Paul Cherry noted that the Advisory Council was working well and that, as a result of the work of the Agenda Committee judicious planning, the Council was concentrating much more on areas in which members could add value to the IASB and Trustees’ activities. He summarised the report of the latest Council Meeting that is (or will be soon) available on the Council section of the IASB’s Website. In particular, he noted that the Council supported the approach to completing the major projects and the delayed timeline for doing so. He was looking forward to having as many Trustees as possible at the 11 October meeting in London.

Paul noted the work of EFRAG, which had held several roundtable discussions throughout Europe on the major projects. This was a good example of a regional initiative. What was surprising to him was the apparent push-back from constituents on the Leasing project, which many in Europe had objected to as being unnecessary at this time. Hans Hooervorst noted that much of this objection was self-interested and that the user community in Europe was generally supportive.

In response to another question, Mr Glauber and Mr Cherry assured the Trustees that the Council’s views on the Trustees’ Strategy Review Report and the Monitoring Board’s proposals were brought to the Monitoring Board’s attention. Mr Kono, who is the chairman of the Monitoring Board’s working group was present for the Council’s discussions, and the Monitoring Board also receive the Advisory Council’s summary report.

On the matter of Council input to the Due Process Oversight Committee, Mr Cherry noted that the Council supported rigorous oversight of the IASB’s due process. Council members were very interested in an effective due process and were willing to engage the members of their organisations to assist the DPOC in its duties if that was thought useful – the offer to assist is on the table.

A Trustee challenged the Council to pay more attention to the interaction between financial instruments and insurance. Not from a technical point of view, but from the point of view that, for an insurer, both sides of the balance sheet were ‘in play’ at the same time and that this raised the stakes for the insurance industry.