Adopting International Accounting Standards
Adopting International Accounting Standards
Following a European Union mandate, from January 1, 2005, onwards approximately 7,000
companies whose stock is publicly traded on European stock exchanges were required to issue all future
financial accounts in a format agreed upon by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In
addition, some 65 countries outside of the EU have also committed to requiring that public companies
issue accounts that conform to IASB rules. Even American accounting authorities, who historically have
not been known for cooperating on international projects, have been trying to mesh their rules with those
of the IASB.
Historically, different accounting practices made it very difficult for investors to compare the financial
statements of firms based in different nations. For example, after the 1997 Asian crisis a United Nations
analysis concluded that prior to the crisis two-thirds of the 73 largest East Asian banks hadn’t disclosed
problem loans and debt from related parties, such as loans between a parent and its subsidiary. About 85
percent of the banks didn’t disclose their gains or losses from foreign currency translations or their net
foreign currency exposures, and two-thirds failed to disclose the amounts they had invested in
derivatives. Had this accounting information been made available to the public—as it would have been
under accounting standards prevailing at the time in many developed nations—it is possible that problems
in the East Asian banking system would have come to light sooner, and the crisis that unfolded in 1997
might not have been as serious as it ultimately was.
In another example of the implications of differences in accounting standards, a Morgan Stanley
research project found that country differences in the way corporate pension expenses are accounted for
distorted the earnings statements of companies in the automobile industry. Most strikingly, while U.S. auto
companies charged certain pension costs against earnings, and funded them annually, Japanese auto
companies took no charge against earnings for pension costs, and their pension obligations were largely
unrecorded. By adjusting for these differences, Morgan Stanley found that the U.S. companies generally
understated their earnings, and had stronger balance sheets, than commonly supposed, whereas Japanese
companies had lower earnings and weaker balance sheets. By putting everybody on the same footing, the
move toward common global accounting standards should eliminate such divergent practices and make
cross-national comparisons easier.
However, the road toward common accounting standards has some speed bumps on it. In November
2004, for example, Shell, the large oil company, announced that adopting international accounting
standards would reduce the value of assets on its balance sheet by $4.9 billion. The reduction primarily
came from a change in the way Shell must account for employee benefits, such as pensions. Similarly,
following IASB standards, the net worth of the French cosmetics giant L’Oreal fell from 8.1 billion to 6.3
billion euros, primarily due to a change in the way certain classes of stock were classified. On the other
hand, some companies will benefit from the shift. The UK-based mobile phone giant, Vodafone, for
example, announced in early 2005 that under newly adopted IASB standards, its reported profits for the
last six months of 2004 would have been some $13 billion higher, primarily because the company would
not have had to amortize goodwill associated with previous acquisitions against earnings.23
Case Discussion Questions
1. What are the benefits of adopting international accounting standards for (a) investors, and (b)
business enterprises?
2. What are the potential risks associated with a move toward the adoption of international
accounting standards in a nation?
3. In which nation is the move to adoption of IASB standards likely to cause the revisions in the
reported financial performance of business enterprises, the United States or China? Why? (See the
Opening Case for more details on China.)