The papers summarised the process and findings of the post-implementation review (PIR).

The first question from the Staff was whether the Board was happy that the constituents were consulted adequately. The Board believed that Yes. One Board member noted that - given a) the importance of the segment information and b) FASB’s similar approach to segment reporting – the analysts group could have been extended to the US. Something the Board needed to consider for the next PIR on IFRS 3.

There were some questions and comments on the messages and responses from the constituents, but it was decided not to prioritise them.

A couple of Board members noticed in feedback that many people believed that two years after the implementation of the standard was not a long enough period to fully assess its PIR.

The Staff member pointed out that it was important to manage people’s expectations during the PIR so that there was no presumption that the PIR would automatically lead to changes to a standard; any identified issues will be dealt with in the agenda-setting process.

There was also a discussion about whether the Board should co-ordinate any potential revisions with FASB that went through a similar PIR process. It appears that it plans to have some narrow scope amendments and the management approach will remain. The Staff did not have more detailed information at this stage about the FASB’s key issues.

The Board will continue to assess key messages and consider them in the agenda-setting process.