International Harmonization: Pro or Con? You are provided the following arguments for and against establishing a harmonized set of international accounting standards: Pro: Harmonizing accounting standards internationally will improve the comparability of accounting information around the world and thereby eliminate one source of misunderstanding in transnational financial reporting. More comparability will better the analysis of financial statements; this will, in turn, lower interest rates and improve resource allocation. A single set of financial accounting standards will also save corporations time and money, since they will no longer have to prepare multiple sets of financial statements. Finally, establishing international standards will raise the quality of accounting in many countries. Con: Harmonized international accounting standards are unnecessary, since the worldwide competition for investment funds is propelling harmonization to the extent that investors desire it. Corporations in need of funds are compelled to provide financial statement users—the resource providers—with what they want or else pay a penalty in the form of higher interest rates or lower common stock prices. If user needs are similar internationally, then harmonization will result as a matter of course, without an organized effort. If they are not, then requiring a single set of accounting practices may actually worsen the situation. Accounting is relevant only when it is responsive to the environment in which it operates. Imposing harmonization could very well strip accounting of its usefulness in many situations. Question：State your position on the desirability of establishing a harmonized set of international accounting standards. A Conflict of Standards “Good grief, you accountants sure know how to make life miserable.” These are the words of Heather Maxwell, president of Stillwater Technologies, Inc. (STI), a publicly held U.S.-based multinational corporation. Heather has just learned from STI’s corporate controller that STI must prepare a second set of financial statements conforming to the Fourth and Seventh Directives of the European Union (EU). “Why can’t we just use our U.S. reports?” Heather asks. “If they’re good enough for the SEC, they ought to be good for the EU, too.” “Well, they’re not,” replies the controller. “The EU Directives require not only a different way of presenting our financial statements but also some extra disclosures that we don’t currently put in our reports.” Heather then asks, “What if we follow International Accounting Standards Committee Standards? Will that keep us from having to prepare two sets of financial statements?” “No,” says the controller. “Neither the SEC nor the EU accepts IASC Standards in place of its own. The SEC won’t accept EU Standards, and the EU doesn’t accept the SEC’s.” Heather responds, “I just don’t see the benefit of preparing EU financial statements. They’ll cost us a lot of money and, as far as I’m concerned, we have excellent financial reporting right now.” Questions 1. Why must STI prepare financial statements that conform to the requirements of the SEC? 2. Why must STI prepare financial statements that conform to the requirements of the EU? 3. Does it make sense for STI to prepare two sets of financial statements? Why or why not? 4. What does the controller mean by the statement, “Neither the SEC nor the EU accepts IASC Standards in place of its own. The SEC won’t accept EC Standards, and the EU doesn’t accept the SEC’s.”? 5. Is there any way that STI can overcome the conflict described above? If so, how? If not, why? 本文来源：https://www.wddqw.com/doc/b000de1ba300a6c30c229f75.html