In speaking about future developments, companies can deprioritize issues and engagement not related to COVID-19, which is the topic most important to investors in this moment. As stated by one major investor group, such engagement “should be postponed where not related to COVID-19 to allow management and boards the ability to focus on crisis management.”

To help directors and their management teams understand the current landscape of COVID-19 risk disclosure, NACD mined data from MyLogIQ—Multidimensional Public Company Intelligence to identify trends in 10-K filings from January 1 to March 30, 2020 using the search terms “coronavirus” and “COVID-19.”

Review the blog on the NACD's website.

Discussion points included:

• Role and Mindset
• IFAC Accountancy Education Initiative
• Tax Planning and Related Services
• eCode Phase 2
• Engagement Team-Group Audits Independence
• IAASB-IESBA Coordination
• Technology
• PIE

Review the highlights and podcast on the IESBA's website.

Proponents claim that non-GAAP measures provide better indicators of performance; critics contend that they obscure problems and impede comparability. The authors analyzed a wide array of non-GAAP measures and found that this reporting did provide some useful insights into the companies that used them, but at the expense of clarity and transparency.

Review the article on CPA Journal's website.

The research on Covid19 is changing rapidly and flattening the curve has quickly become a widely known strategy to reduce the peak demand on healthcare thanks to very important and public work of dedicated teams of epidemiologists around the world. The goals tend to be to first to bring the caseload under initial control and then manage a long-term return to normal while minimizing both death rates and economic impact. More specifically comparing and contrasting strategies such as (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread (having the so-called reproduction number R0 small but larger than 1), and (b) suppression, which aims at reversing epidemic growth, thus reducing case numbers to low levels (R0 smaller than 1). Indeed, NPI’s can be implemented that change R0 in order to control epidemic spread. What we are proposing is a systematically designed feedback strategy to change R0 through modulation of NPI’s.

Review the blog on IFAC's website.

Below is an analysis of all changes made to the work plan since our last analysis on March 21, 2020. We also note the projects the IASB intends to move forward with in April 2020.

Standard-setting projects

• No changes

Maintenance projects

• Annual improvements — 2018-2020 cycle — Final amendments are now expected in May 2020 (formerly April 2020). The following projects are part of the annual improvements:
  
  • Fees in the ‘10 per cent’ Test for Derecognition of Financial Liabilities (Amendments to IFRS 9)
  • Lease Incentives (Amendment to Illustrative Example 13 accompanying IFRS 16)
  • Subsidiary as a First-time Adopter (Amendment to IFRS 1)
  • Taxation in Fair Value Measurements (Amendment to IAS 41)
• IBOR Reform and its Effects on Financial Reporting — Phase 2 — An exposure draft is still expected in April 2020
• Onerous Contracts — Cost of Fulfilling a Contract (Amendments to IAS 37) — An IFRS amendment is now expected in May 2020 (formerly Q2 2020)
• Property, Plant and Equipment: Proceeds before Intended Use (Amendments to IAS 16) — An IFRS amendment is now expected in May 2020 (formerly March 2020)
• Updating a Reference to the Conceptual Framework (Amendments to IFRS 3) — An IFRS amendment is now expected in May 2020 (formerly April 2020)

Research projects

• Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12 — The rescheduled research review is still expected to take place in April 2020

Other projects

• Due Process Handbook Review — Final amendments are still expected in April 2020

The revised IASB work plan is available on the Board's website.

The document is intended to support the consistent application of requirements in IFRS Standards. Therefore, it highlights requirements within IFRS 9, Financial Instruments that are relevant for companies considering how the pandemic affects their accounting for expected credit losses; it does not change, remove nor add to, the requirements of IFRS 9.

Review the press release and document on the IASB's website.

Section 4014 of the CARES Act offers optional temporary relief from applying the FASB’s current expected credit losses (CECL) standard (ASU 2016-13) for certain entities. Any guidance developed by the SEC or FASB to address the CARES Act’s impact on US GAAP would most likely take into account both the scope and length of any optional deferral, will likely take into account whether any deferral should apply to all entities that were otherwise required to adopt the CECL, and would more clearly define the date of adoption if an entity chose the deferral. For more information, see Deloitte's related Heads Up newsletter as well as the CARES Act, which is available on the US Senate's website.

Other than US Senate and Congress, the IASB has concluded that the existing requirements within IFRS 9, Financial Instruments (including the IASB's CECL model) need not be changed, removed nor added to. On Friday, the IASB only released a statement to support the consistent application of requirements in IFRS 9.

The IASB's position is supported by several other communications on the application of IFRS 9 during the COVID-19 crisis.

• The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) in Canada has released a statement that includes guidance on Applying IFRS 9 in extraordinary circumstances that will allow companies to remain compliant with IFRS as issued by the IASB
• the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) of the Bank of England has released a statement Covid-19: IFRS 9, capital requirements and loan covenants that offers an annex with guidance consistent with IFRS 9 to assist firms in making well-balanced and more consistent ECL estimates and in determining how to treat payment holidays and similar schemes for accounting and regulatory purposes

All statements agree that IFRS 9 is principles-based and requires the use of experienced credit judgement and that the current situation does not lead to an undifferentiated, automatic transfer of financial instruments from Level 1 to Level 2 or even Level 3.

Earlier last week, ESMA already concluded that the principles-based nature of IFRS 9 includes sufficient flexibility to faithfully reflect the specific circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak and the associated public policy measures.

These measures, along with the delays of previously planned regulatory changes, are designed to help reduce some of the operational stress on institutions. They also ensure that OSFI’s guidance is appropriate for these extraordinary circumstances while remaining risk-focused and forward-looking.

In addition to these regulatory adjustments, OSFI provided application guidance on three aspects of accounting for ECL in extraordinary circumstances: significant increase in credit risk, reasonable and supportable forward-looking information, and disclosure. This guidance is consistent with the requirements in IFRS 9 and should be considered along with the guidance provided by the IASB on the application of the standard in relation to COVID-19.

Review the press release and guidance on the OSFI's website.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global health and humanitarian crisis. Beyond the significant challenges that lay ahead in all facets of life, the pandemic has the potential to significantly impact the way that audits are undertaken.

Review the following on the IAASB's website:

• Press release
• COVID-19 web page
• Audit considerations arising from changes due to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting employees, the economy, mobility and financial systems. It is likely that auditors may encounter scope limitations or complex auditing and accounting issues.

Review the message and audit implications on the CPAB's website.