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.


Date recorded:

The IASB staff presented a high-level summary of its Impairment proposals, in particular highlighting where it had achieved convergence with the FASB and areas where views differed.

The FASB staff presented a similar high-level summary of its proposals, and explained nuances that might have been missed. In particular, the role of FAS 5 was noted. In addition, ‘probability-weighted cash flows’ was highlighted as having a specific meaning in the US environment – something that did not travel well beyond the US. The FASB noted why it had chosen particular words or expressions, clarifying some potential misconceptions. In particular, the FASB noted that a key difference between the IASB and FASB is that there is a difference in the base of the initial estimate. At least in the US, there is data available to suggest that on initial recognition, losses are foreseeable for periods beyond 12 months, hence the FASB’s proposal.

Leslie Seidman confirmed that re-deliberations and other post-exposure activities would be conducted jointly and that every effort would be made to achieve common positions where possible.

ASAF members expressed a willingness to meet by conference call during the post-exposure period to explore any areas of potential agreement.

Related Meeting Notes

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.