Reactions to the proposed amendments intended to address concerns about the different effective dates of IFRS 9 and the forthcoming new insurance contracts standard

  • IFRS - IASB Image

Feb 08, 2016

On December 9, 2015, the IASB published ED/2015/11 'Applying IFRS 9 'Financial Instruments' with IFRS 4 'Insurance Contracts' (Proposed amendments to IFRS 4)'. The comment deadline for this ED has now ended.

ED/2015/11 proposed two options for entities that issue insurance contracts within the scope of IFRS 4:

  • an option that would permit entities to reclassify, from profit or loss to other comprehensive income, some of the income or expenses arising from designated financial assets; this is the so-called overlay approach;
  • an optional temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 for entities whose predominant activity is issuing contracts within the scope of IFRS 4; this is the so-called deferral approach.

The comment letters on the ED made available on the IASB's Web site seem to focus on two questions:

  1. Is one of the two approaches preferable?/ Can one or the other be dropped altogether?
  2. How can predominance best be determined for the deferral approach?/ What is the appropriate level for assessing predominance?

On the first question, the vast majority of respondents state that both approaches are needed. They claim that both the overlay approach and the temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 are needed as these address different issues depending on the type of business activities and group structures. On the ends of the spectrum are the insurance industry on the one side, and user organizations on the other side. The insurance industry is asking for a deferral of IFRS 9 until the insurance standard is completed; they mostly cite cost reasons. Some user groups are asking for the overlay approach only, some very few even argue that it is best to do nothing; these respondents mainly cite lack of comparability if multiple options exist.

One level down, it is especially the deferral approach that triggers suggestions for refinement. While most respondents agree that assessing predominance is the right approach, the IASB's proposal to assess predominance "at the reporting entity level" causes confusion. Most respondents seem to believe that the IASB sees the group level as the reporting entity level. Others believe that "reporting entity level" is an empty phrase that could also mean lower levels than the group level. The question of how to treat conglomerates is important in both cases. Therefore, respondents assuming that the IASB intends testing at the group level often argue that a testing "below the reporting entity level" is needed; respondents assuming an assessment at a lower level often wonder of the implications for the group. The two possibilities that seem to emerge are:

  • Assessment is at the group level and results are cascaded down - this would leave pure insurance companies that are subsidiaries of conglomerates without the option of deferral while companies that are not subsidiaries of conglomerates would have the option.
  • Assessment is at a lower level than the group level, however, there is the question of roll-up - this could either mean that groups need to consolidate IFRS 9 and IAS 39 numbers or that qualifying subsidiaries would need to keep two sets of books - an IAS 39 one for reporting to their users and an IFRS 9 one for reporting within the group.

Expectations are currently (as communicated at the October 2015 IASB meeting) that the IASB will begin re-deliberation of the exposure draft in the second quarter of 2016. Final amendments are expected in the third quarter of 2016.

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.