This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

SEC may propose a new approach to IFRS

  • SEC speeches (green) Image

Dec 04, 2014

At a recent conference on the future of financial reporting hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mr. James Schnurr, Chief Accountant at the SEC, provided some insights into the possible way forward for IFRSs in the United States, suggesting that another approach to IFRSs may be forthcoming in the near future. He also gave some views on the revenue recognition and leases convergence projects.

SEC plans for IFRSs

In his opening comments regarding where he was spending his time, Mr. Schnurr noted "the first thing" he has been working on is IFRSs. He reflected on comments earlier in 2014 from SEC Chair Mary Jo White about moving forward on the consideration of the use of IFRSs by U.S. companies before discussing his personal observations about what the possible next steps might be.

In a theme that was often repeated during the course of the discussion, Mr. Schnurr noted that "first and foremost . . . any counsel or recommendations I give would need to be in the best interests of U.S. investors." He then stated his belief that the United States is "still committed to one set of global standards," but that this commitment had to be considered in the context of the needs of U.S. investors.

Recalling the move by the SEC in 2007 to allow foreign companies to submit IFRS financial statements without a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, Mr. Schnurr noted "very significant changes in the landscape" since that time, including many standards being more closely aligned in many respects between the IASB and FASB, while others are more diverged. However, he went on to say:

There does not appear to be what I call a significant demand . . . that the U.S. investor is looking for a significant increase in the use of IFRSs by U.S. registrants.

Mr. Schnurr then outlined three previous alternatives regarding the use of IFRSs in the United States, including:

  • The outright adoption of IFRSs, termed "turning the keys over to the IASB."
  • Providing U.S. registrants with the option to file IFRS financial statements.
  • The so-called "condorsement" approach suggested by Paul A. Beswick (SEC Deputy Chief Accountant).

Mr. Schnurr noted that each of these alternatives has legal, statutory, and practical implications that would need to be considered. He said that after spending the past eight weeks since his role as SEC chief accountant began looking into alternatives and discussing them with SEC commissioners, he hoped "in the not too distant future, we might be able to go public with another possible option that we could get feedback on."

Revenue recognition

The discussion then shifted to the converged revenue standards recently issued by the FASB and IASB, and the number of implementation issues that were arising, particularly those from U.S. preparers, which he described broadly as falling into three "buckets":

  1. Issues that may require amendments to the standards. These included some areas where Mr. Schnurr believes the FASB and IASB may need "to have another shot at the clarity we are trying to achieve," specifically singling out up-front versus over time recognition of revenue associated with licenses.
  2. Issues arising from an "over technical" reading of the standards. These types of issues arose in situations in which people were incorrectly inferring that the FASB and IASB were trying to introduce a different model to ordinary revenue transactions (such as splitting the sale and delivery of a good into multiple performance obligations). A process was needed to deal with these types of questions to eliminate diversity.
  3. Issues falling between the first two "buckets." These are the issues that may require some interpretative guidance.

From the perspective of the number of issues arising specifically in the U.S. context, Mr. Schnurr expressed some concern about the volume of issues, and noted the importance of consistency in outcomes for identical transactions, which he saw as an underlying strength of the U.S. markets. He noted that he had no issues with entities applying reasoned judgments in developing accounting policies for revenue recognition, but that if diversity in practice arose, this may indicate that the standard was not "sufficiently articulated."

Returning to earlier comments about the importance of U.S. investors, Mr. Schnurr noted that the FASB and SEC would want to eliminate this sort of diversity, and that it may be that the FASB diverged from the converged standard in this context. Turning to the global perspective later in the session, Mr. Schnurr expressed his view that if the revenue recognition project resulted in diversity within industries and across industries on a global basis, that this would be considered "a failure."

Leases project

In answering an audience question regarding the leases project, Mr. Schnurr responded to concerns regarding the lack of convergence between the FASB and IASB in this area. He noted that in his view, U.S. investors were happy for leases to be on balance sheets, but that they considered straight line expensing from the income statement perspective as preferable. Accordingly, the FASB is responding to these needs in its proposals and the best interests of U.S. investors "trumps convergence" in his opinion.


A webcast of the session is available on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Web site (Mr. Schnurr's appearance begins at approximately 2:07:00).  Mr. Schnurr is also scheduled to speak at the 2014 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments being held on December 8–10, 2014, in Washington D.C.

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.