Impairment
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.
