The IASB set out on the agenda consultation identifying five key aspects that should be reflected in the strategic approach towards a future agenda:

• the IFRS community has become more diverse
• the market environment has become more complex
• there are a number of changes that require implementation
• the quality and relevance of the standards needs to demonstrated
• the risk that practices related to implementation and adoption will diverge.

The Request for Views: Agenda Consultation 2011 published in July 2011 and opening up the agenda to all received general attention and the impressive amount of 243 comment letters. Five broad themes emerged in the responses:

• First, respondents asked that a decade of almost continuous change in financial reporting should be followed by a period of relative calm.
• Second, there was almost unanimous support for the IASB to prioritise work on the Conceptual Framework, which would provide a consistent and practical basis for standard setting.
• Third, the IASB was asked to make some targeted improvements that respond to the needs of new adopters of IFRSs.
• Fourth, the IASB was asked to pay greater attention to the implementation and maintenance of the Standards.
• Finally, the IASB was asked to improve the way in which the IASB develops new Standards, by conducting more rigorous cost-benefit analysis and problem definition earlier on in the standard-setting process.

As a result, the IASB’s future technical programme will focus on three areas: implementation and maintenance (including post-implementation reviews), the Conceptual Framework, and a small number of major IFRS projects. Among the latter are the four current major projects (financial instruments, leases, revenue recognition, and insurance) as well as three new or revived projects: Agriculture, in particular, bearer biological assets, rate-regulated activities, and separate financial statements: use of the equity method.

Concurrently with the announcement of the agenda, the IASB also announced a revised process for developing standards. The current usual process of proposal -> agenda decision -> discussion paper -> exposure draft -> standard -> post implementation review will now include a research phase, thus starting the process with research, then a discussion paper, then a proposal, before an agenda decision is made. This means a project to develop a new IFRS will only be considered after the research has been published in a discussion paper, which would be open for public comment. Not all research will lead to a standards-level project.

The feedback statements identifies the following issues for the research phase:

• Emissions trading schemes
• Business combinations under common control
• Discount rates
• Equity method of accounting
• Intangible assets, including extractive activities and research & development activities
• Financial instruments with the characteristics of equity
• Foreign currency translation
• Non-financial liabilities (amendments to IAS 37)
• Financial reporting in high inflationary economies.

In addition, the feedback statement identifies three "long term" topics that, because of their nature and complexity, cover matters for which the IASB does not plan to issue a Discussion Paper or research document within the next three years but where it encourages other standard-setters to investigate these topics on its behalf: income taxes, post-employment benefits, and share-based payments.

Lastly, the IASB points to "other activities" where it is aware that work needs to be done: The IASB is establishing a consultative group to assess the relationship between Shariah-compliant transactions and instruments and IFRS and to help educate the IASB, mainly through public education sessions. The IASB is also undertaking a short-term initiative to explore opportunities to see how those applying IFRS can improve and simplify disclosures within the existing disclosure requirements. Sustainability reporting is not considered in the feedback statement or on the future agenda of the IASB. The IASB is convinced that there are other standard-setters well capable of handling this topic, so that the IASB can focus on accounting and financial reporting.

The IASB also points out that it is putting increased efforts into developing a network of national accounting standard-setting and regional bodies that are involved with accounting standard-setting.

Please click for the following documents on the IASB website:

• Press release
• Feedback statement

Summary of projects included in the Feedback Statement

The objective of these joint outreach events—which were held together with various national standard setters and user organisations—was to gather evidence from European constituents on their experiences preparing and/or using information under IFRS 8 Operating Segments as a contribution to EFRAG’s response to the IASB Request for Information. Click for the feedback statements on each event (all links to the EFRAG website):

• Brussels (11 October) — Feedback statement
• Copenhagen (29 October) — Feedback statement
• Warsaw (8 November) — Feedback statement
• Frankfurt (13 November) — Feedback statement

A consolidated feedback statement for all sessions on IFRS 8 has also be published on the EFRAG website. The consolidated feedback statement also includes feedback from a meeting of the EUMEDION Audit Committee in Amsterdam and a meeting of the EFFAS Financial Accounting Commission in Brussels.

For more information on this series of European outreach events, please see the Autumn 2012 Outreach Events page on the EFRAG website.

In total 68 submissions were received on the consultation, 82% of which were received from EU countries and 18% from non-EU countries and international institutions and organisations.

Among the EU respondents, Germany was the most vociferous: 16 of the total of 56 EU submissions came from Germany. Germany was also the most reluctant respondent: Concerning the countries of origin of the 19 "No" responses to the question whether IPSAS were suitable for adoption in the EU, 10 were received from Germany, 4 from France, 3 from Austria and 1 each from the Netherlands and Poland.

Over all, the impression was more balanced. Roughly one third of respondents each answered the question regarding suitability with "Yes", "Partly", and "No" respectively, with "Yes" taking a slight lead (38%).

Supporters of IPSAS stressed the need to improve the accountability, transparency and comparability of public sector accounts, especially in the light of the sovereign debt crisis. They were considered important in order to improve government financial management and to increase the confidence of citizens and the capital markets.

The main arguments against the implementation of IPSAS concerned their incompleteness with respect to public sector accounting requirements (e.g. with regard to taxation, social benefits), their complexity, the heaviness of rules on disclosure, the conceptual framework (which is currently under review by the IPSAS Board and might lead to a complete revision of existing standards), the strong link to IFRS, and the IPSAS governance arrangements.

Please click for the full summary of responses on the Eurostat website.

IFRSs include Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the former International Accounting Standards Committee and Interpretations as issued by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee. It may be used as a guide to assist in considering compliance with the requirements of the IFRSs. It is not a substitute for understanding such pronouncements and seeking the advice of a qualified professional adviser.

Click for:

• IFRS Compliance, Presentation and Disclosure Checklist 2012 (Excel file, 3,997k)

We support the proposal to establish an Accounting Standards Advisory Forum as being an appropriate means to utilise the technical skills and experience that exist in national and regional standard-setting bodies in the development and implementation of IFRSs. We encourage the Trustees to establish the Forum as quickly as possible.

We see the Forum as assisting the IASB to accomplish two distinct but related aims: the development of high-quality financial reporting standards; and assist in facilitating the incorporation/ endorsement of such standards without modification in the financial reporting framework of individual jurisdictions. We suggest establishing an objective for the Forum that clearly identifies these two aims.

For the composition of the ASAF we suggest engaging a network of national standard-setters, regional groups of standard-setters and bodies involved with standard-setting from those jurisdictions that have incorporated IFRSs into their financial reporting framework and those considering such an action. However, we do not fully agree with the form the ASAF is designed to have:

Whilst we recognise the desire of the IFRS Foundation to make the Forum an efficient body, we think that it is possible to achieve efficiency with a body of more than 12 members. As such, we do not support the explicit size and distribution of seats proposed in the Invitation to Comment, which we see as overly mechanistic and promoting (wittingly or unwittingly) a perception of exclusivity—something we see as undesirable.

Also, we suggest appointing co-chairs (one from the IASB and one from the other Forum members) as it would be a visible indicator of the collaborative nature of the Forum. We also think that Forum member organisations should be allowed to send other representatives than the designated representative if this seems helpful for particular technical discussions of the Forum.

We also point out that it is unclear who will appoint the Forum. The Invitation to Comment was issued by the IFRS Foundation Trustees, but is silent on whether the Trustees or the IASB will appoint members.

Click for access to the comment letter.

Delegates attended the meeting from Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Russia and South Africa.  The IASB was represented by Mr. Ian Mackintosh (IASB vice-chair), Mr. Amaro Gomes (IASB board member) and Mr. Wayne Upton (IASB Director of International Activities and Chair of the IFRS Interpretations Committee).

The EGG is designed to enhance the voice of emerging economies in the process of setting IFRSs, including discussing specific accounting issues from emerging economies’ perspectives.

Whilst the communiqué does not provide a lot of detail on the discussions around the various issues, the following papers have also been made available on the IASB's website, and provide additional background information (bolded links are to the IASB's website):

• Transactions under common control - an in-depth paper prepared by the Korean Accounting Standards Board (KASB) discussing various accounting issues arising from both business combinations and other transactions involving parties under common control, including the definition and boundaries of common control transactions, types of common control transactions, and accounting for such transactions in consolidated and separate financial statements
• Hybrid/compound financial instruments - a paper prepared by the Brazilian Accounting Standards Board outlining issues identified in classifying particular types of hybrid financial instruments commonly issued in Brazil and other emerging economies under IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation
• Impairment of financial instruments - another paper prepared by the Brazilian Accounting Standards Board outlining developments  in the IASB's project on financial instrument impairment, including general and specific issues arising in emerging economies of adopting the proposed 'three bucket' model.

The meeting also included general discussion on activities of the EEG and other matters.

The next EEG meeting will be held in Korea in May 2013.  Click for EEG Communiqué (link to IASB website).

The following topics are discussed:

• The IASB's rationale for replacing IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement
• The current classification and measurement requirements of IFRS 9
• The reasons for proposing changes to IFRS 9
• Details of the proposed limited scope amendments to IFRS 9 outlined in ED/2012/4 Classification and Measurement: Limited Amendments to IFRS 9, including the proposed 'fair value through other comprehensive income' (FVOCI) category

Click to view Patrick Finnegan: IFRS 9—Limited Amendments, Significant Improvements (link to IASB website). All Investor Perspectives are archived on the IASB's website.

EFRAG supports efforts to clarify current requirements on using revenue-based methods of depreciation and amortisation. However, EFRAG noted a contradiction to be addressed by the IASB:

[W]e believe that the IASB should remove the seeming contradiction between the standard and the Basis for Conclusions by reflecting the reasoning — that there are circumstances where revenue might be an appropriate proxy for the use of an asset — presented in paragraphs BC3 to BC5 in the body of the standard.

Click for:

• EFRAG press release with link to the draft comment letter (link to EFRAG website).
• Our previous story on the Exposure Draft ED/2012/5 Clarification of Acceptable Methods of Depreciation and Amortisation (Proposed Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 38).

Comments on the letter are invited by 11 March 2013.

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.

In addition to Andreas Barckow, Marios Cosma (Cyprus) and Bill Hicks (UK) were appointed. The existing EFRAG TEG members Gabi Ebbers and Araceli Mora were reappointed. Françoise Flores was reappointed as the EFRAG Chairman.

Please click for the EFRAG press release announcing the appointments and offering comments by Hans van Damme, Acting Chair of the Nominating Committee of the EFRAG Supervisory Board, and Françoise Flores (link to EFRAG website).