"Gordon Crovitz defuses several concerns over IFRS. Grounded in principles, U.S. [GAAP] has been accreting guidance, exceptions and amendments for at least 75 years. That it often looks like a book of arcane rules is not coincidental--preparers, auditors, litigators, and to some extent users demanded it. ... But I say go for it! ... Although IFRS is obviously deficient, auditors must stand up to clients much more under IFRS than they did in the past. And I do take issue with Mr. Crovitz's assertion that IFRS will make it easier for companies 'to do the right thing.' That option was always open through voluntary disclosures and alternative presentations, sometimes with auditors' blessings, suggesting that getting companies to want to do the right thing is a major part of the problem", my emphasis, James Largay (JL) letter to the WSJ, 10 September 2008.
Who is GC kidding? The Big 87654 must figure they can use IFRS to lobby for more lawsuit protection. The Big 87654 want to serve investors? Really? Why can't they do that now? Another selling point to the Fortune 500: possible Boards of Directors lawsuit exemption. "Professional judgment"? Does PW use that now? You know what Adam Smith said at a time like this: "people of the same trade ...". IFRS was adopted by more than 100 countries. So? My mother used to say, "If everyone else is jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge are you going to jump too"? This is bandwagon propaganda, GC and this "argument" would have been shredded in my fifth-grade class. Yes, GAAP frequently does not reflect economic reality. So? Will IFRS be better? I wonder if GC used a PW "resource person" who should have told him, disclosure is no substitute for measurement. Imagine, CPAs have Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts. Such statements exist? Yes. Current GAAP uses concepts? Yes. What's really going on here?