If the SEC’s proposals for US plc to switch to IFRS are approved then the largest 20 companies ­ determined by their size on an international scale within their respective industries ­ will be given the green light in 2014, followed by other companies two years later.

Sir David Tweedie, the International Accounting Standards Board chairman, welcomed the SEC’s move as ‘another important vote of confidence’ for IFRS.

Yet it is patently clear that the rest of the world - overtaking the US, in terms of competitiveness by preferring principles-based standards - has forced the hand of the SEC.

But within Washington there remain dissenters who are not entirely convinced that IFRS could help resolve the declining popularity of the US capital markets.

One worry in particular concerns the privately-funded IASB. In setting out its roadmap for a US switch to IFRS, the SEC indicated that one of the milestones that would ensure a switch would be an accountable and independent standard setter.

In the last year, the IASB has taken a hammering from politicians and told to reform its processes after widespread criticism of its undemocratic and unaccountable processes in relation to the wider constituents it seeks to serve.

In addition, the standard setter awkwardly finds itself in a position in which it is privately funded with the mandate to write standards for publicly listed companies.

The outstanding governance and funding issues at the IASB clearly do not sit well with the SEC, which has also sent a clear message to the international standard setter to find independent funding so as not to be reliant on listed companies, whose donations make up the bulk of its funds.

Announcing the moves this week, a cautious Christopher Cox said: ‘Standard setting practices must be transparent. Standard setters must be accountable.’

Other critics in the US have also raised the question about whether the SEC was handing its oversight power to the IASB.

Rhode Island Democrat Senator Jack Reed argued that the SEC could put investors at risk by allowing external, less-aggressive regulators to have the power of overseeing the rules.

The SEC has, however, backed proposals for an international monitoring group ­ with representations from different regions including the US ­ to oversee the work of the IASB. This could be one way of resolving this.

But in time there could still be a power tussle, given the political nature of the SEC and its significance as a public office protecting the interests of US investors.

The final decision to switch to IFRS would also depend on whether the US manages to successfully merge its rules with IFRS, a joint project currently co-ordinated by the IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board.

All these issues have to be resolved by 2011, when the commission decides whether or not to adopt IFRS.

The IASB definitely has its work cut out.