-
Recent Posts
- Truthfulness, Transparency and Incentives: Making Financial Reporting More Honest
- What are affecting earnings quality
- HK opens doors to Chinese Accounting Standards
- Mind the GAAP
- SOX Section 404 - is it really effective ?
- Are Foreign Issuers Shunning the U.S.?
- Sarbanes-Oxley: A price worth paying?
- Value is in the Eye of the Beholder
- Sarbanes-Oxley: A Price Worth Paying? - Sumesh
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act-Is it Worth Paying the Price?
-
Archives
-
Meta
Author Archives: johnson.montreuil
Posts: 1 (archived below)
Comments: 0
Terrorism and 9/11
Perhaps the FASB should consider revising the definition of “Extraordinary” to include degrees of damage. For example, with respect to the 9/11 terrorist attack, the FASB cites, among other things, the potential for future attacks as the rationale for considering all events involving terrorism as ordinary. But the truth is, since 9/11, we’ve put in place new security measures designed to thwart future terrorist attacks. And since 9/11, we’ve also successfully stopped at least a couple attempts. In addition, the public has become very sensitive to the potential danger that terrorists pose. As a matter of fact, the Christmas day bomber was stopped by average Americans who took action when it became clear they were in danger. These efforts contribute to the low frequency of terrorist attempts we see here in the United States. They also reduce the potential for terrorists to do spectacular damage to us. My point is that we live in a new world. It is time therefore to amend the rules to reflect that fact. And one way to do that is to start recognizing degrees of damage.