The United States have put them to the study

Need a global accounting organization It would be too easy to respond that such an organization already exists. The IASB, with its 14 members representing all continents, develops international standards, already applied in 2009 in over 100 countries. By 2014, the Brazil, the Canada, China, the India, the Japan and the Korea will also adopt these standards. The United States have put them to the study.

Today, most any new standard is written without the search for convergence with us standards (US Gaap), without consultation between the two "boards" (IASB and FASB) and that is the question: will this disadvantage businesses on either side of the Atlantic

In addition, each company in the world, whether or not it applies the IFRS can respond to projects. It in General when it considers that they would put at risk an essential point of its performance or when it considers the proposed unrealistic approach to his vision and his intentions. On a draft standard with an impact significant accounts, an American group with many international subsidiaries has so recently an original link between subsidiaries and nationalities of members of the Board of the IASB to organize meetings, region by region, Member by Member. In France, managers and the auditors of the French subsidiary met jointly the French members of the Board to defend their point of view on the draft standard. All in a very constructive spirit.

While criticized today the IASB and the FASB to IFRS Make it clear first that, contrary to the widely held idea, this is not the major international firms which establish standards IFRS.

In the current debate, the main criticism to IFRS is too wide use of fair value, without taking into account the "business model" specific company and its prospects in the medium and long term. Yes, the fair value can facilitate the comparability between companies. But it does not necessarily improve transparency! Because the transparency implies understanding of springs in the performance of the company, separated the "business model" which is clean and the horizons of time planned and considered possible for the realization of its assets and its liabilities extinguishment.

The sometimes simplistic application of the principle of fair value, by misinterpreting the concept of market value, no doubt reinforced the procyclical effect of the crisis in financial institutions. In addition, its application presupposes the existence of an ascertainable value in normal market conditions, without particular pressures.

On the contrary, the impairment of intangible assets and "goodwill", which take into account long-term prospects, accounted for only 2 of the value of the assets for the whole of the CAC 40 at December 31, 2008.

The second criticism to the IASB and the FASB is their lack of reactivity. Three years minimum to create a standard. That said, last April, the FASB in record time relaxed the rules on the impairment of assets giving us banks more than flexibility through the crisis. Why this sudden reactivity The FASB is a national organization that depends on politically the US Congress. Can a synthetic approach incorporating the data of a specific context, then the IASB, private, supranational world Organization, without national, is in this sense of anyone.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the IASB can boast of having both in October 2008, but the reaction was already very late and under great influence G20 and the pulse of Ecofin. Why seek to make improvements to this world organization therefore that the G20 exist In the exceptional crisis that we are, the g-20 is legitimate, but it is not reasonable to imagine that the leaders of the world provide ad vitam aeternam governance and the guarantee of the proper functioning of the IASB. Therefore, the question arises whether what replace the g-20 in cruise period to strengthen the effectiveness of the IASB. The recent intervention of the Congress on the SEC and the FASB, because, without replacement, the United States showed that they had the means to represent them only this organisation.

Two approaches seem possible.

The first: the creation of a real governance of the IASB. Since end of 2008, one might have thought that this was made! Because the trustees, which appoints the members of the IASB, are now headed by a new organization, the Monitoring Group, consisting of global stock market regulators. But it is now insufficient both in its composition that in its effectiveness. A solution could be a fusion of the Monitoring Group and the trustees of the IASB, with a better representation of global (Basel, IMF and World Bank) institutions and a strengthening of the powers of action and monitoring on the IASB, including on the broad guidelines: objective financial statements, taking into account considerations of financial stability, clear link between fair value and the "business model" companies, priorities of the programme of work, etc.

In another approach, and following the impetus given by Ecofin, could accept the inevitable bipolarity of institutions, creating a true "board" European, including international institutions and strengthening the position of Europe by the creation of an EASB, equivalent to the U.S. FASB Europe. The establishment of such a body would be logical given the use of IFRS in Europe, as if Europe has chosen the IFRS in 2001, it was essentially to express her own point of view instead of simply follow US GAAPs. But in practice, the uniqueness of European thought, so that the representativeness of the Member States is not easy to achieve. And the accounting domain does not escape this difficulty!

In any event, it became clear that a global organization is required.