Überprüfung der Satzung der IASC-Stiftung 2003-2005

4 November 2003: IASC trustees announce that they will undertake a constitution review

At their meeting in Brussels on 4 November 2003, the trustees of the IASC Foundation (which oversees the IASB) announced the appointment of a committee to review the IASB's Constitution. The constitution sets out the operating procedures of the Foundation and the IASB and requires that the constitution be reviewed every five years.

The committee held its first meeting on 3 November 2003. At that meeting, the committee felt it was important to announce its existence. The procedures and timetable were also decided. Meetings would generally be open, with proposals published prior to decisions being made. A list of topics to be examined will be issued quickly without comment on the relative importance of each, though the committee recognised that some additional questions might arise in the course of their work.

The committee felt that transparency is essential. The trustees discussed staffing for the review and concluded that at most one additional staff member could be funded. They discussed, without conclusion, whether there should be an advisory board. While such a board would provide a good sounding board, some trustees were concerned that an advisory board might assume some of the power of the review committee itself. The matter of duplication of effort of the review committee and the advisory board was also discussed.

Trustees noted that the constitution is detailed and rule based. They discussed whether it provides for sufficient representation by analysts and preparers of accounts. They noted that it is sometimes difficult to get these parties involved in IASB activities and that this issue can not be resolved in the constitution.

Trustees noted that the constitution includes a list of organisations with which the IASB should consult, but some important groups (such as the Basel Committee) are not included. However the IASB Chairman noted that while the wording needed to be altered slightly, the list was not meant to be exhaustive and did not preclude consultation with other groups.

[MATCHED]12 November 2003: Details of IASCF constitution review are announced

In a Press Release (PDF 28k) on 12 November 2003, the Trustees of the IASC Foundation released details of the review of the IASCF constitution that was discussed at their meeting on 4 November.


  • Scope and consultation. The review will cover "the full range of issues raised by the constitution" and that they will be consulting a wide range of organisations, including international and regional organisations, securities regulators, other international regulatory organisations, accounting standard-setters, organisations representing the accountancy profession, organisations representing business groups, analyst groups and other investment organisations, academic groups, and the Standards Advisory Council.
  • Review committee. The committee to oversee the review will be chaired by Paul Volcker, chairman of the IASC Foundation Trustees. Committee members are IASCF Trustees John Biggs, Roberto Teixeira da Costa, Toru Hashimoto, Cornelius Herkstroter, Philip Laskawy, and Sir Sydney Lipworth.
  • Invitation to comment. The Trustees have published an Invitation to Comment setting out the issues for the constitution review. Written comments are sought by 11 February 2004. You can download the Invitation to Comment here (PDF 105k).

[MATCHED]23 March 2004: Progress on IASC Foundation constitution review

The IASC Foundation Trustees have announced the next steps in their review of the IASCF Constitution. The Trustees' Announcement (PDF 27k) said that 70 responses have been received to the November 2003 consultation paper. They are posted on IASB's Website. And the constitution committee met with the Standards Advisory Council in February. The committee will meet with the IASB's liaison standard setters and EFRAG on 26 April 2004 and will hold a series of public round-tables in at least four cities around the World from June through October. The Trustees have identified the following ten issues for review (others may be added):

Issues Identified for Review

  • Whether the objectives of the IASC Foundation should expressly refer to the challenges facing small- and medium-sized entities (SMEs).
  • Number of Trustees and their geographical and professional distribution.
  • The oversight role of the Trustees.
  • Funding of the IASC Foundation.
  • The composition of the IASB.
  • The appropriateness of the IASB's existing formal liaison relationships.
  • Consultative arrangements of the IASB.
  • Voting procedures of the IASB.
  • Resources and effectiveness of the International Financial Reporting. Interpretations Committee (IFRIC).
  • The composition, role, and effectiveness of the Standards Advisory Council.

23 March 2004: IASB Undertakes an Internal Review of its Deliberative Processes

The IASB initiated an internal review of its own deliberative procedures alongside the Trustees' Constitution Review. As part of its internal review, on 23 March 2004 the IASB published a consultation paper, Strengthening the IASB's Deliberative Processes, inviting public comment on certain proposed improvements to its procedures. Comment deadline is 25 June 2004. Click to go to our page on the IASB's Internal Review.

[MATCHED]18 May 2004: Update on IASC Foundation constitution review

The constitution committee of the IASC Foundation has published an Update on the Constitution Review (PDF 152k). The update identifies possible approaches that the committee is considering for each of the 10 main issues that it had previously identified for consideration. The committee has also announced the dates and places of a public meetings and hearings it will hold, as follows:

Public Meeting with Subcommittee of the Standards Advisory Council

Date and Time



2 June2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.

New York, NY United States

Intercontinental Barclay Hotel 111 East 48th Street New York, NY 10017 United States

Public Hearings

Date and Time



3 June8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.

New York, NYUnited States

Baruch College 55 Lexington Avenue Room 14-220 (14th Floor)New York, NY 10010 United States

29 June 8:45 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

London, UK

IASC Foundation offices 30 Cannon Street London EC4M 6XH United Kingdom

13 July 9:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Tokyo, Japan

Nippon Keidanren Keidanren Kaikan 1-9-4 Otemachi Chiyoda-kuTokyo 100-8188 Japan

6 OctoberAfternoon (times to be announced)

Mexico CityMexico

Venue to be announced

[MATCHED]3 June 2004: Trustees meet with SAC committee on constitution review

As part of their review of the IASC Foundation Constitution, the IASCF trustees' constitution committee met, on 2 June 2004 in a public session in New York, with a constitution subcommittee of the Standards Advisory Council (SAC). The discussions focused both on the overall issues that the IASCF has identified for in-depth consideration and on the terms of reference for the SAC. The trustees will be conducting a number of meetings with interested parties, including more public hearings. Therefore, no conclusions were reached at this meeting. Presented below are the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers at the meeting.

Notes of the Meeting of the IASCF and the SAC Constitution Committees2 June 2004, New York

1. Whether the objectives of the IASC Foundation should expressly refer to the challenges facing SMEs The members believed that the issues of SMEs should be considered by the IASB, but questioned the inclusion of such a requirement in the constitution. The overall belief of the members was that if the constitution were to include such a reference, that reference should not be in the paragraph discussing rigorous application (as proposed). That is, regardless of the standards that apply to an entity, they should all be applied with rigour.

2. Number of trustees and their geographical and professional distribution The trustees have proposed equal representation from North America, Europe, and Asia/Oceana regions. Some members suggested that the constitution not include any specific criteria, but require the selection of the best people. Others argued that the regions that apply IFRS should be represented more than North America. Members were concerned that excluding North America would send a message that convergence was not important - which was not the belief of most members. That is, involvement in the process will create interest to "join the game".

Members also noted that the purpose of financial information is for users and, therefore, the regions with the most dominant capital markets should be equally represented. There was also a suggestion to add trustees with backgrounds as regulators to the requirements in the constitution.

The subcommittees briefly discussed how trustees were selected. The current IASCF Chairman expressed concern that the process was already burdensome and that adding more requirements seemed unnecessary. One member suggested appointing a nominating committee (without much support).

3. The oversight role of the Trustees The trustees had recommended that the constitution be amended to include a requirement to "carefully consider the IASB's agenda". The members expressed concern with understanding exactly what is meant by that phrase and asked the wording in the constitution to be expanded. The IASCF Chairman noted that the trustees would not have veto power over agenda items, but would require the IASB to review the agenda items with the trustees on a regular basis. The intention of the trustees was to require the IASB to bring a potential agenda item to the trustees for positive approval. It was also suggested that the trustees could require the IASB to add an item onto its agenda. There was general consensus that the Trustees role in relation to the agenda should not be strengthened to the point of approval, but should be just short of that line.

Some members expressed concern that the current IASB members do not consider the practical implementation issues related to its proposals. There was consensus that the trustees should monitor this issue actively with each project.

Several members strongly encouraged the trustees to reconsider whether it should undertake educational activities. There were questions over due process, the costs needed to build up the infrastructure, and the ability to have appropriate review by the trustees (since supposedly the IASB staff would not be used). The trustees were surprised by the level of concern and countered that if the trustees do not undertake these activities, interpretations around the world could differ. The members noted that there is nothing the trustees can do to prevent this - including issuing training materials. The staff noted that the IASB is currently developing 2-page summaries of its standards targeted to CFOs. One CFO at the table stated that he already gets those summaries from the Big 4 Firms - why does he need another one from the trustees?

4. Funding of the IASC Foundation The IASCF Chairman asked for any bright ideas on how to raise funding. The only alternative discussed was whether it was feasible to implement a fee-based structure with the exchanges. One member also suggested a nominal fee for all purchases of securities over a certain amount. The concern was that any of these suggestions would have to be implemented by changing local laws.

5. The composition of the IASB The Trustees recommended keeping 14 Board members, but allowing between 2 and 4 part-time members. There was general agreement with this approach as some noted that the part-time member from the accounting profession added significant quality and real life experience to the Board.

Some members expressed concern about the composition of the Board with 10 of 14 being "Anglos". In addition, six come from countries that don't apply IFRS. The majority of the members believe membership of the IASB should be based on competence and not nationality.

6. The appropriateness of the IASB's existing formal liaison relationships There was general support for maintaining the requirement in the constitution to have liaison relationships. There was support, however, for ensuring the constitution remains flexible to change as situations change. One European member suggested that EFRAG replace the European national standard setters in the liaison relationships. The IASCF Chairman noted this would make it much easier and was open to pursuing this suggestion.

7. Consultative arrangements of the IASB The trustees expressed concern with cluttering up the constitution with due process issues. There was a suggestion that field tests (as distinct from merely field visits) should be mandatory on all projects. While there was not general support for making field tests mandatory, there was general agreement that field tests should be used more often. Several members suggested the IASB must validate to the trustees why it did not use field tests.

Concern was raised that the current activities of the IASB do not consider the difficulties raised by users of IFRS having different language requirements. For example, 3 months is too short for a comment period as exposure drafts are not translated in time. The IASCF Chairman expressed concern about the cost of translation. There was general agreement that the cost of being an international organisation includes the cost of ensuring those companies applying IFRSs can fully understand IFRSs.

8. Voting procedures of the IASB The Trustees have proposed changing the voting requirements from a majority (8 members) to requiring the vote of 9 members. There was no objection to 9; however, one member suggested raising the requirement to 10. There was little support for this suggestion.

9. Resources and effectiveness of the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) The members recognised there is concern over IFRIC, but were not sure there was anything that related to the constitution. One member raised the question of whether IFRIC interpretations should be exposed. The general belief around the table was that recent experience suggests exposure should continue to be required.

10. The composition, role, and effectiveness of the SAC The subcommittee of the SAC presented draft recommendations to the trustees in how to improve its process. There was general concern that SAC was not operating effectively, and therefore as a result, the IASB was not receiving advice in a useable manner. The reasons for this were various and include the size of SAC, the chairmanship of SAC, etc. The SAC members suggested the SAC develop a charter that would govern its activities and submit that charter to the trustees for approval.

There was general agreement with this approach. In addition, there was general agreement the chairman of SAC should not an IASB member, but should be a paid position for either a part-time or full time individual. This issue will be discussed at a future trustees meeting.

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

[MATCHED]4 June 2004: Deloitte CEO Bill Parrett comments on constitution review

The Trustees of the IASC Foundation held the first of a series of public hearings as part of their review of the IASCF constitution on 3 June 2004 in New York. Deloitte Chief Executive Officer Bill Parrett and Deloitte Global IAS Leader Ken Wild presented our firm's views. Click to download Mr. Parrett's Opening Comments (PDF 26k).

23 November 2004: Trustees Invite Comments on Proposed Constitution Revisions

June 2005: Trustees Adopt Final Constitution Amendments

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.