A heads-up: I've written a piece in the Financial Times on standard-setter convergence - and why it's not the good idea that it once was.

It's a subscription-only publication (sorry).

I proposed that the IASB and FASB continue on a path of friendly competition for an indefinite period of time, rather than rushing into a politically-forced pseudo-convergence that resembles a takeover more than a merger. One point I didn't get to make because of space limitations: the US moves made in preparation for convergence should be reversed if the convergence movement is halted or at least postponed. Specifically, the FASB should revert to its seven-person constitution, as it was before convergence appeared imminent. There was never a convincing reason given for the five-person configuration, though it would have certainly been easier to merge fewer people onto the IASB.

I have no particular insight as to where the SEC is going on its convergence roadmap. One must presume that this has moved to the back burner as the events of October, the cruelest month, unfolded. (I don't care what T.S. Eliot said about April. He's wrong.) It would be hard to believe they could resume their magical thinking about convergence without considering the effects on independent standard setting - and what it could mean for US investors. Remember: the SEC is charged with serving and protecting US investors - not stock exchanges or consulting firms who would benefit from accounting standard changeovers. Financial institutions aren't the only ones who need to sober up after the October surprise.