment.
Finally on the costs, in the U.S investors and accountants will need to learn how to read and interpret the financial statements prepared using IFRSs. This will need resources in terms of money and time to cover millions of these people.
The benefits to investors will be an expected reduction in audit fees whose effect will be felt as years pass by, as auditors will have to take corporate numbers at face value. Based on this analysis the cost are more tangible and seem to outweigh the benefits hence the move would not really benefit the ...Show more