Sue Lloyd and Alan Teixeira reviewed the current work of the IASB.

Financial instruments

The exposure drafts on classification and measurement and expected credit losses were mentioned, but not in any great detail.  (See later discussions for a more extended report on the comments received on the classification and measurement proposals.)

Revenue

The intention to form a joint 'implementation group' with the FASB was noted.  The group will not produce any authoritative guidance, but will identify implementation issues to the IASB and FASB.  Council members supported joint approach, but expressed concerns about the authority that would inevitably be accorded even to the discussions.  Council members were concerned that the messaging around establishing the group should take care not to give the impression that the Standard is not ready for issue.  In addition, given the volume of specific legacy guidance in US GAAP, Council members noted the challenges of keeping converged standards converged.  At least one Council member expressed concern that it was too early to convene this group and that it should form part of the Post Implementation Review.  Other Council members wanted quick action to prevent industry interpretations developing.  Mr Cherry noted that the sense of the Council was generally supportive.

Insurance

The staff expects that the exposure draft will be released by end of June.  The IASB was treating this as a 'targeted re-exposure', with five directed questions in the Invitation to Comment and one over-all question about whether the proposals would improve financial reporting of insurance contracts.

Disclosure feedback statement

Alan Teixeira noted the recent publication of the IASB's feedback statement on the Disclosure forum.  He outlined the actions that the IASB intends to take in the near- to medium-term.  The IASB will propose amendments to IAS 1 in September 2013, these will be 'relatively minor' and it is hoped that they will be a 'catalyst for change'.  The amendments are intended to release people from 'straightjacket' disclosure of accounting policies.

Council members wanted better articulation of what the going concern assumption implied in the preparation of financial statements is and urged the IASB to be more pro-active on materiality.  One member expressed concern that there was a danger of too many interpretations being issued by regulators and other bodies with an interest in standard-setting.

Other

Mr Teixeira noted also the advisory group on effects analyses, which was helping the IASB to improve how it undertakes effect analyses and field work.  The output of this effort would be internal guidance to the IASB and amendments to the Due Process Handbook.  The effort was focused on developing high-quality standards: high-quality effects analyses should help to achieve these.  The staff's view was now that documenting the effects analysis would be critical.  The Board's work on effects could no longer be subsumed in the Basis; a separate document was needed.  The working group would report by November and then disband.

Ms Lloyd and Mr Teixeira reviewed a number of smaller projects (equity method, IAS 41 and bearer plants, regulatory deferral accounts, etc.).  Mr Mackintosh admitted that the IASB "would be stretching constituents' patience over the next six months".