give me a reply to this discussion post: In this case I am assuming the role of a financial analyst for an investment group. I am performing an analysis on two companies: Reliant uses U.S. GAAP and the competing company uses IFRS. There are a few areas of concern that exist in how Reliant would report items differently than the competitor using IFRS. These, with the differences in how each company would report them, are outlined below. Reliant is potentially responsible for certain waste states. The claims are in various stages of proceedings and include demands for recover of past governmental costs and future investigations or remedial actions. Reliant accrues costs associated with environmental matters when they become probably and reasonably estimable. Legal has advised that the likelihood of payments of 70M are more than 50%, so payment is judged reasonably possible and the contingency is disclosed in a note. The competing company might not report this differently under IFRS. As Ball points out, "All accounting accruals involve judgments about future cash flows. Consequently, there is much leeway in implementing accounting rules." (Ball, 2006) One thing that a competitor reporting under IFRS might record differently than Reliant (under GAAP) is what estimated liability number to record. GAAP would use a low estimate, while IFRS would be required to use the midpoint of estimates. Reliant had 10M of bonds issued that mature next year. At year end, management intended to refinance the bonds on a long-term basis. In February, they issued 10M of 20 year bonds, applying proceeds to repay the bond use that matured that month. The bonds were reported in Reliant's balance sheet as long-term debt. According to GAAP, refinancing would have had to be completed before the balance sheet date, rather than before the date of issuance of the financial statements. (Spiceland, p 726). Reliant reported a long-term contingency in it's 2024 financial statements at its face amount rather than its present value, even though the difference between the two values was considered material. The reason the cash flows were not discounted is that their timing is not certain. What Reliant may have missed under FASB/GAAP is the Expected Cash Flow approach. This method does use discounts by estimating amounts based on different probabilities. IFRS would require that the liability be recorded at present value (Spiceland, P 737), but Reliant, under GAAP, was not required to use present value although they did. While Reliant was within it's right to report under GAAP, it brings up the difficulty companies, especially large international companies, have in analyzing data and consistent reporting. 2nd Corinthians 8:21 says, "For we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of man." (English Standard Bible, 2001/2016) While the US continues to use GAAP, we should comply and keep accurate and honest records. At the same time, we should be aware of any differences and similarities that exist between GAAP and IFRS. Many countries have adopted IFRS and even within the US, many principles are used