This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Comments received on IFRS 5 — Agenda Consultation feedback

Date recorded:

The 2015 Agenda Consultation requested respondents’ views regarding a proposed IFRS 5 research project. The staff provided the Board with an update regarding responses relating to this as well as those from an online survey and outreach activities.

Responses to the Agenda Consultation:

29% of respondents referred to the possible IFRS 5 research project. This project appears to be more important to accountancy firms or bodies and to standard-setters and no investor comment letters referred to IFRS 5.  60% of respondents are based in Europe and no responses received from African, Latin American or North American respondents identified IFRS 5 as an important topic.

Respondents referred to the number of IFRS 5-related issues raised with the IFRS IC as a potential indication of a necessary broader review of IFRS 5.

Responses to the online survey:

Despite no specific question relating to IFRS 5 being included in the survey, two of the 169 respondents identified IFRS 5 as a standard with a high priority for improvement.

Outreach conducted:

A number of participants in outreach activities expressed concern regarding the number of submissions to the IFRS IC regarding IFRS 5.

Staff analysis:

The staff think that the Board should consider a review of IFRS 5 either as a research project or in the form of a post-implementation review.

Discussion:

The discussion focussed on whether or not the Board could conduct post-implementation reviews of ‘old’ standards. Staff indicated that the Board could initiate a review if it felt that it was necessary.

Some members raised a concern that initiating a post-implementation review would create an expectation of standard-setting action to address any issues identified. This could lead to a further strain being placed on available resources.

Related Topics

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.