Outreach event on the principles of disclosure discussion paper in London

30 May, 2017

On Tuesday 4 July 2017, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) together with EFRAG, will host a joint outreach event in London on the IASB discussion paper DP/2017/1 'Disclosure Initiative — Principles of Disclosure'.

The 2.5 hour event will introduce the main elements of the discussion paper and seeks input on a number of the key questions in the paper that will be used by EFRAG and FRC in providing their input to the IASB.

Please click for additional information:

Recent sustainability and integrated reporting developments

30 May, 2017

A summary of recent developments at the Natural Capital Coalition, A4S, the SASB and ACCA/IIRC.

The Natural Capital Coalition has launched a public consultation on a Finance Sector Supplement to the Natural Capital Protocol. The supplement will focus on banking, investment, and insurance. Please click to access the consultation page on the Natural Capital Coalition website.

The Prince of Wales' Accounting for Sustainability project (A4S) has published a social and human capital accounting guide with practical examples and suggested tools and guidance for how social and human capital can be integrated into decision making. The guide has been developed by finance teams for finance teams, but will also be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the key challenges faced by organisations when undertaking social and human capital accounting. Please click to access the guide on the A4S website.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has announced commissioning a rigorous, independent analysis of the potential economic implications of widespread corporate adoption of SASB standards by publicly-traded U.S. companies for the disclosure of material sustainability information. The paper is being developed to examine and understand the potential costs and benefits surrounding the implementation of SASB's standards. Please click to access the announcement on the SASB website.

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) together with AVIVA and Barclays will be hosts of a roundtable Building a more sustainable economy in Europe: Non-financial information and sustainable finance – what next? on 21 June 2017 in Brussels. More information is available through the press release on the IIRC website.

Responses to the IASB exposure draft regarding prepayment features with negative compensation

29 May, 2017

The comment deadline on the IASB's exposure draft ED/2017/3 'Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Proposed amendments to IFRS 9)' has ended. The majority of stakeholders' responses are negative, but for different reasons.

The responses to ED/2017/3 seem to fall into three major categories (the links below are to individual submissions on the IASB's website or each submitting organisation's website):

  • Those who believe that there never was an issue with IFRS 9. Among these is the German standard-setter ASCG who states: "Generally speaking, a majority of our Committee members is of the view that IFRS 9 would not have required any changes. These members do not share the view that IFRS 9.B4.1.11(b) excludes financial instruments with symmetric prepayment features comprising potentially “negative” compensation." The South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) joins the statement: "[W]e do not believe an exception is required for this but merely a clarification or additional guidance." And the South Korean standard-setter KASB adds: "[C]oncerns have been raised about whether those suggested cases are common and widespread enough to require an amendment."
  • Those who believe that changes to IFRS 9 are needed, but the approach is wrong/might have unintended consequences . The French standard-setter ANC notes: "ANC is still convinced that an alternative solution, i.e. clarification, is worth being contemplated in order to provide a simpler and also immediately applicable solution." The UK standard-setter FRC notes a "not convincing" rationale regarding the exclusion of fiinancial asset where the fair value of the prepayment feature is not insignificant. And the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) states: "We are not, however, supportive of the IASB’s proposed solution, which is overly complex, introduces unwelcome asymmetry and could result in unintended consequences." Deloitte joins the group of sceptical voices and raises "concerns with the way the amendment is structured and drafted".
  • Those who believe that changes to IFRS 9 might be warranted, but the timing is wrong. The Japanese standard-setter ASBJ is "gravely concerned" regarding the comment period of 30 days and believes that with the effective date of IFRS 9 approaching any amendment to IFRSs should be very limited in scope. And the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) notes that it "has serious concerns about [the] purpose and timing" of the proposed amendments and would consequently suggest "that the IASB better articulates why it decided to propose these amendments at this particular point in time, as the mandatory application of IFRS 9 is just a few months away". The Canadian standard-setter AcSB adds: "We are also very concerned that modifying IFRS 9 within a few months before the effective date can negatively affect the implementation efforts of preparers, auditors and users of the financial statements." EFRAG notes that the timing problems can be mitigated to a certain degree by a different effective date: "EFRAG recommends that the IASB change the effective date to 1 January 2019, with early application permitted, rather than the date proposed in the Amendments. This is in order to provide more time for Europe's and other jurisdictions' translation and/or endorsement processes and to address the concerns of SEC-filers."

The IASB is in the process of posting all responses to the exposure draft to its website.

Deloitte comment letter on ESA Consultation

29 May, 2017

The European Economic Area member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited have responded to the European Commission’s consultation on “The Operations of the European Supervisory Authorities”.

High-level but strong messages on a few core principles for standard-setting and enforcement activities that we believe are particularly relevant for the EU environment are:

  • Separation of powers
  • Balance of powers
  • Stakeholders’ involvement

With regard to the first point, we agree with the common European position as regards Question 15 of the consultation and stress:

[A] separation of powers between the activities of standard-setting, enforcement and final decisions on sanctions favours independent decision-making and mitigates the risks of conflicts of interests.

Please click to download our full comment letter.

IVSC intends to establish Financial Instruments Board

29 May, 2017

The International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) is looking to put in place a Financial Instruments Board that will sit alongside its Tangible Assets Board and its Business Valuation Board.

More information is available in the call for applications on the IVSC website.


New Banking and Finance Newsletter with interview with Jean-Paul Gauzès

29 May, 2017

The newest edition of the European Commission's Banking and Finance Newsletter offers an interview with the EFRAG President.

The interview touches on the role of EFRAG and how it contributes to improving European financial reporting and standard setting as well as how EFRAG works together with the IASB. Mr Gauzès also notes his thoughts on what he sees as EFRAG's main priorities for the coming years.

Please click to access the interview on the EC website.

IASB publishes Request for Information on the post-implementation review of IFRS 13

25 May, 2017

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments from stakeholders to identify whether IFRS 13 'Fair Value Measurement' provides information that is useful to users of financial statements; whether there are areas of IFRS 13 that are difficult to implement and may prevent the consistent implementation of the standard; and whether unexpected costs have arisen in connection with applying or enforcing the standard.

The post-implementation review process for IFRS 13 was officially added to the IASB's agenda in January 2017. Before that, the IASB had been gathering information to determine the scope of the review and to identify the main questions that need to be answered before the implementation of IFRS 13 can be assessed.

The information gathered so far indicates that many stakeholders believe that IFRS 13 works well and has led to significant improvements. This is in line with the findings of the FASB's post-implementation review (PIR) of the US GAAP Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement - both standards are the result of a joint convergence project.

However, IASB stakeholders contacted so far have identified four broad areas where IFRS 13 to their mind might still benefit from improvements. These four areas are the backbone of the RFI:

  • Disclosures about fair value measurements. Some of the disclosure requirements for Level 3 fair value measurements are perceived as onerous while at the same time their usefulness is questioned.
  • Prioritising Level 1 inputs or the unit of account. IFRS 13 is perceived as not clear on whether entities should prioritise Level 1 inputs or the unit of account when determining the fair value of investments in joint ventures and associates.
  • Application of the concept of the highest and best use. Concerns in this area regard the implications of applying the concept of highest and best use in the measurement of groups of operating assets.
  • Application of judgement in specific areas. Challenges around this have been mentioned to the IASB and the question is whether further support could be helpful.

In addition those areas, the IASB also encourages respondents to raise any issues that they have come across but that have not been covered by the questions in the RFI. Also, the RFI asks respondents whether the IASB should strive to maintain convergence with US GAAP Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in any changes that might be the result of the PIR.

After the comment period ends, the IASB will consider the comments received along with information gathered through other consultation activities and findings from research on the topic. The final conclusions of the IASB will be presented in a report and a feedback statement which will also set out the steps the IASB believes should be taken as a result of the review.

Comment deadline is 22 September 2017. The request for information and a corresponding press release are available on the IASB website. In addition, the IASB has released a call for research seeking applications to undertake a literature review, bringing together the existing academic literature on the effect of implementation of IFRS 13.

Our related Need to know publication is available here.

The Bruce Column — Sunshine and the ideas behind management commentary

25 May, 2017

The concept of management commentary has long been perceived by the IASB like a worrying cloud hovering over financial reporting. But the sun may be about to break through. A speech by Hans Hoogervorst, Chairman of the IASB, looks likely to have confirmed that the weather has changed, reports our regular columnist, Robert Bruce.

The latest IASB thoughts on the subject come under the project of ‘wider corporate reporting’, in the form of a paper published a few weeks ago bearing the title ‘Implications for the Board: options for the work plan’. I looked back through my archive and found a column I had written for the Financial Times well over a decade ago. This weighed up the discussion paper published by the IASB then on the topic of, you have guessed it, management commentary. ‘The danger’, a member of the project team said at the time, ‘is that financial reporting becomes more complicated and difficult to follow’. The IASB then thought of management commentary as a tool to fill the gap, and provide explanations outside the existing reporting. 

Fifteen years ago it was felt, eventually, that the concepts of management commentary were not central to the IASB’s task. It was felt that it would be useful to explain the effects of IFRSs but it was not core to the IASB’s purpose. A Practice Statement was produced in 2010 but was seen as having limited effect.   Again in 2015, there were echoes of this mindset in the IFRS Foundation’s views that suggested that the Board should not broaden the scope of its work into areas outside the boundaries of traditional reporting. 

But the wind seems to have changed course.  And what the IASB Chairman said recently, in a speech in New York, has signaled a change in the weather.  Across the last decade the argument has sharpened. Reporting on human and intellectual capitals and climate change, for example, has become a mainstream demand.  When it was developed, the Management Commentary Practice Statement focused on providing complementary and supplementary information to the financial statements and many of the content elements it recommended are to be found in the Integrated Reporting <IR> framework. But integrated reporting is more than this. And the time may have come for an update to the IASB Practice Statement. 

The IASB Chairman made this very clear in his New York speech the other day. ‘Since the publication of our Management Commentary Practice Statement in 2010 the world has moved on’ he said.

Since then the <IR> framework has become widely adopted and the UK’s guidance on the concept of a strategic report is seen as mainstream.  In Hans Hoogervorst’s words: ‘They put more emphasis on interconnectivity among elements of an integrated report’.  They look at ‘how developments in the external environment have affected a company’s business model and strategy’, he said.  It is time for change.  And as Hoogervorst put it: ‘We are especially well placed to make sure there is a good fit and connectivity between financial reports and non-financial information which I believe to be essential to the success of integrated reporting’.  These are encouraging words.  Now more than ever people need integrated reporting-style reporting.  This consistent approach with management commentary would be very helpful. 

Summary of the March 2017 CMAC meeting

24 May, 2017

The IASB has released a summary of the Capital Markets Advisory Committee (CMAC) meeting, which was held in London on 16 March 2017.

The topics discussed at the meeting included:

  • Primary financial statements
  • Rate-regulated activities
  • Clarifications to IFRS 8 arising from the post-implementation review
  • IFRS 3 Business Combinations: Definition of a business
  • Disclosure Initiative — outreach planning for the Disclosure Initiative — Principles of Disclosure discussion paper and case studies
  • Education session — insurance contracts

The next CMAC meeting will take place on 15–16 June 2017.

For more information, see the meeting page and the meeting summary on the IASB's website.

PIR of IFRS 13 to be substantiated by a literature review

24 May, 2017

The IASB will launch the public phase of the post-implementation review (PIR) of IFRS 13 'Fair Value Measurement' either later this week or early next week (in "May" according to the IASB's work plan). The IASB is now also calling for applications to undertake a literature review on the effect on IFRS 13.

The call for research seeks applications to undertake a literature review, bringing together the existing academic literature on the effect of implementation of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The IASB expects to receive a full literature review and a summary, which highlight findings in the existing literature as they relate to the areas of focus in the Board’s PIR of IFRS 13.

Please click to access the call for applications on the IASB website.

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.