Inventories Accounting under US-GAAP and IFRS Standards: The Differences That Hinder the Full Convergence

This study purposes of understanding the existing differences between US-GAAP and IFRS accounting treatments of inventory. Given the 2015 FASB update, aimed at simplifying and aligning inventory accounting with IFRS standards, the research explores the introduced innovations. More specifically, the study, starting from a literature review and standards analysis, designs a theoretical framework aimed at facilitating the understanding of the differences still existing between the two accounting principles. Different from the prior works, we focus on the complex determination of the net realizable value in the case of input (e.g., raw materials) write-down. In particular, we show how the net realizable value (NRV) changes according to the value taken as a reference. The results of this analysis suggest that, based on a prudential valuation logic, the replacement cost is the best estimate for NRV.

Based on these premises, the study provides the effectiveness of the convergence process in terms of the comparability and theoretical value adopted. Accurately, using the value measurement theories, the research illustrates the differences resulting from a different accounting treatment of the inventories when US entities employ the option to use LIFO or RIM and evaluate them at the LCM, and the real effectiveness of the convergence process.
The paper is novel because it compares the accounting treatment of inventories under IFRS and US GAAP post emendation of the ASU 2015-11 and highlights the cases in which the evaluation of the stocks produce a different impact on the entity's financial statements under IFRS and US-GAAP.
The results of this paper are directed to the academic community, practitioners, and policymakers as theoretical and practical advances.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 examines the theoretical framework represented by the differences deriving from the comparison of the two standards, the primary literature on the cost formulas and of the value measurement theories employed for the inventories accounting treatments required under IAS 2 and ASU 2015-11. Section 3 discusses the different scenarios that could evidence when similar entities operate under IAS 2 or US-GAAP standards. Section 4 contains the conclusions.

Inventories under IFRS and US GAAP: Main Differences
In 2015 the FASB disposed of realigning the US-GAAP (ASU 2015-11) on Inventories to the IAS 2. The revised standard required that the inventories are evaluated at the LCNRV at the end of the period (Flood, 2019).
Nevertheless, the updated ASU 2015-11 does not lead to a real alignment between the two standards. Indeed, the US standard provides for an exception to LCNRV rule: inventory measured using LIFO or RIM are excluded from the simplification adopted and evaluated at the LCMI. Therefore, there are still two main differences between the two accounting principles (Penner et al., 2016;Harris & Ananthanarayanan, 2019).

Inventories Accounting Treatments: Primary Measurement and Cost Formulas
Inventories are initially measured at purchase/production cost that shall include all direct and overhead expenditures of getting stocks ready for sale. Additional fees, storage costs, and other administrative expenses are not included (Alibhai, Bakker & Balasubramanian, 2019).
Then, when they are sold, the carrying amount of these is recognized as an expense. For ordinarily interchangeable items, it could be difficult for the entity to determine the specific cost because of (a) high inventory turnover rate and (b) large numbers of the items. For overcoming the issue, it may be used cost-flow assumptions (Biddle, 1980;Gray & Ehoff, 2014), such as LIFO, FIFO, or WAC. These formulas may or may not reflect the actual physical flow of the inventory (Flood, 2019).
As the name suggests, the FIFO (first-in, first-out) method works under the assumption that items bought or produced first are the items sold or used first, regardless of the actual physical flow. Consequently, the items remaining in inventory at the end of the period are those most recently purchased or produced. For this reason, FIFO appears as the closest approximation to actual cost flows (Biddle, 1980;Sedki et al., 2014).
Under the WAC method, the cost of each item is determined by dividing the cost of goods available for sale by the number of units available for sale. The average may be calculated periodically, or as each additional shipment is received, depending upon the circumstances of the entity (Alibhai et al., 2019).
As the name suggests, the LIFO (last-in, first-out) method works under the assumption that the latest inventory that was purchased will be the first to be sold, regardless of the actual physical flow. Consequently, the items remaining in stock at the end of the period are those less recently purchased or produced (Biddle, 1980;Houmes, Dickins & O'Keefe, 2012).
The choice of cost-flow method has a significant impact on ending inventory on the balance sheet (Giganti, 1990;Simeon & John, 2018;Flood, 2019). Under the LIFO method, the balance sheet shows inventories at outdated prices (Henry & Holzmann, 2010). While LIFO net income provides a timelier measure of firm performance (Houmes et al., 2012: 235), the last inventory items in the balance sheet tend to age and could potentially become obsolete (Li & Sun, 2016). Furthermore, as several authors pointed out, inventories assessed with the LIFO method rarely correspond to the actual physical flow of goods (Reinstein, Alvin & Vangermeersch, 2008;Bao et al., 2010). Since LIFO favors the current net income information over current stocks value information, it is defined as an income-statement-oriented method (Flood, 2019). Conversely, FIFO does not provide the most explicit measure of periodic net income. Nevertheless, it is considered to reflect the current cost of inventory on the balance sheet and so to give investors a more useful inventory value (Sedki et al., 2014). As a result, FIFO is a balance-sheet-oriented method (Flood, 2019).
Given that, some scholars have associated the IASB choice of rejecting LIFO with the IASB shift from a revenue-expenses view to an asset-liability view: while the first focuses on end-period amounts, the second focuses on the account balance on a day-to-day basis (Reineking et al., 2012). The asset-liability view requires that figures on the financial statement represent the most relevant information regarding time (Reineking et al., 2012). Since the LIFO gives to the balance sheet older layers and values (Bao et al., 2010), IFRS looks at LIFO valuations as outdated information, not relevant for financial reporting (Henry & Holzmann, 2010 Vol. 15, No. 7;2020 while US GAAP does not aim to achieve a match between the inventory method adopted by a company and the actual physical flow of the goods (Bao et al., 2010), IFRS aims to confirm the latter with the assumed flow of costs into and out of inventory (Henry & Holzmann, 2010).
In the US scenario, although the elimination of LIFO method was suggested by the Obama administration's budget proposals (Gray, 2013;Li & Sun, 2016), it is still permitted under the recent updated ASU 2015-11.
Consistent with several authors (Husband, 1940;Jennings, Simko & Thompson II, 1986;Dopuch & Pincus, 1988;Cushing & LeClere, 1992), the most explanatory reason for the LIFO choice lies in its tax benefits. Indeed, Gray and Ehoff (2014) defined LIFO as "a taxing matter." When an entity elects LIFO, its ending inventories are underestimated, the cost of goods sold is overestimated. Therefore, pre-tax income will be lower, resulting in a lower tax expense. According to this, several authors have defined LIFO as a "tax loophole" or "accounting manipulation" (Dopuch & Pincus, 1988).
Given these considerations, both SEC and IRC have imposed two limitations to "LIFO manipulation", respectively: the LIFO reserve and the conformity rule (Husband, 1940).
The LIFO reserve consists of the differences between reported amount under LIFO and FIFO method, reported in the entity's notes (Jennings et al., 1986;Li & Sun, 2016). Because a company may employ LIFO for tax purposes, this reserve represents this deferred taxable income amount (Reineking et al., 2012). Or else, it represents the total amount that a firm's net income has been reduced since LIFO adoption (Houmes et al., 2012). Coffee, Roig, Lirely & Little (2010) have defined it as "a direct indicator of the materiality of the balance sheet distortions, which may result from LIFO use over a period of time." The conformity rule requires that if LIFO is chosen for tax purposes, it must still be used for financial reporting purposes (Sedki et al., 2014;Harris & Ananthanarayanan, 2019).
Even though LIFO is still the key to non-convergence (Henry & Holzamann, 2010), some scholars have pointed out that the gap between IFRS and US GAAP has decreased in practice. The LIFO benefits (tax savings) depend on an inflationary period. During the 21st-century, when the level of inflation has become minimal, more entities have decided to stop using LIFO and shift to another valuation method to align more closely with IFRS (Gray & Ehoff, 2014). Guenther and Sansing (2012), instead, have argued that this reducing number of entities that utilize LIFO acts as an incentive for other US companies to elect LIFO. "Every firm would prefer for other firms to use FIFO […] because in these circumstances […] each firm has an incentive to choose LIFO […] getting both the tax benefits of LIFO for itself while also benefiting from the reduced quantities and higher prices associated with every other firm choosing FIFO" (Guenther & Sansing, 2012, p. 1590.
Anyway, the updated US standard continues to maintain the discretion for the companies to select the LIFO method and, consequently, to apply the LCM principle. Table 2 summarises the pros and cons of the LIFO method.

Pros of LIFO Cons of LIFO
Lower net income and thus income taxes, especially during period of rising prices (Dopuch and Pincus, 1988, Reineking et al., 2012, Flood, 2019, Deloitte, 2019, PwC, 2019a, 2019b Manipulation of income and distortion of truth (Husband, 1940) Best measure of gross profit, matching of current cost with the current revenues (Flood, 2019) Misrepresents market conditions and up-to-date informations (Reineking et al., 2012) Lack of possibility for U.S. multinational companies to guarantee continuity among their inventory valuation (Locascio, 2017) Failure to match physical flow, cost flow and financial records (Husband, 1940, Reinstein A. et al., 2008, Flood, 2019 ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 15, No. 7;2020

Value Measurement Theories in the Valuation of Inventories: A Summary of the Principal Evaluation Criteria
Before examining the evaluation criteria indicated by the standards in detail, we recall main value measurement theories related to top evaluation approaches mentioned.
Assuming that the valuation of inventories under both accounting principles follows a prudential/conservative approach (Bao et al., 2010;Gray & Ehoff, 2014;Barker & McGeachin, 2015;Barker & Teixera, 2018), in this section, we discuss just the configurations of the value indicated in the standards, respectively: historical cost, net realizable value and replacement cost.
The historical cost (HC) represents the economic sacrifice expressed in monetary terms, for the purchase of goods and services following a "critical event", the market transaction (Myers, 1959). The latter -underlying the realization principle (Edwards, 1975) -gives certainty to the event and, therefore, to the economic value sustained, legitimizing its recognition in accounting (Horngren, 1965).
Referring to inventories, as assets, HC is a past amount reported on the present balance sheet (Sterling, 1981). To management, it represents an investment (Littleton, 1952). Its benefit is expected to be greater than the sacrifice; otherwise, if a cost will not benefit the future, then it should not be capitalized, should not be recorded as an asset, should be expensed (Sterling, 1981). In this sense, the HC is formulated considering the expectations of future values to be received from the economical use of an acquired asset. However, it can not be considered an expression of the current value of the future expected benefits (Sterling, 1981).
Specifically, Littleton (1952) states that the word "historical" could tend to negate any idea that account data speak of current or future values. In contrast, the term "invested" fits better. It recalls to values expected by the contracting parties, possible information asymmetries, and exogenous contingencies that may involve specific negotiation (Littleton, 1952(Littleton, , 1953May, 1952).
Farther, the historical cost represents a more objective transaction measurement than current costs. This is because HC measurement is based on the actual transaction in which the enterprise participated, while the current cost is based on a hypothetical transaction (Ijiri & Noel, 1984). However, it does not mean that HC is the "best" accounting measurement. There are two considerations: (i) objectivity differs from reliability, (ii) the "best" measure of the wealth (assets minus liabilities) of a firm does not necessarily correspond to the "best measurement of income" (Ijiri & Jaedicke, 1966). Thus, on the one hand, current costs provide a more reliable measure of wealth; on the other, historical costs lead to a more reliable income (Ijiri & Noel, 1984).
The net realizable value (NRV) of an asset is defined as "the maximum net amount which can be realized from the disposal of that asset within a short period of time" where the net amount is defined as "the selling price less disposition costs including tax effects discounted to the point of measurement" (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
In the literature, the NRV with the net selling price and the value in use is often also called exit value. The exit value is the current value realizable from the sale (Jones, 2015). It is based on the "current" price at the closing date of the financial year. Thus, exit value means the current exit value, and, unlike the historical cost, it focuses on the present benefit of the cash receivable (Sterling, 1981).
The replacement cost (RC) of an asset is defined as "the cash or cash equivalent that would have to be paid now to acquire resources capable of providing services equivalent to those currently expected to be extracted from the asset" (Bedford & McKeown, 1972). The RC reflects the current entry value of the economy's resources being employed in the firm (Edwards, 1975;Gee & Peasnell, 1976).
In a hypothetical perfect market, entry and exit values should not differ (Sterling, 1981). However, due to the existence of frictions in the marketplace, there are significant transaction costs that drive a wedge between entry and exit values, equal to the total amount of commissions (Jones, 2015). Thus, there is a conflict between NRV (exit value) and RC (entry value) (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
Based on these assumptions, the issue is whether or not the valuation of assets better serves society for reporting at the cash they command upon sale (current exit value) or at the cash required to have them available for use by the firm (current entry value) (Bedford & McKeown, 1972). Edwards (1975) states that the point is not whether to value by current entry or exit price, but when to shift from entry to exit values.
The decision, underline Falkenstein and Weil (1977), depends upon which question the statement user wants to answer. On the one hand, the replacement cost tends to answer the question of which is today the asset purchase cost, having services equivalent to those now held and expected to be used, in the least costly form in the markets in which the entity normally trades. On the other, the net realizable value seems to answer the question of what generalized command over resources, in monetary terms, could be attained by selling one or more assets (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
Therefore, replacement cost -as an entry value -is perhaps the most useful measure of current value for the need of assessing the ability of a company to remain in business (doing the same sorts of things in the future as in the past) and to pay dividends or pay for expansion without requiring new external financing (Falkenstein & Weil, 1977). Thus, RC assumes that survival is the basic need of the entity (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
On the other hand, net realizable value -as an exit value -seems particularly useful from a decision-making perspective. The resulting information privileges the stockholders' need for knowledge. They would know the amount that could be realized by the corporation and distributed to them through the sale of specific assets (Bedford & McKeown, 1972;Falkenstein & Weil, 1977).
Another informative advantage of NRV is that users often refer to a rate of return computation where the measurement of assets influences both numerator and denominator. The latter seems to include the amount for which the assets could be exchanged (NRV) and not the cost of acquiring equivalent assets (RC) (Bedford & McKeown, 1972). Moreover, since the option of not buying these assets is no longer available, it is not meant to assess management on the bases of an investment they might now refuse. In the same way, to compute the net income (the rate numerator), managers should use NRV and not RC (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
It is not negligible, however, that such value logics are not mutually exclusive. These value configurations were also used at the same time, giving rise to value mixed models (MacNeal, 1970;Sprouse & Moonitz, 1962;Popoff, 1974).

Discussion
Starting from the 2015 FASB updates, there were the two main scopes: align more closely US GAAP with IFRS standards, and simplify the measurement of inventory, reducing costs and complexities.
As we already said, the convergence between the two accounting standards is just partial. Moreover, Harris and Ananthanarayanan (2019) highlight the remaining doubts about whether the ASU 2015-11simplifies the measurement of inventories.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the convergence process, we analyze whether emerge some differences in the accounting treatment of the inventories under US-GAAP and IAS 2. Per each case, we view the impacts of two accounting treatments in terms of simplification, comparability, cost formula employed, and value measurement theories. We discuss these different aspects referring to the following three cases: 1 st case: US entities that adopt US-GAAP (thereafter US entity or corporation or company) measure inventory only using any method other than LIFO or RIM, compared to IAS-compliant entities use any method other than LIFO.
2 nd case: US entities measure inventory only using LIFO or RIM, compared to IAS-compliant entities use any method other than LIFO.
3 rd case: US entities measure some inventory with LIFO or RIM and some others using FIFO or WAC, compared to IAS-compliant entities use any method other than LIFO.
In the 1 st case, the update actually could reduce costs and complexities of the accounting treatment, aligning the inventory measurement with IFRS standards (except in the case in which IAS-compliant entity uses the RIM, fact involved in 2 nd case). In the subsequent measurement, all the corporations have to apply only the LCNRV principle, where the NRV, under US GAAP, is defined in a quite similar way to IAS 2.
In the 2 nd case, US entities have to adopt only the LCM principle. According to Daraghma (2018), three different outcomes depending on which value is assigned to the market: replacement cost (RC), NRV (also defined as "ceiling" or "upper limit") or net realizable value less profit margin (NRV-PM, also described as "floor" or "lower limit"). In this scenario, for a US corporation, nothing has changed respect to the previous ARB 43; pre-existing costs and complexities cannot have been reduced (Penner et al., 2016). Moreover, the accounting treatments under US-GAAP and IAS 2 are not comparable. US entities use a cost formula (LIFO) that is prohibited by the IASB and have to apply the LCM (not LCNRV) principle for evaluating ending inventories.
Correctly, regarding the cost formula (LIFO) applied, it, as an income-statement-oriented method, provides a timelier measure of firm performance (Houmes et al., 2012;Flood, 2019), and consequently misrepresents market conditions and up-to-date information of the ending asset (Reineking et al., 2012). Conversely, the cost formulas suggested by the IAS 2 are consistent with the asset-liability approach adopted by the IASB at the beginning of the 2000s, which focuses on the account balance on a day-to-day basis. It requires that figures on ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 15, No. 7;2020 the financial statement represent the most relevant information regarding time (Reineking et al., 2012).
Referring to the subsequent measurement, we examine the following LCNRV and LCM principles, respectively, under IAS 2 and ASU 2015-11, highlighting the emerging differences.
IAS 2, adopting a prudential valuation approach (Bao et al., 2010;Barker & McGeachin, 2015;Barker & Teixera, 2018), requires inventory to be measured at the LCNRV. It means not defer to the future period, costs that are totally, or partially, non-recoverable. The standard states that, for example, if following a reduction in sales prices or an increase in estimated costs for the completion of the product, or due to the obsolescence of the goods in storage, the NRV was lower than the relative expense, the inventories must be written down by aligning the book value with this lower value.
Crucial is to understand the determination of NRV.
Under IAS 2, the term 'net realizable value' is defined as "the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business less the estimated costs of completion and the estimated costs necessary to make the sale" (IAS 2, p. A983; Harris & Ananthanarayanan, 2019). Prima facie, the NRV could be assimilated to the fair value, but it is not correct. Fair value is defined as "the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date" (IFRS, 13). Hence, NRV is the estimated price, and so refers "to the net amount that an entity expects to realize" (IAS 2, 2003: A983). At the same time, the fair value reflects the price at which to sell the same inventory in the principal (or most advantageous) market for that inventory would take place between market participants at the measurement date (exit value). Therefore, NRV is an entity-specific value (Walton & Aerts, 2006). Fair value reflects an exit-price notion (Lee, 1974;Alexander, 2012;Walton, 2012;Magnan, Menini & Parbonetti, 2015).
Then, the subsequent measurement does not result in a simple comparison between cost and market value, but implies a more sophisticated estimate of the amount that the company expects to realize from inventories under normal circumstances and on a standard production level (IAS 2, p.A983).
Besides, IAS 2 specifies that (Onyekwelu & Boniface, 2014): regarding finished goods, partially finished goods, work in progress (hereafter, "output"), the NRV is equal to the price presumably obtainable from the direct sale of goods under normal conditions, net of the additional costs of completion and direct sales expenses; regarding raw materials and other supplies held for use in the production of inventories (hereafter, "input"), the replacement cost (RC) of the raw materials may be the best available measure of their NRV (IAS 2, p.A987).
The problem of determining NRV, often calculated as the market price net of sales costs, appears relevant. Such modus operandi does not seem to take into account the normal going of a company, associating this definition with that also contemplated by the IASB of fair value minus sales costs that have replaced that of the net selling price (Alexander, 2007).
The IASB concerning inventories requires an assessment at the NRV, or a specific value for the company other than the market price minus the related selling costs.
The question has not a peaceful solution, especially regarding the ability of the value above to represent the phenomenology of the company. In July 2006, the EFRAG, by its comment letter on the "Measurement on Initial Recognition" discussion (IASB, 2005), does not share the arguments provided to support that a measurement on market values, may be more representative of the company phenomenology than a specific value (entity-specific value) (Alexander, 2007).
Conversely, it is deeply entrenched in the Anglo-Saxon literature and practices, the assumption that a current value reflects, even if indirectly, the future performances because it discounts the operators' expectations and the existing prospects.
On these premises, determining NRV for outputs seems less complicated than defining NRV for inputs. The latter appears to be a relevant issue, given that it is more subject to internal manipulation and subjectivity (Harris & Ananthanarayanan, 2019). There is a difficulty in estimating the probable future revenue related to the sale of products made with these inputs and all the additional production costs necessary to complete the output when the production process has not yet started or has just started.
The choice of RC, in an inputs write-down hypothesis, therefore, is also justified for the immediacy of the evaluation. Not surprisingly, the IAS 2 defines RC not as being a specific method to determine inputs value, but as the best objective estimate of the NRV of inventories, if the latter is lower than their costs.    Table 7 RV, and NRV-  (Reineking et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the LMC of the ASU 2015-11 tends to use NVR and RC as interchangeable values, without forgetting that the VRN belongs to the family of exit values while the RC to the family of entry values. The US-GAAP accounting choice could be justified by a continued focus on the income statement view. The application of the replacement cost assumes that survival is a basic need of the entity as a going concern. Survival implies that the firm has the capability to replace used services. In this view, the income does not necessarily mean the excess of one balance sheet over another since only part of the increase would qualify as income (Bedford & McKeown, 1972).
In the 3rd case, the update requires to use both LCM and LCNRV principles. In this case, Penner et al. (2016) outline that the update could even increase costs and complexities and decrease financial statement comparability, not only in comparing the accounting treatment under IAS 2 and ASU 2015-11, but inside the same financial reporting.
In compliance with the US standard, the same cost formula does not need to be applied to all inventories that have similar nature and use to the entity. It implies that in the same financial statement, there are inventories evaluated at LIFO and all the others different from it.
This approach reduces the informative meaning of the items. As already said, a LIFO evaluation focuses the attention on current income. In contrast, a FIFO or WAC evaluation focuses the emphasis on the present value of the ending assets at the balance sheet date. The mixed-use of both criteria leads to alter the interpretative meaning of the inventories value that represents just a mere accounting data. The information can only be recovered indirectly by recalculating the cost, considering the LIFO reserve disclosed in the notes.
In terms of value measurement theories, the same considerations apply the 2 nd case.

Conclusions
In 2015, the FASB amended an update of the ASU 330 Inventory (ASU 2015-11) to simplify the measurement of inventories and to align their accounting treatments to IAS 2.
In this study, we purpose to explore the real state of convergence between the two accounting standards, analyzing theoretical and practical aspects deriving from their application.
In this research, we analyze three different cases that emerge when we compare the inventories accounting treatment under US-GAAP and IAS 2. Per each case, we view the impacts of two accounting treatments in terms of simplification, comparability, cost formula employed, and value measurement theories.
The case that shows the most controversial issues is the 2 nd case and, only in a consequential way, the 3 rd case, for which the same consideration is applied.
In the 2 nd case, we evidence that the option to use LIFO of the ASU update does not reduce the complexity of the evaluation, which does not lead to a real convergence with the IAS 2.
Regarding the choice to continue to use LIFO, besides, to strictly accounting reasons related to adopting an income statement approach, the most significant impediment to these companies changing from LIFO is the tax implications. Not only will the cessation of LIFO cause the individual tax burden on companies to rise, but the costs of switching to another method and costs of accounting for prior years' reports are substantials (Reineking et al., 2012). To use LIFO for tax reporting purposes, a US-GAAP-compliant company must also use LIFO for financial reporting purposes. This is called the LIFO conformity requirement (Barry, Kuykendall, & McClements, 2009). Because IFRS does not allow LIFO as a method for financial reporting purposes, the discontinuance would force companies also to discontinue using LIFO for tax reporting purposes.
To convert from one method to another, a company must obtain approval from the IRC. The translation across methods in the financial statement should be applied retroactively to prior year statements.
If LIFO is eliminated, all of the tax burdens that were deferred across time will be brought up to the present and must be accounted for (Leone 2010). The dramatic increase in gross income for a company shifting from LIFO to another method would be a one-time occurrence.
Based on this assumption, it is evident that the option to use LIFO establishes a two-tier approach for the accounting treatment of inventory (Harris & Ananthanarayanan, 2019), which could be defined as being an "accounting loophole." The comparing of the ASU 2015-11 option and the IAS 2, highlights the determination of NRV as a specific entity value and the calculation of the extra-accounting value to which align the cost in the write-down case as main critical issues.
In particular, this determination is not only an accounting issue. It influences the informational capacity of the financial statements and, therefore, their ability to represent the phenomenology of an entity. In this sense, we have noted an inconsistency between theory and practice. IAS 2 defines NRV as a specific value (the estimated selling price). However, the operational difficulties of its determination push practitioners to assimilate this one to the market prices (fair value less cost to sell) at the time of valuation (Alexander, 2007).
Concerning the NRV amount to which align the cost of inputs' production in the write-down hypothesis, the suitability of the replacement cost measure for the NRV seems to be almost undeniable (Flood, 2019). It is necessary to recall that, being an input destined for internal use, the only information that a company may be interested in is the cost of repurchasing the asset to maintain its physical capital unchanged. Nevertheless, in the hypothesis in which the NRV-PM it is to record in the balance sheet a value that is not fully recoverable. Valuation of raw materials, at the RC, in this case, would result in lower earnings due to an asset overestimation in subsequent years. It is reasonable to ask whether, by this reasoning, an alignment of the cost of inventories to the NRV-PM of the asset should be preferred. This position appears to be consistent also with the logic of the evaluative prudence principle accepted by both Boards, which chooses the one that has the highest probability of verification in identifying the non-accounting value, mainly linked to the reliability of the information. It is not negligible, however, that, in this case, we move below the cost, affecting the measure of income for the period. If the RC is greater than the expected benefits (for a sufficiently reliable indirect NRV value), a higher, not fully justified, value is attributed to the result for the year. The nature of the specific value (Walton & Aerts, 2006) required by both Boards and the general orientation of their balance sheet to represent the ability to generate cash flows seems to favour the prevalence of the concept of financial resources recovery.
Finally, we can conclude that a legitimacy gap may explain the likely failure to reach full convergence between the two standards (De Luca & Prather-Kinsey, 2018). The US jurisdiction probably hinders the incorporation of IFRS instantly as its national accounting as issued by the IASB.
De Luca and Prather-Kinsey (2018) posit that currently, US-GAAP and IFRS are basically competing within the US capital market for cross-listed firms' "adoption". Furthermore, the co-endorsement process has resulted in different versions of IFRS being accepted across different national jurisdictions. If there is a legitimate international regulator (IR) that polices and enforces IFRS as published by the IASB, then the adoption of IFRS globally could be achieved.
The paper presents several practical and theoretical implications for the academic community and policymakers as well as regulators and users.