This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version. Please upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Technical Plan

Date recorded:

(starting 11:15am)

The Director of Technical Activities presented the latest version of the IASB's technical plan, noting that the recommendations being made at the meeting sought to 'create space' in the IASB's agenda for Board members, staff, and constituents. In addition, the Board should endeavour to link due process documents that have common thinking underlying them, wherever this made sense.

Three projects were proposed for conscious delay: earnings per share, extractive activities; and management commentary (already out for extended exposure). Further work on these topics would be deferred until later in 2010. A revised project proposal would be released on the IASB website as soon as possible. Work would continue as planned on financial crisis-related issues and on the FASB/IASB Memorandum of Understanding issues.

The Board broadly supported the approach, but several Board members had specific comments on individual projects. Several were puzzled by or critical of the linkage of the IAS 37 project and the forthcoming Insurance exposure draft (due later in 2009). While an approach 'based on' the revised liability measurement model developed in IAS 37 was a potential measurement candidate for insurance contacts, to say that they were 'linked' was a step too far for some Board members. In addition, linking the two projects seemed to pre-suppose a decision that IAS 37 would require re-exposure, something the IASB had not yet considered (this is scheduled for September 2009).

Another Board member noted that there were a number of projects out for comments at the moment, and that the Board should reassess each of those projects when it considered the initial analysis of comments received. If it was apparent that a high degree of consensus had been achieved as a result of the exposure process, then the Board should be able to complete redeliberations quickly. However, if the redeliberation phase was likely to be protracted (as it had been in the case of IAS 37), then the Board would need to look critically at whether that project should be deferred. This Board member thought that the critical projects were: Liabilities (IAS 37); Financial Instruments; and Annual Improvements (because this project addressed real issues that were a nuisance in the daily use of IFRS).

In response to a question about how the revised technical plan affected the cooperation and coordination with the FASB, the staff responded that with respect to critical projects the two Boards remained aligned.

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.