Standards cannot Resolve All the Problems which Financial Analysts Have to Deal with - Research Paper Example

Introduction The current global crisis that emanated from the US and spread to almost all corners of the globe has revealed the close ties that links the global financial and economic sectors worldwide. The errant acts of financial executives as evidenced in the Enron and WorldCom scandals in 2001 and the subprime mortgage crisis demonstrated that financial accounting practices must be closely monitored internationally to avoid any such recurrence. Consequently the various national accounting agencies in conjunction with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) spearheaded by the EU promulgated the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This new guidelines are meant to have standardised uniform rules to guide accountants and organisations in all countries worldwide. This discussion paper will analyse the impact of the IFRS on diverse economic sectors globally. Background The primary purpose of financial statements is to express the accurate and realistic situation of the pecuniary position, performance and alterations in an organisation. This statement is generally adequate if the reporting entity conforms to the generally accepted accounting principles. Nonetheless, organisations have been known to manipulate the data to give a more favourable picture than that prevailing within the firm by applying accounting manoeuvring to suit their purpose. IASB (2008), the architect of IFRS has stated that its core mission is: ...single set of high quality, understandable and enforceable global accounting standards that require transparent and comparable information in general purpose financial statements….co-operate with national standard setters to achieve convergence in accounting standards around the world. The IFRS just like the national GAAPs oblige public organisations to periodically issue accounting reports including the balance sheet, income statement, declaration of all financial transactions among directors, and a cash flow statement. The new IFRS standards have now been adopted in over 100 countries by over 12,000 companies [Figure 1]. Nevertheless, the IFRS rules are inhibited by the lack of enforcement while various countries and regions have made some exceptions to the statutes. There have also been concerns on the costs implications when converting to the structures; however, the IASB has initiated a modified IFRS for SMEs. In the US, there is also disinclination to desert the respected US-GAAP standards. Figure 1 Source: Deloitte (2009)/Mondaq.com The IFRS has been widely accepted internationally from Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa, South America, Africa and Canada. The only remaining major world economy reluctant to fully adopt the system is the United States, however even there most organisations and jurisdictions see change or conversion to IFRS as inevitable due to the nature of globalisation and recent financial crisis necessitating international standardised accounting methods. In the UK, the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) has proposed a three-tier reporting structure, which will assist in moving from the UK GAAP to IFRS [Table 1]. The globalisation of trade has necessitated the observance of a standardised financial reporting system as local companies intending to expand in other jurisdictions or raise international financing have to comply with internationally recognised accounting standards as the national regimes are generally viewed with suspicion. According to the Accounting Standards Board of Japan (ASBJ), the convergence of national GAAP to the IFRS will greatly enhance investor confidence, as local investors will be able to comparative make international investment decision by analysing diverse company statements from other countries in a standardised manner (Armstrong et al. 2008). Additionally, firms operating internationally will have the added advantage of reconciling their accounts more easily as opposed to the previous diverse systems that tended to produce multiple non-conforming statements. IASB (2008) expects the number of countries adopting the IFRS standards to rise to 150 by 2011 as a uniform accounting standard is increasingly viewed favourably as it promotes ‘transparency and comparability’ which in effect enhances investor confidence as ‘financial reporting and efficacy of the capital markets’ is gradually improved. The IFRS will generally augment the quality of financial reporting as more financial statement disclosures, enhanced depth, identification exercise and the eradication of disparities in corporation’s reporting resulting from a variety of public GAAPs (Preiato et al. 2009). Critics have argued that the intricate guidelines issued by the IASB reduce the new accounting standards to normal rule-based standards, as they do not give leeway for implementation for firms in conformity with their industrial and organisational structure and environment (Bhattacharyya, 2009) Advantages Yoon (2009) has cited several advantages have been cited for adopting the IFRS including: Corporations being able to present financial statements concurrently with foreign rivals; Multinational corporations able to utilise same accounting standards globally; No need to convert to IFRS when expanding to international markets that have IFRS; No need for conversion in instances when they engage a foreign investor using the IFRS; Advantage when seeking international funding due to adopting the IFRS; Conversion to modern IT compliant systems eventually reducing expenditure on reporting; Enhances transparency within publicly traded corporations; Enhance international trade in ease of international business transactions; International companies will be able to monitor their branches transactions better. Yoon has also identified some disadvantages in IFRS adoption including: Americans still view the US GAAP as the gold standard hence reluctance to adopt ‘foreign’ methods; Domesticated firms with no international aspirations resent the conversion cost; Dual filing by issuers to comply with local regulations hence more expenditure incurred; Some countries do not fully convert to the IFRS hence negating the idioms of international standards; Conversion costs can be prohibitive for SMEs particularly IT compliance systems; May stifle innovations due to IASB’s domination, as a unified system reduces competition Opposition Despite the push for global standardised accounting standards by the G20 group, US firms have been rather reluctant to adopt the new system propagated by the IASB. The IASB’s IFRS framework has however been acknowledged as the most accepted global standardised system with its clear and concise articles and guidelines (Deloitte, 2009). Nonetheless, the U.S. FASB and the IASB have been working on mechanism to converge the IFRS and U.S. GAAP into a single system by 2014 (NYSSCPA, 2009). According to Miller (2009), the simplification of accounts and reporting by IFRS is misguided considering the recent financial scandals and breakdown of the international financial systems. The author argues that the more detailed US GAAP should be tightened rather than adopting the international standards rules that are prone to abuse. Differences between IFRS and the U.S. GAAP The US GAAP although evidently more detailed and rigid as compared to the IFRS is acknowledged as the most ‘superior standard enforcement’ regime hence abandoning for the seemingly less demanding European based IFRS is ‘lowering the standards’ that ironically had been adopted by the EU countries in the 1990s (Yoon, 2009). Predictably, most critics of the IFRS emanate from the US reluctant to adopt the new standards. The main differences between the US GAAP and IASB’s IFRS are: IFRS is less detailed with fewer guidelines with minimal segmental outlines and rules as opposed to the convoluted US GAAP. IFRS prohibits the Last in First out (LIFO) provision IFRS utilises a single-step technique for impairment write-downs while the US GAAP uses a two-step technique IFRS uses a divergent probability entry and dimension point for eventualities IFRS prohibits remedial debt contract contraventions subsequent to year-end LIFO U.S.GAAP uses the Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) method, which ‘assumes that goods purchased most recently are sold first and that the remaining items have been purchased at earlier periods’ (Libby, 2007). This concept although resulting in firms reporting lower gross profit consequently has the advantage of less taxation thus adopting the IFRS would inevitably ‘trigger a big tax hike for U.S. companies’ (Bogoslaw). Critics of the IFRS allege that expenditure in conversion to the new system for the entire U.S. economy would be more than eight billion dollars while most SMEs could be hard hit to raise the estimated $420,000 per firm figure (Hail, 2009). Lack of Control and Fair-Value Rules In adopting the London-based IASB statutes, US critics argue that the country risks ceding power to a monopolistic foreign body its regulatory powers (Wu and Zhang, 2006). This concession in addition to sidelining the FASB, also exclude the local regulators now forced to consult the IASB regularly. They assert that since the US capital markets controls almost halt the global trade, there should be more control of the activities of the IASB (Economist.com, 2008). The IFRS statutes have reintroduced the fair-value or mark-to-market accounting principles previously discarded under the US GAAP rules. Critics have argued that this will contradict the existing ‘US legal, institutional and political environment’ (Hail, 2009: 53). They argue it erodes the discretion allowed to accounting managers. Nevertheless, Pirjeta and Rautiainen (2005) argue that ‘the accuracy of financial statements is impaired, if the value stated in the profit and loss statement differs substantially from the fair market value’ (Pg.3). Lack of Autonomy The lack of financial independence by the IASB that relies on international contributions from private corporations erodes greatly its autonomy unlike the publicly funded GAAP, which are able to exert their influence and sovereignty over all organisations. This was illustrated by the EU influencing fair-trade practices integration in IFRS (Bogoslaw, 2009). The IASB ‘light framework of governance and funding’ will thus continue to make it prone to ‘dominant influences’ like the EU and the US as exemplified by the ongoing convergence negotiations with FASB regarding a compromise pact (Véron, 2007). IFRS Discrepancies A progress survey undertaken by Audit Integrity research firm on 17 European countries that had adopted the IFRS accounting standards which, basically aimed at augment the Accounting and Governance Risk rating (AGR) revealed that there were widespread discrepancies internationally with several jurisdictions either adopting the standards fully or partially (Audit Integrity, 2009). These include reporting differences as some countries allow semi-annual statements rather than the recommended quarterly reports and slower filing. The US GAAP regulations are better particularly on matters of executive reimbursements and composition; nonetheless, the Audit Integrity Report found the IFRS adoption by the European countries had greatly alleviated the level of financial reporting across Europe. There have been various questions as to the IFRS implementation strategies as the practising jurisdiction seem to negate the IFRS standards by either diluting or adding adjustments to the supposedly international standard. Individual metrics or financial ratios ( accounts-receivable, inventory, prepaid expenses and goodwill) adopted have varied across the countries with no uniform standard prevalent within the ‘IFRS zones’ (Véron, 2007). Principles-Based’ vs. ‘Rules-Based’ The adoption of the IASB’s ‘principles-based’ IFRS system as opposed to the FASB’s GAAP ‘rules-based’ accounting approach has seen the overtaking of the latter by the IFRS, currently adopted by 113 countries globally. The main point of departure between the two has been the reduction of the ‘complexity’ of the voluminous and overly detailed US GAAP system to the relatively flexible IFRS rules that are less stringent. The IFRS therefore rely on principles to be adhered to by members while the US GAAP ensures the detailed rules eliminate any divergent from the guidelines in every sector. IFRS and Taxonomy Although the IFRS has adopted the use of the internationally accepted standard computer language, the XBRL data format, there are concerns in both US and Japan that the IASB has degraded the system by reducing the data items in the taxonomy. This may in effect lead to a decline in the quality of the investor information availed to the public hence an urgent need to further improve the system to the best available technology or software rather than diluting its strengths (Business Accounting Council, 2009). Dual Standards To ensure easier passable and conversion, firms will be necessitated to operate on both their national GAAP systems as well as the IASB’s IFRS standards to keep track of the veracity of the new system. Nevertheless, opponents of the standards view this as another hindrance and unnecessary expense, which will also weigh heavily in the workload expended as well as depriving other normal daily caseloads their due attention (Preiato et al. 2009). This however will just be a temporary hindrance in the transition period or part of the ‘teething problems’ in conversion to the international standards. Universal Acceptance The IFRS implementation as applied in the EU countries and other regions differs from the proposed US compliance roadmap that advocates for ‘partial modifications’ to the EU’s approach of excluding ‘offending’ or unattractive provisions like quarterly reports. However, the major reason that has made the IFRS become widely acceptable globally has been its proclivity towards investors and other financial stakeholders as opposed to the accountant disposed GAAP standards variously deemed as too complex for non-accountants. The accounting language adopted by the IASB has also been appreciated with minimal intricate accounting jargon that alienates the investing public (Véron, 2007). Conversion In terms of conversion, Fekete et al. (2008) argue that ICT based firms have been at the forefront of compliance mainly due to the relative ease for them to adapt their organisation structure and systems to conform to the accounting standards necessitated by IFRS. They also assert that publishing consolidated financial statements has still proved to be problematic for most organisations and jurisdictions majorly as result of its novelty rather than been difficult. Among the EU countries, IFRS has made it mandatory for consolidated statements for all public corporations. The differences among the diverse national GAAPs have made the conversion to IFRS problematic with the various national accounting bodies and practitioners needed to assist various organisations interpret the statutes appropriately. However, Bae et al. (2008) argue that this adoption of the IFRS will eventually be beneficial to the capital markets investors who will be able to disseminate the financial statements from other regions more easily. This view was supported by a study of EU countries that had adopted the IFRS reporting positive investor confidence in the capital markets (Armstrong et al. 2008). The input of the accountant and auditors is therefore critical in ensuring compliance is strictly adhered to hence avoiding the IFRS being termed as ineffective. The malpractices that were exposed in the early part of the 21st century among the US giant corporations Enron and WorldCom despite the country having the world’s best regulatory standards are illustrative of the proponents of the IFRS having false hopes of an ultimate accounting reporting solution. Enforcement The success of the IFRS will therefore largely rest in the hands of the specific country’s enforcement authorities who must institute adequate deterrent measures that can discourage errant or rogue accountants as well as financiers from either voiding the rules or manipulating the system to offload misleading financial statements (Ball, 2006). However, there have been claims that enforcement will also largely depend on individual state’s ‘political and economic influences’ unique to the particular country (Ball, 2006). The lack of adequate measures to ensure each country has adequate enforcement regime or the political and economic will to guarantee compliance will thus be a great obstacle to IFRS standards success. The success of the IFRS thus hinges on individual states regulatory authorities ensuring the standards are strictly followed to avoid ambiguity in international accounting standards. Tweedie and Seidenstein (2005) assert that there needs to be a suitable financial reporting system that has ‘an enforcement or oversight mechanism that ensures that the principles as laid out by the accounting and auditing standards are followed’ (Pg. 590). Eventually without a keen scrutiny, honesty and diligence among the accountant and corporation’s executives, accounts can still be adroitly manipulated to serve the interests of unscrupulous traders and investors. This unwelcome issue will always haunt regulators and enforcers of the accounting standards as they avoid being ‘embarrassed’ by massive irregularities in financial reporting happening under their watch. The reintroduction of fair-value or mark-to-market accounting principles may somewhat ensure that corporations are not able to hide their expenses, funds and other disclosures to prop up the accounts when the firm is not doing well though this will expose them to higher taxation (Ernst & Young, 2010). Nevertheless, Hodgdon et al. (2008) assert that compliance to the IFRS generally improves the accuracy of the financial statements. In jurisdictions that had adopted IFRS, a study by Daske et al. (2006) affirmed the positive correlation between enforcement and reports accuracy thus indicating that the new rules can only be as good when strictly regulated by the national authorities as well as the professional associations. Forecasting The need for standardised account reports was re-emphasised through a study conducted by Bae et al. (2008) revealing that financial forecasts from foreign analysts tended to be grossly inaccurate as compared to the local forecasters due to conflicting applications. With a standardised structure, convergent forecasts could be forthcoming even from cross-border analysts. However, opponents of the IFRS argue that the new standards novelty will continue to hinder forecasters rending their analysis largely inaccurate. This was evidenced in the UK introduction of Financial Reporting Standard 3 leading to erroneous forecasts in its maiden year (Acker et al. 2002). The reintroduction of fair-value reporting will eventually lead to volatility in the reports as accounting managers’ manipulation of financial statements is curtailed, thus further distorting the analysts forecasts (Barth et al. 2008). Greiss and Sharp (2008) have highlighted some of the expected benefits for entities that adopt the IFRS. i. IT/ICT By applying the recommended IT systems, the transitions from the conventional GAAP can unable concurrent running of the two systems while preserving fortification and consistency. The IFRS has enhanced disclosures and presentation of financial information through innovative IT compliant. The new IFRS systems offer the option of organisations computerising the assessment and appraisal of transactions and the ‘timing of the recognition/de-recognition’ (Greiss and Sharp, 2008). ii. Human Relations In human relations sphere, IFRS has revamped the employee compensation plans, which have now being not only based on performance of the individual staff, but also linked to the company’s profitability. This will reduce the likelihood of executives awarding themselves hefty benefits at the expense of the shareholders equity or returns. The human resources objectives will therefore be pegged on the overall performance of the firm while setting strategic vision for the organisation’s success rather than predatory instincts previously practised by executives. Nevertheless, most firms will be hampered in their company’s goals and conversation expenses hence will have to retain or outsource for more personnel to assist during the transition stages. The impact of these non-financial factors will nonetheless affect business operations for the organisation as employees are redeployed, performance appraisals refocused and procedures changed to enhance internal controls (Deloitte, 2009). iii. Taxation The IFRS has introduced fresh asset recognition as well as liabilities that will ultimately affect the firms’ corporate taxes particularly on deferred income tax balances. The rates applied to this deferred taxes must factor this differences. iv. Metrics or Financial Ratios The expected volatility in the metrics applied will affect the company’s balance sheet as the discretion of accounting managers on when to disclose some items has been curtailed. v. Internal Controls and Processes The IFRS proposed changes in financial reporting is expected to generate some fundamental changes in the archiving of information, as controls must be enacted to keep track of the due process required by the new system. Organisations will also have to enact some changes within their accounts departments to cater for the new procedures as greater care is taken to ensure more accurate reports are generated (FRC, 2009). vi. Investors Relationship and Communications to Capital Markets With the simplification of account statements and language, investors will be able to keep track of the performance of their shareholding in diverse companies and markets without overly depending on the investment analysts to explain the account reports. Investors are also able to obtain timely information on companies strategies hence can make better or informed decisions (Miller, 2009). vii. Management Reports Organisational strategic plans and reports are better forecasted while keeping track of previous statistics. This will be based on the IFRS induced changes on metrics, financial statement disclosures and asset recognition / de-recognition standards. However, Greiss and Sharp (2008) observes that there is worrying trend in the regions who have implemented the IFRS within the EU to apply non-IFRS measures to communicate with the market, thus indicating that they are not comfortable with the standards. IFRS for SMEs The IFRS for SMEs is a simplified version of the full IFRS that is specifically targeted at the relatively smaller companies and the non-listed private firm in addition to non-profit public affiliated organisations (Fitzpatrick and Frank, 2009). Set in a 230 page document, it is a considerably simplified booklet a welcome departure from the voluminous 17,000 page US GAAP guideline that have every considerable rule clearly outline, hence observant with the IASB’s ‘principles based’ approach as opposed to the FASB ‘rule based’ guidelines. SMEs have an option of choosing among the diverse IFRS standards. These include the IFRS for SMEs, full IFRS and the varied IFRS systems currently used by different countries and regions. These considerations are mostly based on cost estimates for applying the system with each have its own advantages that may outweigh the cost implications (PWCb, 2007). IFRS for SMEs is a simplified IFRS meant to cater for non-public listed firms hence is not strictly size-based. Some of its provisions include optional amortisation of goodwill for ten years and optional ‘carry investments in associates and joint ventures at cost’ (PWCa, 2010). According to Horwath (2007), the advantages of adopting the IFRS for SMEs include: SMEs now have an option of omitting investment chattels in the financial statements as the obligation for fair value is excluded. Companies using hedge accounting, the standard measurement have been relaxed though not entirely removed from the requirements; Appraisal for goodwill also relaxed and will only be necessary when impairment is detected; Agro-based companies not obligated to establish fair value when it is not easily obtainable; Disclosures relaxed on many items for SMEs Nonetheless, Howarth have identified several flaws in IFRS-for-SMEs requirements including: Companies must still do annual chattels inventories including plant and machinery; Lease payments be disclosed on straight-line basis over the entire lease-term; Additional expenditure when converting to the full IFRS standards; Divergent results due to recognition, disclosure and measure methods under the IFRS-for-SMEs as opposed to the full IFRS and Financial and academic institutions not conversant with the new rules (Fitzpatrick and Frank, 2009) A report on the field-tests in Germany regarding the IFRS for SMEs in 2008, revealed that there was widespread acceptance of the standards by the larger SMEs while the smaller ones were reluctant to adopt it as they were ambivalent to its beneficial value to their businesses (ASCG, 2008). Conclusion and Recommendations There is also an urgent need to improve the IFRS regulations and rules to conform to the conventional global situation that need a more diligent regulation in view of the financial machinations particularly among investment bankers as evidenced in the subprime mortgage crisis, the basis of the current global crisis. Veron (2007) argues that the IASB has lagged behind in keeping track of the rapidly changing global financial environment hence must ensure it remains relevant by adapting to the market conditions. The main gap identified includes ensuring that insurance contracts are updated to the IFRS standards. This has made many insurance firms apprehensive of the new standards particularly in regards to the ‘complexity of presentation and disclosures’ and the ‘earnings volatility,’ that render them unattractive in the short term (KPMGa, 2006). The IFRS rules have ushered the concept of realistic global accepted standardised accounting rules, which are in a simplified format explicable to the investing public. The modifications to the financial statements will greatly enhance transparency and consistency. The IFRS main setback is the lack of clear independence and funding that may compromise its independency. Other shortcomings include partial guidelines on insurance contracts but overall the structures have been widely accepted. Nonetheless, the IFRS rules which are intermittently inferior to the US GAAP will just like the latter be unable to curtail the activities of errant accountants and executives unless the ‘principles-based’ ideals are sacredly upheld. References Acker, D. H. (2002). Accounting Standards and Analysts’ Forecasts: The Impact of FRS3 on Analysts’ Ability to Forecast EPS. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy , Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 193-217. AICPA, A. I. (2009). A primer: What Changes and What’s the Advantage? Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Boston Business Journal Online: Armstrong, Christopher S, Mary E. Barth, Alan D. Jagolinzer, and Edward J. Riedl (2008) Market Reaction to the Adoption of IFRS in Europe. Working Paper 09-032. ASCG, BDI and PWC (2008). Report on the Field Tests in Germany regarding the ED-IFRS for SMEs. Berlin: Accounting Standards Committee of Germany (ASCG) in cooperation with BDI and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Audit Integrity. (2009). US GAAP vs IFRS: An Objective Look at International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Audit Integrity Inc. Bae, K, Tan, H and Welker, M, (2008). International GAAP differences: The impact on Foreign Analysts. Working Paper, Queen’s University. Ball, R. R. (2006). IFRS: Pros and Cons for Investors. Accounting & Business Research , International Accounting Policy Forum, Pg. 5–27. Barth, M, Landsman, W and Lang, M (2008). International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality. Journal of Accounting Research , Vol. 46, No. 3, Pg. 467-498. Bhattacharyya, A. K. (2009). Complexity in Corporate Financial Reporting. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Business-standard.com: http://www.business-standard.com/complexity-in-corporate-financial-reporting.htm Bogoslaw, D. (2009). Global Accounting Standards? Not So Fast. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from BusinessWeek Online: Business Accounting Council. (2009). Interim Report: Application of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Japan. Tokyo: Accounting Standards Board of Japan (ASBJ). Deloitte. (2009). United Kingdom: Ten Lessons From European IFRS Conversion In The Real Estate Industry. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Mondaq.com: Economist.com. (2008). Closing the GAAP: America Embraces International Accounting Standards. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from The Economist Online: Ernst & Young. (2010). IFRS Outlook. London: Ernst & Young’s International. Fekete, Szilveszter, Matiş, Dumitru and Lukács, János (2008). Factors Influencing the Extent of Corporate Compliance with IFRS. The Case of Hungarian Listed Companies. Budapest,: University of Cluj-Napoca. Fitzpatrick, Mark and Frank, Fred (2009). IFRS for SMEs: The Next Standard for U.S. Private Companies? Journal of Accountancy , American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. FRC (2009). Louder Than Words -- Principles and Actions for Making Corporate Reports Less Complex and More Relevant. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Financial Reporting Council (FRC): Greiss, Rafik and Sharp, Simon (2008). IFRS Conversions: What CFOs Need to Know and Do. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). Hail, Luzi, Leuz, Christian and Wysocki, Peter D (2009) Global Accounting Convergence and the Potential Adoption of IFRS by the United States: An Analysis of Economic and Policy Factors. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from SSRN.net: Hodgdon, C, Tondkar, RH, Harless, D W and Adhikari, A (2008). Compliance with IFRS Disclosure Requirements And Individual Analysts' Forecast Errors'. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation , Vol. 17, No. 1, Pg. 1-13. Hoffman, Michael J R and McKenzie, Karen S (2009). Must LIFO Go to Make Way for IFRS? THE TAX ADVISER: AICPA. Horwath (2007). South Africa take the lead on IFRS for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME). Johannesburg: Howarth PLLC. IASB. (2008). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) FAQ. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) : KPMGa (2006). Implementing IFRS in the Insurance Industry. Zurich: KPMG International. KPMGb (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards: Views on a Financial Reporting Revolution. London: KPMG International . Libby, R. P. (2007). Financial Accounting. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Miller, B. L. (2009). International Financial Reporting Standards - Advantages and Disadvantages . Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Ezinearticles.com: NYSSCPA (2009) IFRS Overview. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants (NYSSCPA) Online: Pirjeta, Antti and Rautiainen, Antti (2005). ESO VAluation under IFRS 2 - Considerations of Agency Theory, Risk Aversion and the Binomial Model. Helsniki: Helsinki School of Economics. Preiato, John, Brown, Philip and Tarca, Ann (2009). Mandatory IFRS and properties of analysts’ forecasts: How much does enforcement matter? Crawley: University of Western Australia. PWCa (2010) The Future of UK GAAP - IFRS is Coming. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from PricewaterhouseCoopers Online: PWCb (2007) IFRS for Small and Medium-sized Entities: How Does it Affect US Companies. Delaware: PricewaterhouseCoopers . Tribunella, H (2009) Twenty Questions on International Financial Reporting Standards. The CPA Journal . Tweedie, D, and Seidenstein, T, (2005) Setting a Global Standard: The Case For Accounting Convergence. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business , Vol. 25, Pg. 589-608. Véron, N (2007) EU Adoption of the IFRS 8 Standard on Operating Segments. Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. Brussels: Bruegel. Wu, Joanna Shuang and Zhang, Ivy (2006) Voluntary IAS and U.S. GAAP Adoption by Continental European Firms: The Role of Labor Relations. Simon School Working Paper No. FR 06-09. Yoon, N (2009) Advantages and Disadvantages of switching from U.S.GAAP to IFRS. Charles Center. Read More