In mid-November the deadline for comments in the first of the IASB’s planned post-implementation reviews closes. Under scrutiny is IFRS 8 on Operating Segments, segmental reporting. For the first time the IASB will have gathered the evidence to assess whether the standard it introduced is producing the effects and improvements in disclosure that it had planned for and hoped for.

So the Deloitte survey: “Pieces of Eight: Surveying IFRS 8 Disclosures” provides a timely insight into IFRS 8 practices in the UK. It is based on the mass of information and analysis produced from the disclosures of 100 listed companies which feature in the main survey of annual reports produced by Deloitte.

What this survey shows, for example, is that there has been no change to the average number of reportable segments under IFRS 8 compared to its predecessor standard IAS 14. The average was three under both standards. And it also shows that the number of companies with only a single reportable segment has fallen from 18 under IAS 14 to 11 under IFRS 8.

At a time when the consistency and connection of narrative reporting with the figures is uppermost in peoples’ minds it is encouraging to see that 85% of companies were deemed to provide consistent segmentation in their narrative reporting when compared against their IFRS 8 disclosures. You would expect and hope this to be so, after all the underlying principle of IFRS 8 is based on information reported to management. But nevertheless it is a refreshing example of the theory appearing to hold true in practice, at least for most.

Click here for the full detail of the survey.

The exposure drafts follow on from earlier consultation papers issued in December 2010, and have the following titles:

• Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (ED) 2, Conceptual Framework for General Purpose Financial Reporting by Public Sector Entities: Elements and Recognition in Financial Statements (ED 2)
• Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (ED) 3, Measurement of Assets and Liabilities in Financial Statements (ED 3).

'Deferred' inflows and outflows

ED 2 proposes to define 'deferred inflows' and 'deferred outflows' as follows:

"A deferred inflow is an inflow of service potential or economic benefits provided to the entity for use in a specified future reporting period that results from a non-exchange transaction and increases net assets."

"A deferred outflow is an outflow of service potential or economic benefits provided to another entity or party for use in a specified future reporting period that results from a non-exchange transaction and decreases net assets"

Examples of deferred inflows may include items such as specific multi-year grants that do not meet the definition of a liability.   Examples of deferred outflows may include multi-year grants that stipulate they must be used over future reporting periods.  These items would be recognised as revenues or expenses as the future time periods expire.

The Basis of Conclusions accompanying ED 2 notes the prevalence of non-exchange transactions of public sector entities, particularly taxation and grants.  The IPSASB argues that it is "important to be able to show separately flows that relate to specified future reporting periods" and considered a number of different approaches in meeting this objective, including changing the definitions of 'assets' and 'liabilities', introducing an 'other comprehensive income' notion, and requiring disclosure in the notes.

The Basis of Conclusions documents the IPSASB's decision to introduce new elements of financial statements as follows:

The IPSASB... concluded that the most transparent approach is to define deferred inflows and deferred outflows as separate elements. In coming to this view the IPSASB considered it likely that, if separate elements are not defined, the treatment of flows that are considered applicable to future reporting periods is likely to be addressed on an issue-by-issue basis at the standards level, using ambiguous and potentially conflicting principles.

The practical effect of the definition of these elements may in some cases result in outcomes similar to the requirements for government grant received under IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance.  However, the IPSASB notes the deferred inflow and outflow approach is "not the same as the matching concept  used in earlier private sector frameworks".

Comparison of element definitions with the IASB

Because of the introduction of the additional elements, the definitions of other elements are different in some cases from those used under IFRS.  The table below compares the definitions between the IPSASB proposals and the IASB Conceptual Framework:

* Under the IASB's Framework, income encompasses both 'revenue' and 'gains'.  The Framework notes that gains "represent increases in economic benefits and as such are no different in nature from revenue" and so are not considered a separate element.

Measurement

ED 3 identifies the measurement concepts intended to guide the IPSASB in the selection of measurement bases for International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). The ED focuses on selecting measurement bases that meet the objectives of financial reporting-decision making and accountability. As many assets in the public sector are held for their operational capacity, the ED argues the cost basis is will often be appropriate.

Comments on the exposure drafts close on 30 April 2013.  Click for IPSASB press release (link to IFAC website).

Details of the two new modules are:

• IFRS 9 Financial Instruments: Derecognition — covering the background, scope and principles relating to the derecognition of financial instruments under IFRS 9.
• IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation — covering the key presentation requirements for financial instruments under IAS 32, as revised by the IASB in December 2011, to include additional guidance and disclosures as a result of the joint offsetting project with the FASB.

(Note: You may be asked to register to access each module - no personally identifying information is requested in the registration process.)

The release of these modules follows three new modules on IFRS 9, IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 released a number of weeks ago.  There are now 42 modules are available, tackling the key extant and new standards issues by the IASB. The IFRS e-learning modules are available free of charge and may be used and distributed freely, without alteration from the original form and subject to the terms of the Deloitte copyright over the material.

For details on the full range of e-learning modules go to Deloitte’s IFRS e-learning. A listing of available e-learning modules is also available on our IAS Plus IFRS e-learning page.

The IASB has published a transcript of a public lecture Mr Hoogervorst gave the London School of Economics on 6 November 2012.  The speech, entitled 'Accounting Harmonisation and Global Economic Consequences', covered a number of topics.  Many of these topics mirror discussion from a meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) held a day earlier on 5 November 2012, where Mr Hoogervorst participated in an exchange of views with the members of the committee.

Leases

In the lecture, Mr Hoogervorst focused on the challenges facing the leasing project in particular, where he stated that the "vast majority of lease contracts are not recorded on the balance sheet, even though they usually contain a heavy element of financing".    He went on to note that "companies tend to love off-balance sheet financing, as it masks the true extent of their leverage and many of those that make extensive use of leasing for this purpose are not happy", and outlined some of the lobbying efforts going on, including claims in the United States that "leases on balance sheet will lead to 190,000 jobs being lost in the US alone".

Noting such lobbying efforts should not be surprising, Mr Hoogervorst compared the current controversy around leases with past projects such as the expensing of share options under IFRS 2 Share-based Payment and the changes to pension accounting under IAS 19 Employee Benefits, outlining the "uphill battle" the IASB faced.  He concluded that the IASB needs "all of the help we can get, to ensure that we do not get lobbied off course" and "to counter what is a well-funded and well-resourced lobbying campaign".

The lecture echoed his comments to the ECON committee members where he warned committee members about being approached by the leasing industry as they want to "take the bite out of [the] upcoming leasing standard" and hoped he could "count on your sympathy" to support the leasing proposals.

Global adoption of IFRS

In the lecture, Mr Hoogervorst outlined how IFRS has been an important response to "globally interconnected nature of today’s financial markets" and emphasised how "repeated G20 communiqués have supported the work of the IASB and called for a rapid move towards global accounting standards".  He went on to outline his view that "momentum for IFRS becoming global standards has now become unstoppable" with so many countries adopting IFRS, reiterating his comments to the ECON committee that the "use of IFRS has reached critical mass" and he doesn't "think it can be stopped".

Turning to the specific issue of whether, and if so how, the United States will adopt IFRS, in the lecture Mr Hoogervorst stated "it is important that progress is made soon" and hoped for news in 2013.  In more candid comments to the ECON committee, he discussed Canada and Mexico's adoption of IFRS and the "country in between which is still hesitating".  He later went on to comment that it was like "waiting for Godot" and it was "really disappointing" that a U.S. decision had not yet been made, but that once "the presidential elections are out of the way" he hoped that the United States' 'big stake' in IFRS would continue.  Additionally, he stated that the "absence of a U.S. decision is not reason to stall" the IASB's work.

Accountability

In the ECON committee meeting, Mr Hoogervorst discussed how the IFRS Foundation was making efforts to be 'more inclusive and responsive to constituents'. He later commented that he'd "never before worked in an environment that is so transparent" as that at the IASB.

At a technical level, he noted that the bilateral arrangement between the IASB and FASB was effectively coming to an end, to be replaced with a new multi-lateral arrangement through the proposed Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF).  Lamenting that IASB-FASB convergence 'had not ended as hoped' and that it is difficult to reach agreement when there are two separate boards, Mr Hoogervorst wondered whether outcomes may have been different in key areas where "convergence was lost" such as financial instrument impairment and offsetting if the Boards were operating in an environment where the U.S. was committed to adopting IFRS.

Responding to committee questions about the IASB's independent status and the importance of standard setting, Mr Hoogervorst noted the 'true devotion' to the public interest embodied in the IASB, governance improvements implemented with initiatives such as the Monitoring Board,  and the endorsement mechanisms that most countries adopting IFRS use.  He reiterated the IASB's extensive due process, which can result in "five to ten years to get a standard done" and affirmed the need to "listen carefully to what constituents have to say", highlighting the important role the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF) will have in this process.

Future directions

In both the lecture and committee meeting, Mr Hoogervorst outlined the future direction of the IASB's work plan, focusing on projects such as the restarted Conceptual Framework project, and addressing specific constituent concerns, while maintaining a 'period of calm'.

There was also much discussion at the committee meeting about the IASB's project on financial instrument impairment, including the suitability of the expected loss model and questions why an "unexpected loss" model is unsuitable.

Responding to committee questions about 'country-by-country reporting' for the resources industry, Mr Hoogervorst noted that constituents had not raised this as a priority issue in the Agenda Consultation process and that it was a matter better dealt with by regulation.

Several times during the committee meeting, Mr Hoogervorst raised the question of whether accounting for goodwill needs to be revisited. Contrasting the situation where leases were 'not enough' on the balance sheet, he commented that goodwill might be "too much on the balance sheet" and that this was something he was personally worried about, particularly in relation to banks and prudential reporting.  Whilst not calling for an immediate write off or an 'arbitrary' amortisation of goodwill, Mr Hoogervorst commented that he 'wondered whether standards are strict enough'.

Click for:

• Transcript of Mr Hoogervorst's public lecture to the London School of Economics (link to IASB website)
• IASB press release about the lecture (link to IASB website)
• European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs meeting information, including a recording of the meeting (link to European Parliament website).

The Blue Book will sell for £65 plus shipping (academic, developing country, and volume discounts apply). You will find more information and ordering details here.

The Communiqué goes on to say:

We encourage the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to complete work promptly, and report to our next meeting.

The meeting also received a report from the Financial Stability Board (FSB), entitled Progress on Financial Regulatory Reforms, which includes a summary on accounting convergence.  The report discusses the progress made by the IASB and FASB, noting the recent moves towards closer alignment in the area of classification and measurement of financial instruments.  However, the report also laments the lack of convergence on financial instrument impairment.

The report further explains the FSB's concerns as follows:

Sound expected loss provisioning for financial institutions is critically important to financial stability.  Final IASB and FASB standards should result in improved provisioning practices that incorporate a broader range of available credit information than current practices, so as to recognise credit losses in loan portfolios at an earlier stage.  The FSB is concerned that the two boards have not developed a common model in this important area, and encourages them to renew their efforts to converge.

The FSB report also reiterates the importance of the overall IASB-FASB convergence process and requests a report from the boards by the end of June 2013.

Both the communiqué and FSB report cover many other topics related to improving the resilience of the financial system in response to the global financial crisis.  The communiqué also includes a commitment to "voluntarily self-report again in 2013 on our efforts to incorporate green growth and sustainable development policies into structural reform agendas, taking into account the outcome of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)".

Click for:

• the full text of the Communiqué of Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors of the G20 (link to G20 website)
• FSB report to the G20 (link to FSB website).