But you knew that. For all those concerned with the introduction of IFRS, preparing for it is a work-in-progress that will go on well beyond the early days of next January. And most of the work falls to finance directors.
Until the end of the first quarter of 2004, the International Accounting Standards Board and national standard setters such as the Accounting Standards Board in the UK bore the brunt of the work. The IASB promised a period of calm between 2004 and 2006, where adoption before 2006 would not be compulsory.
Today, however, it is the finance departments of quoted companies and their auditors that are feeling the heat most. At the same time, stock market analysts are taking an increasing interest in the proceedings.
Financial directors may have entertained the idea that by the end of the second quarter of 2004 the IASB would have produced all of the standards in a neat package for companies to take away and implement. Such hopes have not been realised.
The major political issue – IAS39 financial instruments – was due for discussion again yesterday by the commission’s accounting regulatory committee. Some sort of opt-out (carving out some of the paragraphs of IAS39 dealing with hedge accounting and fair value option) seems likely.
Meanwhile, financial instruments disclosures are being tinkered with, through IASB’s exposure draft 7, and companies can either implement the revisions or wait until 2007.
But apart from financial instruments, the bulk of the standards are there, so FDs need to concentrate on understanding what the extant 20 international financial reporting standards and revised IASs mean for their business.
In many ways, the adoption of international standards has echoes of millennium bug scaremongering – an immovable deadline that threatened disaster. We all know now that 1 January 2000 came and went with few glitches. But will the same happen in this instance? It is now a given that many companies are lagging behind in preparing for the introduction of IFRS, and that could mean 2005 financial statements will be delayed.
While it is comparatively easy to follow what the IASB and the commission are doing in relation to the introduction of IFRS, it is harder to say with certainty what companies should be doing and nigh on impossible to say what they actually are doing.
A high-level comparison of UK GAAP and IFRS shows there are few major differences. However, a more detailed assessment tells another story. Companies need to carry out a comprehensive analysis of their transactions and exposures. There will be a major change in the format of the accounts; different accounting policies need to be formulated, and more extensive disclosure requirements.
All this adds up to a significant project for companies that will affect their reporting process and may result in changes to their accounting systems. Transition to IFRS will involve complete restatement of the opening balances and more volatile accounting measures. This increases the opportunities for both cock-up and conspiracy; in other words, innocent mistakes and deliberate misstatement.
Whatever the surveys may say on the preparedness of Europe, only the FD, the auditor and the audit committee will know how ready they are. Probably most have plans in place and probably key staff are undergoing some training. But how clear companies are on what they have to do and how much has been done remains a mystery.
What can be seen is manoeuvring between the FD and the market analysts over the impact of IFRSs on the bottom line. In this time of mixed corporate performance and a stock market firmly in the doldrums, who can blame FDs for trying to ensure IFRS doesn’t knock the share price?
A survey in the summer by the ICAEW suggested that 60% of listed companies believe their key performance indicators would be affected as a result of the introduction of IFRS. Inevitably, the market is trying to guess which companies and how much, so some FDs have suggested that analysts might mark down shares.
All of that is in the future. For now, as FDs return to their desk after the summer break, they should be clear that they have to make the successful introduction of IFRS into their company their top priority.
- This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in September’s issue of Financial Director.
Does Darwin's theory apply to taxation? Colin ponders...
The EC has been instructed to draft a European Union (EU) directive authorising an EU financial transaction tax, which would apply to ten of the EU’s 28 member states
Accountancy watchdog the FRC has dropped its investigation into the former chief financial officer of Tesco, nearly two years after the supermarket was engulfed in an accounting scandal
Colin imagines how Apple's logo might change in the wake of the EC's ruling over its Irish tax arrangements