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.

IFRS 2 — Definition of vesting conditions

Date recorded:

The Staff provided an analysis of the comment letters received in relation to the IASB's proposal (included within the Exposure Draft (ED) on Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010-2012 cycle) to clarify the definition of vesting conditions in Appendix A of IFRS 2 Share-based Payment by separately defining a “performance condition” and a “service condition”.

The amendment was proposed because of:

  • a perceived lack of clarity in the current definition of vesting conditions in IFRS 2, which incorporates the concepts of service conditions and performance conditions including market conditions (and vesting period);
  • the absence of a definition of non-vesting conditions; and
  • insufficient guidance on the interaction of multiple vesting conditions.

84 comment letters were received on the exposure draft.  The ED asked:

  • Question 1 - whether the respondents agreed with the Board’s proposal to amend the IFRS as described in the Exposure Draft
  • Question 2 - whether the respondents agreed with the proposed transitional provisions and effective date for the issue

The majority of respondents agreed with question 1 to amend the vesting condition definitions in IFRS 2.  They thought that the proposed amendment brought clarity and transparency to the definition and eliminated the divergence in the application of IFRS 2.

The remaining respondents agreed in general with the proposal to separately define performance conditions and service conditions; however, they raised some comments on various aspects of the proposed clarifications.  Some respondents suggested that the IASB should provide a definition of a “non-vesting condition” and consider this as part of a future annual improvements cycle.

A couple of respondents thought that the IASB should take on a broader project on IFRS 2 to address the inconsistencies identified in the definitions. One recommended that the IASB should conduct a comprehensive review of the standard (i.e. the IASB should subject IFRS 2 to a post-implementation review) instead of making numerous piecemeal amendments.

The majority of respondents agreed with the transition requirements and with the effective date of the proposed amendment to IFRS 2.

The Staff asked the Interpretations Committee whether:

  • They agreed to recommend to the IASB that they it should proceed with the amendments to IFRS 2 and add some further amendments and edits that would make the proposed amendments clearer.
  • They agreed with the proposed amendments to the Basis for Conclusions.

A couple of Committee members expressed concern over the proposed retrospective application and noted that this should be prospective.

All of the Committee members tentatively agreed with the Annual Improvements to IFRS 2.

Regarding transition, the majority of Committee members tentatively agreed to prospective application.

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.