Sources used in this document:

These preferences aside, American multinationals like PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble, are examining how a possible shift away from GAAP would affect their revenue recognition, taxation, and hedge accounting in the near and far future. In many cases, the overall, self-interested impression is positive as IFRS tend to make a company's returns look higher. But for smaller U.S. companies without an outreach abroad, the advantages of a switch to IFRS are less clear, as they have not been keeping two books all along like multinationals. More time-consuming (an estimated 18-24 months) headaches and paperwork as companies switch to IFRS seem likely -- and a tremendous financial drain is almost certain upon all organization's revenues during the period of transition. "Procter & Gamble hasn't pinned down an exact number, but expects a conversion project would cost tens of millions of dollars" (Johnson 2008, p. 2). European companies who have already switched from their local systems to IFRS estimated that they spent an average 0.05% of their revenue in their first year of switching from their local standards to IFRS (Johnson 2008, p. 2).

Additionally, not all U.S. firms will show higher profits if there is a total transition to IFRS. International standards bar the use of LIFO (last in, first out) accounting, which confers sizable tax benefits to some companies in many industries. However, like it or not, a shift away from GAAP seems to be the trend of the future: even smaller European companies which chafed at the retreat from their homegrown GAAP were forced to comply eventually. "The EU's smaller companies, with less exposure to IFRS, took longer to respond to the mandate. Many didn't get serious until the year before filings were due…there's something to be said for taking a wait-and-see approach and letting the standard-setters continue to work on convergence" (Johnson 2008, p.2). Methods of revenue recognition, accounting for pensions and leases, and financial-statement presentation are all points of controversy between the two systems at present within the U.S.

Yet the difficulties of the transition, particularly for U.S. firms, may be overstated: "it is apparently much easier to transition from a more prescriptive set of standards to one that allows more judgment" (Johnson 2008, p.3). Because America's GAAP is so rigorous in nature, U.S. companies may experience less heartache than their European counterparts who transitioned from less scrupulous local standards to international standards. The benefits of a homogeneous international standard will likely be enjoyed by all in the very long run in this global economy, but the transition may be painful for some firms -- and more financially gut-wrenching for smaller U.S. institutions than large ones.