Those awaiting a date certain for the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards by U.S. companies will have to wait a little longer.

Securities and Exchange Commission officials speaking at a financial reporting conference this week promised that they're developing a work plan, but didn't give any clues about when the SEC might announce any sort of timeline.

Speculation about when the SEC might act and what it will do related to its proposed roadmap has been rampant since commission officials remarked in September that convergence and the roadmap would be a majority priority this fall—leading speakers at the event to quip that fall officially ends on Dec. 21.

SEC chief accountant James Kroeker, speaking at Financial Executives International's current financial reporting issues conference in New York on Nov. 16 said that his office is developing a "work plan" to follow up on the issues identified during the comment period on the SEC's proposed roadmap for IFRS adoption by U.S. companies.

"A host of issues were identified during the comment process," Kroeker said. "The seven milestones we identified weren't the only issues people viewed as important."

He assured corporate reporting executives that if and when the SEC moves ahead with IFRS adoption for U.S. SEC registrants, to expect "ample time to prepare."

"We understand ... that people are going to need time if there is a mandate to do all of the systems work, to invest in the human capital, invest in the systems, and invest in an understanding of IFRS," he said. He noted that part of that is tied to current convergence projects underway between U.S. and international accounting standard setters, since some of the new standards companies would have to adopt are still under development.

"Expect ample time," he said. "We will consider the needs of preparers, auditors, and investors ... as we talk about continued progress toward IFRS."

He also urged financial statement preparers and others to monitor and comment on projects undertaken by the International Accounting Standards Board.

"Comment on those projects like you would on projects undertaken by FASB," he said. "In a number of cases IASB is taking the first crack at some projects ... and [for projects outside of their Memorandum of Understanding] IASB might be taking the lead where [the Financial Accounting Standards Board] has plans to put a wrap-around document around an IASB proposal."

Regardless of the follow up on the concepts in the proposed roadmap, Kroeker said it's important that FASB and IASB continue their efforts toward convergence.

Meanwhile, he said working with FASB on improvements to accounting standards for financial instruments under Statement 166 and 167 "will continue to be a high priority for our office."

While they're currently taking differing approaches in revising their standards on accounting for financial instruments with respect to the use of fair value, FASB and IASB have pledged to work more closely to align their views on the role of fair value.

Kroeker said his personal view is that "It's time to move beyond the debate of whether fair value is relevant for financial assets or whether historical cost is relevant for certain classes of financial assets."

"I think there is room for both," he said. "The difficult challenge is how you appropriately convey both sets of information."

Compliance Week will provide readers with detailed coverage from the FEI conference in this blog and in its Nov. 24 issue.