The Board discussed a project proposal to provide guidance on how entities should measure fair value of assets and liabilities when an IFRS requires such measurement. The staff reiterated the project would not affect when fair value should be used, only provide guidance on how to measure fair value when it was required. In particular, the Board discussed whether:

• The IASB issue the FASB's statement (final standard) as an IASB Exposure Draft, or do the Board want to debate individual issues in the document?
• An IFRS that provides fair value guidance would result in consequential amendments. To what dept should the Board make consequential amendments?

The Board discussed whether the proposed approach violated their due process. Some Board Members supported the approach, noting that it was important that the IASB developed guidance that converged on a high-quality solution. If the IASB debate individual issues in the forthcoming FASB standard before issuing its own exposure draft, the project would be delayed by up to twelve months and could lead to divergence rather than convergence. Other Board members expressed their concern about how constituents would react to the approach. Other Board members thought that the IASB should accept the FASB standards as the basis for its ED; however, it was possible that the application guidance provided by the IASB could be different from FASB's.

The Board agreed that the Invitation to Comment should be a wrap-around of the final standard as issued by the FASB. The IASB and FASB staffs were preparing a series of educational and technical sessions to familiarise the Board with the new FASB Standard. These sessions would begin in November or December 2005. Areas in which the Board had concerns with a decision of the FASB would be raised in the Invitation to Comment. In addition, the IASB would ask what additional application guidance should be provided.

In a formal vote, the Board agreed to issue an ED based on the forthcoming FASB standard (2 Board members were opposed). In addition, the scope of the ED would be restricted to those standards that explicitly mention fair value (1 abstention). The Board discussed how they should approach differences in opinion between the FASB standard and the IASB ED. It was agreed that it was premature to decide on how they should deal with this.