September

World accounting standard setters meeting

11 Sep 2006

The International Accounting Standards Board will host a meeting of accounting standard setting bodies from around the world on Monday and Tuesday, 25 and 26 September 2006, at the Renaissance Chancery Court Hotel in London.

The meeting will be open to public observation. On 2 August 2006 we had posted the agenda for the meeting that was initially announced by the IASB. Some changes have been made, and the revised agenda for the meeting is as follows:

Agenda: World Accounting Standard Setters Meeting 25-26 September 2006, London

Monday 25 September 2006 (09:30-18:00)

  • IFRSs - A view from a Big 4 firm
  • IFRSs - the IASCF Trustees' Perspective
  • Conceptual Framework*
  • Discussion of IASB technical plan
  • International Financial Reporting Standard for SMEs
  • IASCF educational activities and access to IASB's publications
Tuesday 26 September 2006 (08:30-17:00)
  • Fair Value Measurement*
  • IFRSs - An Analyst's Perspective
  • Progress on Adoption/Convergence/Implementation of IFRSs*
  • IFRIC*
*These sessions will involve an initial presentation, breakout group discussions, and feedback reports

EITF Snapshot for September 2006

10 Sep 2006

We have posted the latest edition of (PDF 88k) summarising the 7 September 2006 meeting of FASB's Emerging Issues Task Force. EITF Snapshot, published by Deloitte & Touche LLP (USA), enables readers to identify relevant topics and to understand quickly the meeting's outcome.

A related newsletter – EITF Roundup – is published immediately after the FASB's consideration of the tentative conclusions and consensuses reached, provides more in-depth information on each of the issues. Past issues of both of these publications can be downloaded Here.

Notes from day 2 of the September 2006 IFRIC meeting

09 Sep 2006

The International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) met at the IASB's offices in London on Thursday 7 September and Friday 8 September 2006. Presented below are the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers at the second and final day of the meeting.Notes from the IFRIC Meeting8 September 2006 IAS 18 Revenue – Revenue Recognition in Respect of Initial Fees Received by Fund Managers At its May 2006 meeting, the IFRIC decided to develop an Interpretation on how revenue should be recognised in respect of non-refundable fees received up front by a mutual (or investment) fund manager when an investor initially invests in a particular fund. Discussion at IFRIC's September 2006 meeting resulted in the IFRIC asking the staff to explore two issues: The first issue was to identify the service provided by the fund manager that is being compensated by the up-front payment.

Several IFRIC members expressed a view that, for the initial fee to be recognised at the time the investor makes the initial investment, the fund manager must already have provided a service to the customer.

Staff identified the following as services that may been provided to the customer in advance of the initial investment:

  • Services relating to the provision of up-front investment advice.
  • Services relating to the creation of units in the fund and brokerage.
  • Services related to the payment of a sales commission.
  • Services connected to ongoing fund management.

IFRIC discussed each of these. Much of the discussion was focused on the provision related to up-front investment advice. IFRIC members expressed concern on recognising revenue on up-front investment advice. In many cases, this advice would be free even if the investor decides not to invest in the fund. The IFRIC questioned the value that could be allocated to such services.

In general, the IFRIC agreed that as long as services given to the customer could be identified at inception, revenue in respect of those services could be recognised when the services were provided. IFRIC also decided that since not all services could be identified up front, revenues relating to post-investment services should be deferred.

The second issue was how the deferred income should be measured. This discussion was fairly short. The IFRIC agreed that revenue deferred in regards to the fee received up front had to be recognised based on a 'systematic approach' that reflects how the service is provided to the investor.

The IFRIC asked the staff to develop a paper based on the decisions taken by the IFRIC.

IAS 38 Intangible Assets – Treatment of Catalogues and Other Advertising Costs

The IFRIC considered a request for an Interpretation on how to account for:

  • costs incurred by an entity to develop and print advertising and marketing catalogues when the catalogues have been received by the entity but have not yet been delivered to the customer; and
  • costs incurred by an entity to produce TV spot advertisements when the advertisements have been produced and received by the entity but have not yet been broadcast.

Some IFRIC members said that practice differs especially concerning the treatment of catalogue costs. Practices include:

  • expensing the costs when incurred;
  • capitalising and amortising the costs as an intangible asset; and
  • capitalising the costs as inventory and expensing them when the catalogures are distributed to customers.

Other IFRIC members said that even if differences exist in practice in accounting for catalogues, the impact would not be material. In their view, if an Interpretation were developed, it should have a broader scope than just catalogues. In response, other members noted that IAS 38.70 addresses prepayments for intangibles, and if the scope of the Interpretation were expanded to include all prepayments for intangibles, the scope might be a too wide for the IFRIC to resolve on a timely basis.

After discussion, the IFRIC agreed that the issue should be added to the agenda, but that the scope should be the distinction between IAS 38.69(d), which requires expensing of advertising and promotional activities, and IAS 38.70, which does not preclude recognising prepayments as an asset.

Recommendations from the IFRIC Agenda Committee and the Staff

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - Hedge Effectiveness on a Cumulative Basis

The IFRIC considered a submission related to assessing hedge effectiveness. The issue is when an entity uses regression analysis to perform retrospective and prospective hedge effectiveness test on an interim date, whether the fact that an actual dollar-to-dollar comparison between the change in cash flows of the hedging instrument and that of the hedged item falls outside the range of 80-125% over a small period of time (for instance, five days) necessarily means that the entity fails to qualify for hedge accounting.

IFRIC decided to publish a Agenda Decision that clarifies that IAS 39 distinguishes between the requirement to measure hedge effectiveness and the requirement to perform hedge effectiveness testing. The dollar offset can fall outside the 80-125% requirements on a particular date without the entity failing to qualify for hedge accounting, but an entity would still be required to measure the dollar offset to record hedge ineffectiveness in profit and loss.

IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures – Presentation of 'net finance costs' on the face of the income statement

The IFRIC considered whether IFRS 7 permits entities to present finance costs and finance income net on the face of the income statement. IG.13 of IFRS 7 states "The total interest income and total interest expense disclosed in accordance with paragraph 20(b) is a component of finance costs, which paragraph 81(b) of IAS 1 requires to be presented separately on the face of the income statement". This would appear to be inconsistent with the IFRIC decision published in the October 2004 IFRIC Update on 'net finance costs'.

The IFRIC decided that the issue should not be added to the Agenda, and that a clear distinction should be drawn between the disclosure requirements in IFRS 7 and presentation on the face of the income statement. Further the IFRIC stated that IAS 1.32 clarifies that income and expenses should not be offset unless required or permitted by a Standard. It was also decided that a recommendation would be given to the Board to amend the text in IG.13 of IFRS 7, which currently can be misleading.

IAS 38 Intangible Assets – Classification of and accounting for SIM cards

In May 2006 the IFRIC received a submission asking for guidance on how mobile phone operators should account for Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards. The issue was whether SIM cards should be accounted for as inventory on initial acquisition.

IFRIC stated that this issue is closely linked to the issue on 'Subscriber Acquisition Costs in the Telecommunications Industry' that the IFRIC decided not to take on the agenda, for which an agenda decision was published in the March 2006 IFRIC Update. Consistent with that decision, the IFRIC concluded that it would not be able to reach a consensus on the SIM cards issue on a timely basis and that the issue should not be added to the agenda.

IAS 38 Intangible Assets: Adoption of IAS 38 (2004)

Consequential amendments were made to IAS 38 in December 2003 via the improvements to IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment. Further consequential amendments were made to IAS 38 in March 2004 by IFRS 3 Business Combinations, which changed the provisions in IAS 38 to require prospective application. The issue submitted to IFRIC was whether the amendments made by IFRS 3 would require retrospective or prospective application of IAS 38 if a constituent adopted the IAS 38 (2004 version) early.

The IFRIC agreed that divergence may have existed earlier on this issue, but that ongoing divergence would be unlikely as the transitional provisions in the current version of IAS 38 are clear. The IFRIC decided that the issue should not be added to the Agenda.

IAS 11 Construction Contracts: Allocation of profit in unsegmented contracts

During their deliberations on Service Concessions, the IFRIC identified an issue on recognition and measurement relating to certain contractual arrangements. The issue was whether it is appropriate in an unsegmented contract to allocate different profit margins to different components of a contract. The issue has been rejected, but the IFRIC wanted to defer publishing a rejection until they had published their Draft Interpretation D20 Customer Loyalty Programmes, as the issues were considered to be interrelated.

The IFRIC decided that this issue should not be added to the Agenda.

Scroll down for notes from the first day of IFRIC's September 2006 meeting.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the IFRIC meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

The IAS Plus website in German is growing

09 Sep 2006

The German Language IAS Plus website www.iasplus.de has just welcomed its 300,000th visitor.

Averaging between 1,000 and 1,500 hits on weekdays from all over the accounting community, it has kept growing steadily since its launch in February 2005. Apart from a German language translation of the news on www.iasplus.com, it contains first hand news from the German standard setting bodies as well as about IFRS-related developments in the Germanophone region. Most recently www.iasplus.de has added Sachverhalte, die nicht auf die Agenda von IFRIC genommen wurden – a complete German Version of the "Issues Not Added to the IFRIC Agenda" page, which has attracted substantial interest. Here's the English Version.

Financial Stability Forum cites IASB progress

08 Sep 2006

At its meeting in Paris on 6 September 2006, the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) discussed risks and vulnerabilities in the international financial system and reviewed ongoing work to strengthen financial system stability and resilience.

One of the areas of discussion was international accounting and auditing issues, including IFRSs:

Members reviewed recent international accounting and auditing developments, including the need to achieve more consistent interpretations of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the IASB's "standard setting pause" under which no major changes to IFRS will become effective until 2009. They welcomed work on convergence and harmonisation underway between the IASB, the US FASB and other authorities. Members reiterated the important role that financial accounting and reporting standards play in safeguarding financial stability.
Click for News Release (PDF 32k).

 

Notes from day 1 of the September 2006 IFRIC meeting

08 Sep 2006

The International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) is meeting at the IASB's offices in London on Thursday 7 September and Friday 8 September 2006. Presented below are the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers at the first day of the meeting.Notes from the IFRIC Meeting7 September 2006 Service Concession Arrangements The IFRIC discussed a draft Interpretation and related Basis for Conclusions of a single Interpretation based on Draft Interpretations D12-D14. The IFRIC was asked whether the draft Interpretation reflected the decisions made by the IFRIC as a result of its redeliberation of D12-D14. Title of the Interpretation The staff proposed that the Interpretation be called Provision of Public Sector Services by the Private Sector.

However, after discussion, the IFRIC confirmed that the title of the Interpretation should refer to 'Service Concession Arrangements' on the basis that the term was well understood by constituents and that to change at this stage was undesirable.

Recognition of property, plant and equipment

The IFRIC confirmed the approach proposed that infrastructure within the scope of the Interpretation should not be recognised as property, plant and equipment of the operator. However, it agreed that it should explain its reasons for adopting the 'control approach' (as opposed to the 'risk and rewards' approach more clearly). A service concession arrangement is distinguished from other similar arrangements when the grantor controls or regulates the services to be provided (that is, specifies how the infrastructure is to be used) that is, the 'control of use' of the infrastructure is not conveyed to the operator.

Recognition and measurement

The IFRIC confirmed that the operator should recognise and measure revenue in accordance with IAS 11 Construction Contracts or IAS 18 Revenue for the services it performs. Any financial asset or intangible asset arising are accounted for subsequently in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement or IAS 38 Intangible Assets as appropriate.

IFRIC Members stressed that the Interpretation needed to articulate clearly the measurement objective (fair value of the consideration received or receivable) while accommodating a variety of techniques or methods that might be used to arrive at an appropriate measure.

Construction or enhancement

The IFRIC agreed that the Interpretation needed to differentiate enhancement ('upgrades')-activities that enhanced an existing item of infrastructure-from activities that restored the original service capacity of the infrastructure. Enhancements would be IAS 11 activities.

Consideration given by the grantor to the operator

The IFRIC confirmed that if the operator provides construction services the consideration received by the operator might be in the form of (i) a financial asset; (ii) and intangible asset; or (iii) a combination of the two. If the grantor guarantees the operator's return by agreeing to pay the operator specified amounts or reimbursing the shortfall (if any) between the user payments and a specified amount, then the operator has a financial asset (IAS 32; IAS 39 and IFRS 7 will apply).

If the operator has no unconditional right to receive cash when payments are conditional on usage, the consideration is in the form of an intangible asset.

If the operator and the grantor share the demand risk (i.e. the operator is paid for its services in part by a financial asset and in part by a licence to charge users), the consideration should be bifurcated and each component accounted for separately.

Borrowing costs

The IFRIC discussed a proposal that would prohibit capitalisation of borrowing costs on all service concession arrangements within the scope of the Interpretation. IFRIC members expressed concern with this, not only because of the current IASB Exposure Draft that proposes to mandate capitalising interest incurred on qualifying assets but because IAS 11 suggests that a construction asset might be a qualifying asset. The IFRIC agreed that the capitalisation of borrowing costs into an intangible asset was possible.

Timing of the recognition of the intangible asset

The IFRIC discussed whether the Interpretation should specify when an operator should recognise an intangible asset. The IFRIC agreed that to the extent that the contracts are executory, no asset should be recognised and that an asset should be recognised for the operator's right to be paid as the services are rendered.

The IFRIC was concerned that their decisions in this area should be consistent with those taken with respect to borrowing costs. It was noted that the 'right to receive an intangible asset' was not the same as the receipt of the intangible asset. There was a need to distinguish between the financial asset model (in which it might be necessary to accrete interest on the receivable) from the intangible asset model (in which the intangible asset might meet the definition of a qualifying asset for the purposes of IAS 23 Borrowing Costs).

On a related matter, the IFRIC agreed that the Basis for Conclusions should explain why the 'rights and obligations' (control) model has been applied in the Interpretation in preference to the 'risks and rewards' model. The IFRIC was concerned about control of the infrastructure but found an analysis of rights and obligations created by service concession arrangements useful in determining the appropriate accounting treatment.

Effective date

The IFRIC concurred with a suggestion from the Chairman that the effective date for the Interpretation should be decided by the IASB when it deliberates the Interpretation. However, the Chairman noted that it the effective date would not be before financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2008. It was possible that the Board would consider the Interpretation so significant as to be captured by the Board's '2009 Announcement.'

Approval

The Chairman asked whether any IFRIC Members opposed issuing the Interpretation (subject to drafting). One IFRIC Member was opposed. The Interpretation was approved.

Re-exposure

The IFRIC considered whether re-exposure was necessary. An IFRIC member expressed three areas of concern:

  • The inclusion of 'whole of life assets' in the scope of the Interpretation
  • The revision of the dividing line between the Financial Asset model and the Intangible Asset model
  • The requirement to bifurcate service concession arrangements in certain circumstances

Another IFRIC Member noted that the IFRIC's decisions on all these issues were inherent in the basis for conclusions on D12-D14.

The IFRIC Chairman undertook to bring the member's concerns to the attention of the IASB when the Board deliberated the Interpretation.

Next steps

The IFRIC staff was asked to investigate whether service concession arrangements could be classified as 'loans and receivables' in accordance with IAS 39.9 due to the uncertain timing of amounts received and receivable and the risk of non-recovery due to events other than deterioration in credit rating. IFRIC members were asked to submit drafting comments to the staff, after which the staff will prepare a revised draft for the IFRIC to review in time to submit the Interpretation to the IASB for consideration at Board's October 2006 meeting. The date of issue of the Interpretation would depend on the Board's review of the document.

IAS 18 Revenue – Real Estate Sales

At its March 2006 meeting the IFRIC agreed to undertake a project to clarify the requirements of IAS 18 Revenue for real estate sales in which contracts are agreed before construction is complete. At its September 2006 meeting the IFRIC discussed several issues to be addressed in the draft interpretation, essentially to ensure that the scope of the project is defined appropriately.

Applicable standards

The IFRIC discussed which IFRS were applicable to real estate sales. The IFRIC agreed that an agreement for the sale of real estate is within the scope of IAS 11 only if it meets the IAS 11 definition of a construction contract, i.e. if it is a contract specifically negotiated for the construction of an asset to the buyer's specification; customer choices among pre-defined alternatives would not meet the definition of 'specific negotiation.' Otherwise the contract is an agreement for the sale of goods within the scope of IAS 18.

Applying IAS 18

The IFRIC noted that, when IAS 18 is applied to sales of real estate, revenue should be recognised only when all of the conditions set out in IAS 18 paragraph 14 have been met. The Draft Interpretation should include guidance particularly highlighting the need for effective control to have passed to the buyer, noting that effective control often transfers to the buyer only when the sale is completed, with the buyer obtaining possession of his unit and identifying circumstances that might prevent full revenue recognition at that time.

Incomplete performance

The IFRIC discussed the conditions for recognising revenue from the sale of real estate before the developer had completed construction. It noted that the Draft Interpretation should clarify the revenue recognition requirements in such circumstances and that these requirements need to be consistent with the IFRIC's conclusions in Draft Interpretation D20 Customer Loyalty Programmes.

Allocation of costs and revenues

The IFRIC confirmed its decision in March 2006 that it would not address the allocation of cost as this is an area of judgement based on facts and circumstances.

IFRIC D17: IFRS 2 – Group and Treasury Share Transactions

The IFRIC discussed staff proposals on:

  • Share-based payment arrangements involving equity instruments of the parent (or another entity in the same group);
  • Transfers of employees between group entities; and
  • Whether the Interpretation should include guidance that the Interpretation might not be applicable automatically to intragroup transactions in general

Share-based payment arrangements involving equity instruments of the parent (or another entity in the same group)

A parent grants rights to its equity instruments to the employees of its subsidiary and the subsidiary does not have an obligation to the employees

After considerable discussion, the IFRIC concluded that in these circumstances, if the transaction was an equity-settled share-based payment transaction in the parent/ group financial statements, it would also be equity-settled in the subsidiary's financial statements. The subsidiary would recognise a contribution from an equity participant for the fair value of the amount of services attributed. The IFRIC noted that this was an application of the general principle of attribution in IFRS 2.3 transfers of an entity's equity instruments by its shareholders to parties that have supplied goods or services to the entity (including employees) are share-based payment transactions. This also applies to transfers of equity instruments of the entity's parent, or equity instruments of another entity in the same group as the entity, to parties that have supplied goods or services to the entity.

A subsidiary grants rights to equity instruments of its parent (another entity in the same group) to its employees, and the subsidiary has an obligation to the employees

The IFRIC reconsidered its decision taken at the July 2006 meeting not provide guidance in this area. The IFRIC considered three alternatives: (i) to require such arrangements to be treated as cash-settled share-based payment transactions in the financial statements of the subsidiary (irrespective of the treatment in the parent); (ii) to require equity-settled treatment, if the transaction was an equity-settled share-based payment arrangement in the parent/ group financial statements; or (iii) provide no guidance in the Interpretation, but add a discussion in the Basis for Conclusions noting that different treatments are possible.

The IFRIC noted that, in the subsidiary's financial statements, IFRS 2 required that such arrangements be treated as cash-settled because the instruments used to settle the subsidiary's obligation to its employees were not its own equity instruments. Thus, it was not possible to apply the principle of attribution in IFRS 2.3. The transaction was a share-based payment, but it did not meet the definition of an equity-settled share-based payment transaction. Thus, it had to be accounted for as a cash-settled transaction.

Transfers of employees between group entities

The IFRIC agreed that the transfer of employees between group entities would not be considered as a failure to satisfy a non-market vesting condition in the financial statements of the subsidiary from which the employees transfer employment.

The IFRIC also agreed that if an employee leaves the group during the vesting period (i.e. fails to satisfy a non-market vesting condition), each individual subsidiary should reverse the charge previously recognised in respect of the services from that employee during the past vesting period. Whether the Interpretation should include guidance that the Interpretation might not be applicable automatically to intragroup transactions in general.

The IFRIC agreed that because of its decisions made at this meeting, the staff proposal to include guidance that the Interpretation might not be applicable automatically to intragroup transactions generally was unnecessary and should be deleted.

Approval

The IFRIC Chairman asked whether, on the basis of the decisions taken at this meeting, any IFRIC Members would oppose the consensus in the Interpretation (subject to drafting). No IFRIC Members indicated their opposition, and the Interpretation was approved.

Next steps

IFRIC members were asked to submit drafting comments to the staff, after which the staff will prepare a revised draft for the IFRIC to review in time to submit the Interpretation to the IASB for consideration at Board's October 2006 meeting. The date of issue of the Interpretation would depend on the Board's review of the document.

IFRS 2 Share-based Payment – Employee benefit trusts in the individual or separate financial statements of the sponsor

The IFRIC continued its discussion of a potential agenda topic relating to accounting for an employee benefit trust established by a sponsoring entity specifically to facilitate the transfer of its equity instruments to its employees under a share-based payment arrangement. In particular, the IFRIC considered whether it would be possible to draw an analogy between an employee benefit trust and a share nominee company. (A share nominee company holds legal title to the shares registered in its name but acts on those shares only to the order of the beneficial owners. The shares are in the possession of the nominee company but not under its control.)

IFRIC Members expressed concern about whether it was possible to develop an Interpretation on this basis. Other possible approaches were examined, but none was seen as resolving satisfactorily the issues of control and the nature of the sponsor's investment in the trust for the purposes of reporting in separate financial statements. IFRIC Members noted that different approaches had been adopted in various jurisdictions, including the sponsor treating the trust as an investment in its separate financial statements.

The IFRIC noted that there were several problems related to reporting using IFRS in separate financial statements and that developing a narrow Interpretation on one aspect was not an appropriate approach to a more pervasive problem. In addition, IFIRC Members were concerned that in the issue under discussion, it might be difficult to avoid a form-driven answer.

Consequently, the IFRIC decided not to add this topic to its agenda. An Agenda Decision would be drafted noting the current IASB project on Control (including Special Purpose Entities). In addition, it was evident from the discussion that the IFRIC was unlikely to be able to reach consensus within a reasonable time because of diversity in practice and the variety of legal structures that any Interpretation would have to address and accommodate.

This summary is based on notes taken by observers at the IFRIC meeting and should not be regarded as an official or final summary.

Proposed practice statement on ethics education

08 Sep 2006

The International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB) has issued for public comment a proposed new International Education Practice Statement (IEPS) Approaches to Developing and Maintaining Professional Values, Ethics and Attitudes.

The statement is intended to assist IFAC member bodies in developing ethics education and continuing professional development programs for their members in accordance with the requirements in International Education Standard (IES) 4 Professional Values, Ethics and Attitudes. Comments on the proposal are due by 15 December 2006. Click to download:

IFRIC D20 on customer loyalty programmes

07 Sep 2006

The International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) has released for public comment Draft Interpretation D20 'Customer Loyalty Programmes'.

Customer loyalty programmes are used by entities to provide customers with incentives to buy their products. Examples are airline mileage programmes and hotel and bank points programmes. The customer can redeem the award credits for awards such as free or discounted goods or services.

 

The fundamental question addressed by the IFRIC is whether the entity's obligation to provide free or discounted goods or services should be recognised and measured by:

  1. Allocating some of the consideration received or receivable from the initial sales transaction to the award credits and deferring the recognition of revenue (i.e. applying paragraph 13 of IAS 18 Revenue); or
  2. Recognising the original revenue in full and, concurrently, recognising a provision for the estimated future costs of supplying the award goods or services (applying paragraph 19 of IAS 18).
In IFRIC D20, the IFRIC has proposed that an entity should:
  • Apply paragraph 13 of IAS 18 and account for award credits as a separately identifiable revenue component of the original sale transaction.
  • Allocate the fair value of the consideration received or receivable from that original sale translation between the goods and services originally sold and the award credits granted based on the relative fair values of the components.

 

 

The draft Interpretation would take effect three months after it is published as a final Interpretation, and would be applied retrospectively by restating prior period financial statements. Comment Deadline is 6 November 2006. Press Release (PDF 82k).

 

Olson, Chairman of the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, testified before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs about issues related to companies' stock option granting practices and related accounting and auditing matters. Key points in his testimony:
  • Stock option granting practices have raised concerns about companies' accounting for and disclosure of compensation costs.
  • Changes in regulatory requirements appear to have reduced the incidence of suspiciously-timed option grants.
  • The PCAOB has alerted auditors to use judgment in considering issues relating to stock option granting practices in their audits.
(PDF 89k).

Agenda for September 2006 IASB meeting

07 Sep 2006

The International Accounting Standards Board will hold its September 2006 Board meeting at its offices, 30 Cannon Street, London, on Monday through Friday 18-22 September 2006. Presented below is the preliminary agenda for the meeting. 18-22 September 2006, London Monday 18 September 2006 Insurance Contracts - Phase 2 [Education Session] – Insurance industry representatives will brief the Board on recommendations those organisations have made for the accounting model for insurance entities Consolidations (including Special Purpose Entities) [Education Session] – focus on SIC-12 Consolidation - Special Purpose Entities Tuesday 19 September 2006 Amendments to IAS 37 – reconsidering the measurement principle proposed in the Exposure Draft Financial Statement Presentation Fair Value Measurements – continued discussion of the FASB's fair value measurements Statement IFRS 2 – comment analysis in respect of the proposed amendments to IFRS 2 for vesting conditions and cancellations Financial Instruments – Due Process Document Wednesday 20 September 2006 Insurance Contracts - Phase 2: Reporting changes in insurance liabilities Investment contracts A portfolio basis for measurement Unbundling Policyholder participation rights Universal life contracts Amendments to IAS 14 Segment Reporting IFRIC Issues IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement – Derecognition Application Issues Related Party Disclosures Thursday 21 September 2006 Accounting Standards for Small and Medium-sized Entities Conceptual Framework Revenue Recognition Friday 22 September 2006 Accounting Standards for Small and Medium-sized Entities IFRS 1 – Cost of a subsidiary in the separate financial statements of a parent on first-time adoption of IFRSs Business Combinations Phase II – Redeliberations of proposed revisions to IFRS 3 Technical Plan .

The International Accounting Standards Board will hold its September 2006 Board meeting at its offices, 30 Cannon Street, London, on Monday through Friday 18-22 September 2006. Presented below is the preliminary agenda for the meeting.

agenda.gif

18-22 September 2006, London

Monday 18 September 2006

Tuesday 19 September 2006 Wednesday 20 September 2006 Thursday 21 September 2006 Friday 22 September 2006

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.