The principal issue arising from the review, which has led to a prior period restatement, related to the company’s methodology for estimating the fair value of biological assets (palm oil trees) in the balance sheet.

In the specific case under review, the FRRP concluded that:

• The historical apportionment method applied by the company was not an acceptable approach to calculating a fair value for biological assets, as required by IAS 41 Agriculture.
• The company’s use of historical rather than current data as inputs to its valuation model resulted in an overstatement of the fair value of the biological assets.

Pease click here for the full press release on the FRC’s website

The guidance has been issued in order to restore damaged confidence in the reliability of market indices and benchmarks in the wake of recent alleged manipulation in LIBOR and FOREX markets.  It will allow submitters to, and providers of, market rates, indices and benchmarks to obtain assurance based upon an agreed framework. 

The ICAEW comment: 

Confidence in benchmarks, indices and market rates is vital to a well-functioning financial system.  These rates can affect not only market transactions but the prices people pay for energy bills, petrol, foreign exchange and mortgages. 

The guidance, written for “audit and assurance practitioners who will undertake to express an opinion on benchmark or index submissions and compilations” covers areas such as:

• Agreeing the engagement;
• Planning and performing the engagement; and
• Reporting and documentation 

Although, directed at auditors, the ICAEW highlight that the guidance will also be of interest to other parties such as compilers and publishers of benchmarks and indices and directors of companies and institutions which contribute to a benchmark, index or other reported price compilation. 

The guidance, ‘TECH02/14FSF: Assurance reports on benchmarks and indices’ can be downloaded from the ICAEW website.

The proposed guide, Developing and Reporting Supplementary Financial Measures — Definition, Principles, and Disclosures, is the latest in a series of International Good Practice Guidance (IGPG) publications developed by the PAIB. The PAIB Committee develops the IGPG as part of its objective of serving IFAC member bodies and professional accountants worldwide who work in commerce, industry, financial services, education, and the public and not-for-profit sectors.

The draft guide notes that supplementary financial measures are often designed to asset management, investors and other stakeholders in understanding performance. Such measures are used in internal and external reporting, are also used outside of financial reporting, such as in the measurement of debt covenants contained in debt agreements.

'Supplementary financial measures' are defined in the draft guide as "those financial measures not specifically identified by a GAAP framework" - also referred to other contexts as 'non-GAAP information' or 'alternate performance measures'. Such measures characteristically do not have accepted definitions and use selected information, including adding or omitting amounts from GAAP measures. Adjustments to GAAP measures might be made on the basis of management assumptions, judgements and estimates, with or without reference to GAAP.

The guide proposes to use the concepts in the Conceptual Framework developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), particularly the qualitative characteristics of useful financial information, as the basis of principles that should be used to determine whether a supplementary financial measure has sufficient attributes to be reported. These principles are that supplementary financial measures should be:

• Relevant. For a supplementary financial measure to be reported, it should either be used by management in assessing performance or should be employed by knowledgeable users of the external report.
• Complete. A supplementary financial measure should provide all the information necessary for a user to understand the phenomenon being depicted. Completeness is achieved when the measure is not in need of adjustment or additional complementary information.
• Neutral. A supplementary financial measure should not be slanted, weighted, or manipulated to obtain a desired result. This requires the addressing of all relevant positive and negative items.
• Transparent. The description of a supplementary financial measure should align with its components. Additionally, a supplementary financial measure should be accompanied by sufficient explanation to render it as free as is practicable from uncertainty and estimation error.
• Understandable and verifiable. Knowledgeable users need to understand a supplementary financial measure’s construction and limitations and see that it is verifiable by being able to reach consensus that a measure faithfully represents what it purports to depict.
• Comparable. Users need to be able to compare supplementary financial measures between entities in the same industry and between periods.
• Timely. A supplementary financial measure needs to be reported at the same time as the related financial statements.

The guide proposes that measures meeting these characteristics should be capable of being reported as a supplementary financial measure. Where such measures are reported externally, additional guidance is proposed about the disclosures that should be made:

• Definition and purpose of the measure - including labelling supplementary financial measures and distinguishing them from GAAP measures
• Change in composition of a supplementary financial measure - reasons for the change and restatement of comparative information
• Quantitative reconciliation to GAAP measure - supplementary financial measures should be reconciled to any directly comparable reported GAAP measure, showing each adjustment made, or a basis of computation provided
• Accompanying contextual disclosure - information about additional or eliminated items in a measure, and other information to understand a measure's limitations
• Location - supplementary financial information reported externally should complement but not overshadow GAAP measures, and may be best presented outside of financial statements.

The disclosure of non-GAAP information is a contentious topic and has seen regulatory guidance issued or proposed in many jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. The proposals in the guide share many recommendations with these regulatory developments.

Comments on the draft guide close on 26 May 2014. Click for more information (link to IFAC website).

The “comprehensive international study” which was launched in November 2013, is the first of its kind and was based upon a literature review (to “identify specific financial reporting issues in the not-for-profit sector internationally) and an online survey of 605 people involved with not-for-profit financial reporting in over 179 countries. 

It was conducted on behalf of the CCAB, which comprises The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI), The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).  The CCAB appointed Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) to co-lead the project with colleagues from the University of Dundee, and with further support from University College, Dublin and Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.     

Although there were a number of mixed responses (by stakeholder group and world regions) to the survey, 72 per-cent of those surveyed did agree that international standards for financial reporting in the not-for-profit sector would be useful with 14 per-cent not in agreeing and 7 per-cent strongly disagreeing.  Of those that did not agree, the study finds that “the strongest objections appear to come from countries such as the UK, which already have well developed frameworks for NPO accounting”.  

The study notes that “this report is the first step towards establishing whether or not there is a case for developing harmonised international standards for NPO reporting” and identifies four possible ways forward, with option 4 commanding “a good deal of interest” based upon the survey results: 

1. Do nothing;
2. Press for improvements to existing national NPO financial reporting frameworks to address concerns identified in the study (no creation of an international standard);
3. Seek to develop international guidance on NPO reporting but not a formal accounting standard;
4. Development of international standards for NPO financial reporting, prepared by an international standard setting body, and (eventually) endorsed by appropriate regulatory regimes in jurisdictions across the globe. 

In understanding further the demand for an international standard for the not-for-profit sector and what such a standard may look like, the study highlights that “much more analysis and discussion will be needed between interested parties” including on areas such as: 

• the extent to which a formal international standard for NPO reporting would be welcomed and adopted;
• the form (content and scope) that any new standard should take;
• whether the new standard would apply to all NPOs;
• how a new standard would be developed and whether this would require a new standard-setting body for the not-for-profit sector; and
• the basis (for example International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs)) for an international standard for financial reporting in the not-for-profit sector. 

The press release and full report can be obtained from the CCAB website.

Click through for direct access to the notes:

Monday, 24 February 2014

• IASB activities update — key issues, ASAF update, conceptual framework developments, and current developments
• Trustee activities update
• International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board Governance Review
• Leases

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

• Future of corporate reporting
• IFRS Education Initiative
• Investor Outreach Strategy
• Sum up of discussion

Please click to access the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers during the meeting.

The objective of the outreach is to obtain evidence about any aspect of the application of IFRS 3 but will focus especially on the questions whether there are areas of IFRS 3 that represent implementation challenges and whether unexpected costs have arisen when meeting the requirements of the Standard. These questions are also the focus of the Request for Information Post-implementation Review: IFRS 3 Business Combinations published by the IASB on 30 January 2014 but they have been supplemented with additional questions on areas that EFRAG and the standard-setters believe call for more detailed insight.

Preparer-companies that wish to participate in this outreach should have recent experience (since 2009) in applying IFRS 3 to business combinations. Participants will be asked for their written input, in the form of a questionnaire, which will form the basis for a follow-up discussion with EFRAG staff and/or staff of the National Standard Setters. Participants are asked to submit the questionnaire by 15 April 2014.

The feedback received will assist EFRAG and its partners to prepare a response to the Request for Information. However, IASB staff will also participate directly in the process to learn about the detailed responses and to avoid creating overlap with the outreach activities the IASB is organising.

More information about how the outreach activities will be conducted and contact information for companies wishing to participate is available in the press release on the EFRAG website.  A copy of the questionnaire can be obtained from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) website.

In 2015, the Trustees will conduct a review of the overall structure and effectiveness of the IFRS Foundation, in particular, the review will seek public input on the appropriate size of the IASB. The Trustees have deferred the replacement of retiring board members (occurring in June 2014), in an effort to reduce any prejudgment when considering the size of the IASB and its geographical diversity.

In June 2014, Jan Engström and Patricia McConnell will be leaving the IASB. Mr Engström will have completed his second full term and will no longer be eligible for reappointment. Ms McConnell has decided not to seek a second term.

For more information, see the press release on the IASB website.

This composition update consists of the reappointments of current members Mike Ashley (EFRAG TEG Vice-Chairman), Joanna Frykowska, Nicklas Grip, Serge Pattyn and Andrea Toselli; and includes the new appointment of Christian Chiarasini. Outgoing members include Nicolas de Paillerets, Marios Cosma, and Bill Hicks.

It is through the TEG that the EFRAG operates. TEG makes its decisions independently of the EFRAG Supervisory Board and all other interests. The 12 voting members are selected from a range of professional and geographical backgrounds from throughout Europe. Members of the EFRAG Technical Expert Group are required to act in the public interest and not to consider themselves as representing sectoral or national interests.

EFRAG's goals pursued through the TEG are:

• to provide technical expertise to the European Commission concerning the use of IAS/IFRS within Europe,
• to participate in IASB's standard setting process,
• to coordinate within the EU the development of views concerning international accounting standards.

For more information, see the press release on the EFRAG website.