AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
(From Financial Director)
Byline: Robert Bruce is a leading commentator on accountancy issues.
Where better for a love affair to flourish, and where better for it to turn to bitterness as it hits the seven-year itch. Paris, of course.
In October 1997, the World Accounting Congress was held in Paris. On the last day, its organisers, the International Federation of Accountants, produced a spectacular coup. President Chirac addressed the session, urging harmonised accounting and financial reporting around the world.
But now, Chirac has changed his tune. He considers some of the financial reporting rules which the European Union is committed to follow from 2005 onwards to be "a disaster". This has not come about because the good President has been using some of his spare time to trawl through the minutes of the latest meetings of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the independent body charged with producing and revising a full body of global financial reporting rules. Chirac has not concluded from his research that some aspects of the IASB's conceptual framework are flawed. His view that a disaster has come to pass has come about because global rules, being global, will apply to banks in France.
No one has explained what would happen if French banks came under the same disclosure rules as the rest of the banking world. And the technical details, dealing as they do with the arcane world of financial instruments, hedging and core deposits, should not concern us. The point is the wider issue of financial reporting rules.
It reminds me of the early days of accounting standards setting, when such rules were set by a committee of the six UK accounting bodies and only one veto was needed in the final stages of the approval of any new rule to scupper the whole effort. The veto turned the whole process on its head. If it was held by an accounting body, then industry groups could simply sidestep measured arguments and lobby one of the accounting bodies instead. In other words, politics was more important than practical sense in the process of creating financial reporting rules.