Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies, um Ihnen einen bedarfsgerechteren Service bereitstellen zu können. Indem Sie ohne Veränderungen Ihrer Standard-Browser-Einstellung weiterhin diese Seite besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit unserer Verwendung von Cookies einverstanden. Möchten Sie mehr Informationen zu den von uns verwendeten Cookies erhalten und erfahren, wie Sie den Einsatz unserer Cookies unterbinden können, lesen Sie bitte unsere Cookie Notice.
Sie können die volle Funktionalität unserer Seite mit Ihrem Browser nicht nutzen, weil Sie entweder eine alte Version von Internet Explorer verwenden oder der Kompatilitätsmodus eingeschaltet ist. Bitte prüfen Sie, ob der Kompatibilitätsmodus ausgeschaltet ist, nutzen Sie eine Version ab IE 9.0, oder verwenden Sie einen anderen Browser wie bspw. Google Chrome oder Mozilla Firefox.

IFRS 2 ― Definition von 'Ausübungsbedingungen'

Date recorded:

The Staff provided an analysis of the comment letters received in relation to the IASB's proposal (included within the Exposure Draft (ED) on Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010-2012 cycle) to clarify the definition of vesting conditions in Appendix A of IFRS 2 Anteilsbasierte Vergütung by separately defining a “performance condition” and a “service condition”.

The amendment was proposed because of:

  • a perceived lack of clarity in the current definition of vesting conditions in IFRS 2, which incorporates the concepts of service conditions and performance conditions including market conditions (and vesting period);
  • the absence of a definition of non-vesting conditions; and
  • insufficient guidance on the interaction of multiple vesting conditions.

84 comment letters were received on the exposure draft.  The ED asked:

  • Question 1 - whether the respondents agreed with the Board’s proposal to amend the IFRS as described in the Exposure Draft
  • Question 2 - whether the respondents agreed with the proposed transitional provisions and effective date for the issue

The majority of respondents agreed with question 1 to amend the vesting condition definitions in IFRS 2.  They thought that the proposed amendment brought clarity and transparency to the definition and eliminated the divergence in the application of IFRS 2.

The remaining respondents agreed in general with the proposal to separately define performance conditions and service conditions; however, they raised some comments on various aspects of the proposed clarifications.  Some respondents suggested that the IASB should provide a definition of a “non-vesting condition” and consider this as part of a future annual improvements cycle.

A couple of respondents thought that the IASB should take on a broader project on IFRS 2 to address the inconsistencies identified in the definitions. One recommended that the IASB should conduct a comprehensive review of the standard (i.e. the IASB should subject IFRS 2 to a post-implementation review) instead of making numerous piecemeal amendments.

The majority of respondents agreed with the transition requirements and with the effective date of the proposed amendment to IFRS 2.

The Staff asked the Interpretations Committee whether:

  • They agreed to recommend to the IASB that they it should proceed with the amendments to IFRS 2 and add some further amendments and edits that would make the proposed amendments clearer.
  • They agreed with the proposed amendments to the Basis for Conclusions.

A couple of Committee members expressed concern over the proposed retrospective application and noted that this should be prospective.

All of the Committee members tentatively agreed with the Annual Improvements to IFRS 2.

Regarding transition, the majority of Committee members tentatively agreed to prospective application.

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.