|
This comment article, by Tommaso Padoa-Scioppa, was published in the Financial Times on 19 May 2006.
The most recent argument against further convergence claims that there is an inevitable trade-off between the needs of companies and investors and progress on convergence with US GAAP. This is a gratuitous statement, inconsistent with what the IASB has achieved so far.
First, convergence is not a zero-sum game where the gain of one standard-setter is a loss for the other. Second, convergence is not bound to lead to the predominance of traditionally rule-based US approaches over a principle-based system to which IASB is committed. The greatest obstacle to a principle-based approach is not the US standard-setting body but companies, auditors and regulators who seek comfort in narrowly defined rules.