Harmonising Basel III and the Dodd Frank Act through international accounting standards: reasons why international accounting standards should serve as “thermostats”

Why should differences between regulatory and accounting policies be mitigated? Because mitigating such differences could facilitate convergence – as well as financial stability. The paper “Fair Value Accounting and Procyclicality: Mitigating Regulatory and Accounting Policy Differences through Regulatory Structure Reforms and Enforced Self Regulation” illustrates how the implementation of accounting standards and policies, in certain instances, have contrasted with Basel Committee initiatives aimed at mitigating procyclicality and facilitating forward looking provisioning. The paper also highlights how and why differences between regulatory and accounting policies could (and should) be mitigated. This paper focuses on how recent regulatory reforms – with particular reference to the Dodd Frank Act, impact fair value measurements. Other potential implications for accounting measurements and valuation, will also be considered. Given the tendencies for discrepancies to arise between regulatory and accounting policies, and owing to discrepancies between Basel III and the Dodd Frank Act, would a more imposing and commanding role for international standards not serve as a powerful weapon in harmonizing Basel III and Dodd Frank – whilst mitigating regulatory and accounting policy differences?