The IFRS Foundation Trustees met in public session in Singapore. This session was relatively brief, and filled less than half of the 2¼ hours allocated. Agenda papers are available on the IFRS Foundation's meeting page (www.ifrs.org/Meetings/TrusteesJanuary2012.htm).
 

Report of the IASB Chairman

Hans Hoogervorst noted that he had provided a detailed written report with supporting appendices. He limited his remarks to highlighting some issues:

• He noted that the Offsetting chapter of IFRS 9 had been issued and that the IASB and the FASB had ended in different places, with disclosures being required to bridge the two standards.
  Clemens Börsig observed that the balance sheet ratios of IFRS-compliant banks and US GAAP-compliant banks would be quite different and asked whether there was any flexibility on the IASB 'to give in' [and adopt the US GAAP position]? Mr Hoogervorst agreed that disclosures were a substitute for a compromise, but to adopt the US position, the IASB would have had to change its unanimous position. The FASB would have need only one vote to change to adopt the IASB's position. Mr Börsig had sympathy for the FASB position, but Mr Hoogervorst provided a robust response, noting that, in his experience as a regulator (shared with Michel Prada, the IFRSF Chairman) accounting scandals involving banks almost always featured inappropriate balance sheet offsetting. The IASB had been unanimous in choosing a gross presentation. He noted that a net presentation on the balance sheet gives a 'very incomplete view' of the risk in the balance sheet
• Mr Hoogervorst noted that the mandatory effective date for IFRS 9 had been deferred to 1 January 2015. He also noted that in November 2011 the board agreed to consider modifying IFRS 9 particularly in view of convergence and the insurance contracts project. However the Board noted that any changes should be made in a manner that minimises disruption for those who have already started to apply or were close to applying IFRS 9. The Board also noted that IFRS 9 is fundamentally sound and that the project should be completed expeditiously. In December, the Board tentatively decided to limit the items to be reconsidered to the contractual cash flow characteristics criteria, whether bifurcation for financial assets should be reconsidered and whether changes in the fair value for some debt instruments should be presented in OCI (other comprehensive income).
• Leases is still in development and the IASB hopes to have revised proposals on this topic later in 2012. The revised proposals on Revenue were out for re-exposure
• Insurance, although not a convergence project, was a project on which common accounting between IFRS and US GAAP issuers was highly desirable. US insurers were lobbying the IASB hard to retain the current US GAAP accounting. The IASB was reluctant to make this a joint project as this would delay the issue of an IFRS by several years. He noted that it would be nice to achieve convergence 'from the bottom up', but that there was 'no substitute for clear decisions from the top down'.

In response to a question from Mr Yves-Thibault de Silguy, Mr Hoogervorst noted that the IASB's Agenda Consultation had concluded the public comment phase, but the staff analysis was not yet available. However, in conversations with constituents he noted that a 'period of calm' in standard-setting, work on the IASB Framework, the use of Other Comprehensive Income and some 'new IFRS jurisdiction' problems were frequent issues raised and were likely to feature in a future Agenda.

Due Process Oversight Committee

David Sidwell reported on the work of his Committee, noting that an extensive meeting had been held on 11 January at which several Trustees who were not formal members of the Committee attended.

Much of his report focused on the approach to post-implementation reviews. He noted that the first of these, on IFRS 8 was about to begin. The DPOC was adopting a 'flexible approach' that would allow it to 'learn as we go'. The IASB Chair and senior staff had been asked to take a bit more time to develop a project plan and accompanying process for the reviews. He noted that the US Financial Accounting Foundation was also initiating post-implementation reviews of its Operating Segments standard. Unlike the IFRS approach, in which the IASB undertakes the review with the active oversight of the DPOC, the FAF itself will conduct the post-implementation review. The two oversight bodies will exchange information and experience as the respective reviews progress.

The review of the Interpretations Committee was also addressed. Mr Sidwell was disappointed that the review, initiated in October 2010 had not been concluded, but noted that having a Chairman who was a full-time member of the staff should help to conclude the review more quickly. The review of the Interpretations Committee had concluded that there should be more interaction between the Committee and the IASB. A particularly troublesome issue was managing the boundary between Interpretations and Annual Improvements, and the perennial problem of the rigor and status of Agenda Decisions. The IASB would receive a report in February [i.e., after the January 2012 Interpretations Committee meeting] and the DPOC and Trustees would review the matter at their April 2012 meetings.

The DPOC also reviewed correspondence with constituents. At the moment, the Committee responds to individual issues as they arise. Mr Sidwell thought that it was too early to identify themes in the letters it receives. The DPOC wants to add greater transparency to such correspondence by having letters it receives available immediately on its Website.

The DPOC is developing protocols that would apply in the event that there is a disagreement over process between the IASB and the DPOC. Part of the is protocol would be a clear statement that a 'de minimus' departure from due process would not lead to a presumption that due process had not been followed. Due Process was made of many procedures that needed to be assessed in their entirety.

Finally, members of the DPOC would be attending sessions of the Advisory Council (February 2012) and Interpretations Committee (July 2012) to see first-hand how these two bodies operate and contribute to the IFRS Foundation's work.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Sidwell noted that the Monitoring Board had access to the reports of the DPOC (these are on the DPOC's Webpage) and at each meeting of the Monitoring Board, he makes a report of the Committee's activities.

Education and Content Services Committee

Jeff Lucy reported on the activities of this committee. In particular, he noted that there was an opportunity to use resources available in the IFRS Foundation already to achieve a higher level of consistent application of IFRSs.

Implementation of the Trustees' Strategy Review

The Trustees have turned their attention to implementing the proposals in their Strategy Review. The formal release of their Report will be coordinated with the Monitoring Board's Governance Review, but there are things the Trustees can do now. In particular:

• Staff support for the Due Process Oversight Committee is being sought to support the extended work of this committee
• Mechanisms are being developed to integrate better and more effectively the activities of national standard-setters into those of the IASB.

The public session closed at this point.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the IASB meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.