The study notes that the potential benefits of using structured data have not been realized yet, even though the use of such data can potentially improve the way financial information can be consumed by investors, regulators, and other users. The authors argue that this is primarily the case because companies mainly see structured data and reporting as a cost burden.

Therefore, the study looks first at what companies are saying about the costs associated with their XBRL filings and then goes through several case studies to demonstrate how, with proper implementation, companies can benefit from structured data. The authors conclude that if companies:

• bring structured reporting in-house instead of using outside vendors to prepare their regulatory filings,
• implement inline XBRL so that the data is both human and machine readable, and
• curtail the use of company-specific tags

they can reduce costs, allowing both companies and users to benefit from structured reporting.

Review the full study on the CFA Institute's website.

The report notes that by mid-2017 there were 32 stock exchanges providing formal guidance to issuers on reporting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information and that stock exchanges, through their ability to influence the reporting behaviour of their listed entities, are successfully generating a rapid uptake in sustainability disclosure.

Review the report on the WFE's website.

The briefing paper covers:

• Development of IFRS 9 and expected loss accounting
• Regulatory expected loss
• Staging of provisions
• Complexities of presenting and understanding the new information

The briefing note covers an understanding of the role of banks, changes required by IFRS 9 and the expected effect on banks in applying its requirements.

Review the Briefing paper and the Briefing note on the ICAEW's website.

The working drafts address the following topics:

• Disclosure requirements (aerospace and defense and engineering and construction)
• Costs of managing investment companies (asset management)
• Soft-dollar revenue (broker-dealers)
• Revenue recognition for fixed-price contracts (power and utilities)
• Determination of whether a customer’s right to acquire additional users/copies of a delivered software product constitutes an option to acquire additional software rights or variable consideration related to software rights already purchased (software)
• Principal-versus-agent considerations related to time-share interval sales (time shares)

Comments on the working drafts are due by November 1, 2017.

For more information, see the revenue recognition page on the AICPA’s Web site.

The topics covered during the meeting were the following:

• Disclosure initiative — Principles of disclosure
• Goodwill and impairment
• Accounting policy changes
• Post-implementation review of IFRS 13
• Primary financial statements
• Property, plant and equipment
• Project updates and agenda planning
• Wider corporate reporting
• Amendments to IFRS 8 and IAS 34
• Rate-regulated activities

Review the press release and the summary of the meeting on the IASB's website.

This issue features discussions on:

• New metrics for evaluating the performance of insurers.
• Premiums versus insurance revenue.
• Contractual service margin.
• Disclosures and ratios.

Review the press release and the newsletter the IASB’s website.

Both organizations have a public interest mission and the transparency created by appropriate disclosures as a result of rigorous accounting standards promotes financial stability and enhances market discipline.

The Memorandum of Understanding notes two priorities of interaction:

• Fostering the sharing of information and the BCBS members’ views in support of work in the development of IFRS Standards and sharing information to support the understanding of interactions between IFRS Standards and the BCBS Framework.
• Fostering the sharing of information to support both parties in their work in the application of IFRS Standards on a globally consistent basis.

Review the press release and the Memorandum of Understanding on the IASB's website.

The 2018 U.S. GAAP financial reporting taxonomy “contains updates for accounting standards and other recommended improvements,” while the 2018 shared reporting taxonomy “contains elements of the GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy needed by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) filers for U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission-specific disclosure requirements.”

The study builds on close to 130 interviews of which over 100 were conducted with external parties (accountants/auditors, preparers, users, standard-setters, regulators as well as members of the different IFRS Foundation advisory groups).

Overall, the IFRS Foundation is rated highly for its transparency and independence. Its consultations are perceived as professional, open, and effective with good quality documentation. The vast majority of respondents also agree that the Foundation meets its public interest mission and the Foundation’s not-for-profit, privately organised status is not seen to have a detrimental effect on the public interest mission.

However, several weaknesses were also identified by the study. The main one is the perception that the Foundation is not timely and does not respond quickly enough to a changing world. Especially long development and consultation phases are seen as a weakness, which are attributed to a lack of proper balance right between quantity of due process and speed and to a tendency to be too technical or conceptual. Respondents would also like to see more opportunities to engage outside the consultation process through informal dialogue, training, and events. Stakeholders also feel that both smaller companies and developing markets are at risk of being sidelined, and call for greater consideration of difficulties they may experience implementing standards.

The report offers six recommendations for the Foundation: continue the good work; improve outreach and consult more widely; develop events, training and education; improve timeliness; respond to the need for simple, practical, and workable standards; and harness advocates to act as ambassadors

The full report and a corresponding press release are available on the IASB website.

The Global Public Policy Committee (GPPC)¹ paper, The auditor’s response to the risks of material mis­state­ment posed by estimates of expected credit losses under IFRS 9, is addressed primarily to the audit com­mit­tees of sys­tem­i­cally-im­por­tant banks, although much of its content will be relevant to other banks and financial in­sti­tu­tions, and aims to promote the im­ple­men­ta­tion of accounting for expected credit losses to a high standard.

The paper notes that in­tro­duc­tion of new re­quire­ments for the accounting of expected credit losses in IFRS 9, Financial In­stru­ments, will be a sig­nif­i­cant change to the financial reporting of banks when required in 2018. Banks are expected to design and implement high-qual­ity policies, pro­ce­dures, internal controls, systems and models in ac­cor­dance with the accounting standard to enable bank man­age­ment to exercise ap­pro­pri­ate judge­ments when es­ti­mat­ing expected credit losses (ECL).

However, the paper also notes that there are risks of material mis­state­ment related to the es­ti­ma­tion of ECL under IFRS 9, are as a result of: the com­plex­ity of es­ti­mat­ing expected losses; a higher number of inputs and as­sump­tions, which are subject to judgement; an increased es­ti­ma­tion un­cer­tainty; and the potential magnitude of the ECL estimate for sys­tem­i­cally-im­por­tant banks.

The GPPC hopes the paper will help those charged with gov­er­nance to ef­fec­tively evaluate the quality of the auditor’s response to the risks of material mis­state­ment posed by estimates of expected credit losses.

For further details refer to the press release on the GPPC’s website.

____________________

¹ The Global Public Policy Committee (GPPC) of the six largest international accounting networks comprises rep­re­sen­ta­tives of BDO, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, KPMG and PwC, and focuses on public policy issues for the pro­fes­sion.