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.

Highlights from the FASB’s November 2 meeting

  • FASB meeting Image

Nov 02, 2015

At its November 2, 2015, meeting, the FASB discussed (1) the disclosure framework, (2) pension costs and postretirement benefit costs, and (3) the conceptual framework.

Disclosure framework: disclosure review — defined benefit plans

The FASB tentatively decided to require nonpublic entities to “disclose the effects of a one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates on the (a) aggregate of the service and interest cost components of net periodic benefit costs and (b) benefit obligation for postretirement health care benefits.” In addition, the Board directed the staff to begin drafting a proposed ASU for vote by written ballot.

For more in­for­ma­tion, see the meeting minutes on the FASB’s Web site.

Improving the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost

The FASB discussed feedback received on the review draft of the proposed ASU. Topics on which reviewers commented included the following:

  • “Presentation of prior service cost or credit.”
  • “Capitalization of net benefit cost for a rate-regulated entity.”
  • “Separate line item or items outside operating items, if applicable.”

In addition, the Board directed the staff to begin drafting a proposed ASU for vote by written ballot.

For more in­for­ma­tion, see the meeting minutes on the FASB’s Web site.

Conceptual framework — measurement

The FASB discussed:

  • “Estimating market prices and cost-based amounts.”
  • “The effect on understandability of using different methods of determining carrying amounts.”
  • “The relationship of information about management performance to the objective of financial reporting.”

No decisions were made during this session.

For more in­for­ma­tion, see the meeting minutes on the FASB’s Web site.

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.