Note: There has been no agenda paper for this session.

Board discussion

The Senior Technical Manager in charge of the session led the Board through the individual projects that had been discussed as part of the Agenda Consultation.

As regards the Primary Financial Statements project, the Agenda Consultation revealed that different respondents perceived the project differently. The staff thought the issue needed to be addressed because of the risk of alternative performance measures becoming increasingly used. The FASB work on performance reporting was also being monitored and furthermore, the previous work from the FSP project should be leveraged on.

A Board member said that it should be communicated that the Primary Financial Statements project would also cover performance reporting. The staff acknowledged that.

On Polluting Pricing Mechanism it was acknowledged that it was an emerging issue and that it is likely to become more and more widespread. There was diversity in practice that needed to be resolved by sound concepts.

As regards Rate-regulated Activities, IFRS 14 was issued as a temporary Standard and created diversity amongst IFRS preparers.  It is acknowledged that it might not be feasible to find a solution for recognition and measurement for regulatory assets.

The Chairman disagreed that IFRS 14 introduced diversity. To him, it simply incorporated existing diversity. Not all Board members shared this view.

On IAS 37, the research was largely complete and evidence was now to be compiled and documented.

Not many respondents touched on Discontinued Operations, however, the amount of queries submitted to the IFRS Interpretations Committee on that issue showed its importance.

As regards Discount Rates, the initial discussion had been completed and the evidence should now be compiled and documented as a next step. Negative interest rates became an emerging issue and the Board needed to consider whether any work should be performed in this regard.

New topics had been identified and would be brought back to the Board in the May meeting. There would also be a paper that focused on the possibility of “quick wins” that were mentioned in various comment letters.