Commentators have urged the European Union to endorse the IFRS9 accounting standard currently being finalised by the FASB and the IASB.

Speaking at an ACCA roundtable on 29 June in Brussels, ACCA head of financial reporting Richard Martin said that the standard needed to be approved by the EU so that other countries will not be able to gain a head start in using it.

He said: “One of the key things we are waiting for is for IFRS 9 to be endorsed by the EU. It is significant that banks and companies in other parts of the world will be able to use IFRS 9, but without endorsement we will not.

“We are arguing for IFRS 9, it is a significant improvement. Whilst not being simple, it is much simpler than the processes we have been using.”

Others at the roundtable, warned of the dangers of delaying implementation of the IFRS9 standard despite calling for changes to certain elements.

Barclays director of accounting policy Ben Binnington said that instability over aspects of the standard could slow down implementation.

“Not a lot is known about IFRS 9’s policy on hedging. We know IAS39 [the standard it is replacing] is too complex, and simplicity is a useful step. But the main issue is the delay.

“It seems sensible to us to adopt easier parts of the standard earlier. For example if you want to adopt the policy on liabilities then you have to adopt policies on impairment. We know the decision on impairment will probably be delayed, so if we want to make changes on liabilities then we may have to wait until around 2013.”

EFRAG chair Françoise Flores said that IFRS 9 brings a mixture of benefits and potential problems.

She said: “There is a question over whether IFRS 9 has brought simplicity. It is considered very complex and difficult to deal with. It will bring more clarity, less diversity, and will maintain the mixed measurement model on financial reporting.

“The majority of shareholders have acknowledged improvement in the bill, though some have significant concerns that it may be too restrictive, especially with there be being no more recycling of gains and losses. Another major criticism is the way it changes value in liquid values which could change the basis of compensating employees.

“The second phase of developing IFRS9 also seems to have a wide consensus that an incurred loss model must be replaced. We agree that fair value, or ‘through-the-cycle’ approaches would not be appropriate.”

Binnington agreed with replacing the current incurred loss model.

He said: “We’d like to have the ability to see losses and do something before one of the current IAS 39 triggers.”

Martin however said that he believed the current model to be “actually pretty good.”