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.

Agenda consultation

Date recorded:

Proposed approach to developing the Request for Information (Agenda Paper 24)

Background

The Board determines its strategy and work plan, within its remit, every five years. This process is called an agenda consultation. As part of the 2020 Agenda Consultation, the Board will issue a request for information (RFI). In developing the RFI, the Board seeks to include appropriate background information and questions to help stakeholders comment on the RFI and ensure the Board obtains sufficient evidence to make sound decisions. The agenda paper discussed the proposed approach to the pre-RFI work and a preview of what might be featured in the RFI, including the following three approaches to the pre-RFI work:

Approach A—‘blank sheet of paper’

Approach B—include in the RFI a list of potential projects and the additional analysis that will have been performed on them

Approach C—Approach B, but also include the Board’s preliminary view of which potential projects from the list it proposes to add to its work plan

In its recent meeting, the IFRS Advisory Council has expressed a preference for Approach B.

Board discussion

Most Board members preferred Approach B, as they found Approach C too restrictive and it might signal that the Board is predetermined on what to include. However, it was important to signal that the Board does not have unlimited resource, so a Board member suggested a points system, in which each respondent would have a maximum of 100 points that can be allocated between different projects. Each project would have a certain number of points required to conduct it, although it might be difficult to predict how extensive a project will be eventually.

Some Board members highlighted that the RFI should not create the impression that post-implementation reviews of new Standards were optional.

One Board member asked whether projects that have been prioritised in the previous agenda consultation, but not started yet, would be included in the RFI as well. In his view, they should not be up for discussion again. The Chairman supported this view, however others thought it might be worth reassessing those projects. Those where work has already started should not be reassessed, however, constituents could be asked their views of how those should be finalised.

No decision has been made.

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.