SENATE BILL: Executive Compensation Act of 2014 (Redraft Vetoed)

[DC Al Fine]

As for the FASB, I guess we could adopt different standards, but again, I don't see the purpose of going through the expense of doing it. What is inherently wrong with the FASB and why does it need to be replaced? Maybe the federal government can provide oversight of the FASB instead of unilaterally replacing them? Maybe we just have different philosophies on this matter?

Speaking as an accountant, FASB is an antiquated system. It's riddled with adjustments made for political reasons (both by business and government) and often doesn't make any sense. (Ex: LIFO is used for valuing inventory).

As for the bill itself: Why don't we just switch to International Financial Reporting Standards? It's much more modern. Plus it's already set up and enforced in most of the world already, so it'd be much easier to switch compared to coming up with a new set of standards from scratch.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, I remember my accounting professor telling us about that switch and that it was likely to occur in the next few years or so.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As for the FASB, I guess we could adopt different standards, but again, I don't see the purpose of going through the expense of doing it. What is inherently wrong with the FASB and why does it need to be replaced? Maybe the federal government can provide oversight of the FASB instead of unilaterally replacing them? Maybe we just have different philosophies on this matter?

Speaking as an accountant, FASB is an antiquated system. It's riddled with adjustments made for political reasons (both by business and government) and often doesn't make any sense. (Ex: LIFO is used for valuing inventory).

As for the bill itself: Why don't we just switch to International Financial Reporting Standards? It's much more modern. Plus it's already set up and enforced in most of the world already, so it'd be much easier to switch compared to coming up with a new set of standards from scratch.

This would be a good move, actually. I'd favor it over nationalizing our standards to something proprietary, and we could avoid the expense incurred to write entirely new standards.

[President Tyrion]

I would accept an amendment to that effect.

[DC Al Fine]

Offering an amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

Out of interest, why are we adopting the new standards in the middle of the year?

[DC Al Fine]

Out of interest, why are we adopting the new standards in the middle of the year?

You'll have to ask Tyrion, I just used the dates he was using before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As long as it has yet to proceessed, you cna still revise your amendment DC.

October 1st would be best, no?

[DC Al Fine]

As long as it has yet to proceessed, you cna still revise your amendment DC.

October 1st would be best, no?

Edited the amendment above to make Oct 1 the date. Never mind

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

July 1, 2014 is the beginning of the next fiscal year in Atlasia.   (At least I think it is.  I know it is in the Mideast.)

[President Tyrion]

Atlasia uses a July to June fiscal year, yes, which is why I'm said that.

DC, I'll accept either July (beginning of the fiscal year) or January (beginning of the Calendar/tax year). October is just arbitrary.

And the rest of the amendment is HOSTILE. I can't accept the amendment without a framework to replace the FASB for publicly traded companies, and I am very, very wary of allowing FASB 142 to continue to be enforced.

[DC Al Fine]

Edited the amendment back to July 1 dates.

As for Tyrion's comment, FASB 142 is practically irrelevant for companies that aren't publicly traded.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tyrion, which parts are hostile again?

[President Tyrion]

Edited the amendment back to July 1 dates.

As for Tyrion's comment, FASB 142 is practically irrelevant for companies that aren't publicly traded.

True.

Tyrion, which parts are hostile again?

The changes are all friendly except cutting out the first sentence of the current clause 4, which I find hostile until we agree on a framework to replace the FASB standards for publicly traded companies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am finding it hard to seperate the first part of the paragraph from the second half as part of an amendment split here.

[Cincinnatus]

Just for clarification..


Friendly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hostile?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Tyrion]

Yeah, Cinci's version of it seems fair enough.

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feedback: Friendly
Status: 24 hours to object

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feedback: Hostile
Status:  A vote is now open on the aforementioned amendment.  Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[President Tyrion]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Edited the amendment back to July 1 dates.

As for Tyrion's comment, FASB 142 is practically irrelevant for companies that aren't publicly traded.

True.

Tyrion, which parts are hostile again?

The changes are all friendly except cutting out the first sentence of the current clause 4, which I find hostile until we agree on a framework to replace the FASB standards for publicly traded companies.

Wouldn't IFRS be that framework according to DC's amendment?

[bore]

Nay

[DC Al Fine]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The old amendment is 61:02 by DC al fine and that is thus the number of the Hostile portion.

The friendly would be a new DC al Fine amendment tha is as of yet, unnumbered. I will know when I get through all these threads what the numb,er is.


oh and AYE