The finalised standard follows a long consultation process, including the issue of a 'roadmap' to adopt a Malaysian equivalent to the IFRS for SMEs in March 2013, and the publication of revised proposals in August 2013.

The MPERS replaces the existing Malaysian Private Entity Reporting Standards (PERS), which are based on pre-2003 international accounting standards, and these older standards will be withdrawn once the MPERS becomes effective.

The MPERS applies to 'private entities', which are private companies as defined in the Malaysian Companies Act 1965 that are not required to prepare or lodge financial statements under laws administered by the Malaysian Securities Commission or Bank Negara Malaysia (the Malaysian Central Bank), and are not a subsidiary, associate, or jointly controlled by such an entity. Eligible entities have the choice of applying either the MPERS or Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards (MFRS, equivalent to IFRSs).

The key amendments made to the IFRS for SMEs in finalising the MPERS include:

• Application to private entities. As the MPERS applies to 'private entities', all references to "SMEs" and "public accountability" have been replaced or deleted to align with the scope of the MPERS.
• Consolidated financial statements. Ultimate Malaysian parents are required to prepare consolidated financial statements regardless of whether its ultimate parent company (incorporated outside of Malaysia) prepares consolidated financial statements.
• Income taxes. The requirements for income tax accounting have been aligned with the requirements of MRFS 112 Income Taxes (equivalent to IAS 12 Income Taxes). The IASB is considering making similar changes to the IFRS for SMEs as part of its exposure draft of proposed changes to the IFRS for SMEs issued in October 2013.
• Real estate. Amended guidance is included in the MPERS based on Malaysian-specific requirements in FRS 201 Property Development Activities, and information in the IFRS for SMEs derived from IFRIC 15 Agreements for the Construction of Real Estate have been deleted.

The MPERS is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016. Click for MASB announcement (link to MASB website).

The following webcasts are available:

• What should investors expect? — Reviews the goals, priorities, and intended outreach of the IASB Investor Education Programme.
• Off balance sheet accounting: plugging the loopholes —  Discusses off balance sheet transactions issues during the financial crisis, amendments resulting from those issues, and what investors should expect from these changes.

The IASB plans to issue additional webcasts discussing how the amendments made to joint arrangement and employee benefits may affect investors.

For more information, see the press release and the Investor Education Programme on the IASB website.

With these recent additions, the total number of countries surveyed has reached 124. Both Panama and Suriname allow IFRS to be used for all listed companies. The Taiwan profile has been updated to clarify which Standards have been endorsed by the Financial Supervisory Commission.

The profiles and analyses are available on the IASB website.

Although financial statements and other financial information are presented in accordance with applicable financial reporting frameworks which should result in relevant and reliable information, there sometimes seems to be a demand from users or a desire from issuers for other information that is intended to lead to a better understanding of a company's position and performance. This information is often included in financial statements or documents accompanying the financial statements and normally consists of either re-calculated information already provided or new metrics designed to improve the understanding of that information.

ESMA acknowledges the importance of APMs to assist users in making investment decisions and only recently even the IASB Chairman admitted in a speech that preparers and analysts "may need non-GAAP measures to fine-tune their presentation or assessment of an entity". However, ESMA is concerned about widely diverse additional financial data which in some cases cannot be easily derived from or reconciled back to financial statements. Also, this additional information is often not defined and comparatives are lacking in many cases.

ESMA has therefore developed draft guidelines that address the concept and labels of APMs, guidance for the presentation of APMs and consistency in using APMs. The key requirements of the proposed guidelines are:

1. Issuers should define the APM used and its components as well as the basis of calculation adopted.
2. APMs should be given meaningful labels reflecting their methodology and basis of calculation in order to avoid conveying misleading messages to users.
3. Issuers should disclose all APMs used and their definition in an appendix to the publication.
4. APMs should be reconciled to the most relevant amount presented in the financial statements, separately identifying and explaining each reconciling item.
5. Issuers should explain the context of any APM disclosed so that users can understand what information the APM concerned is meant to provide them with.
6. APMs that are presented outside financial statements should be displayed with less prominence, emphasis or authority than measures directly stemming from financial statements prepared in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.
7. When an issuer chooses to present APMs, it should also provide comparatives for corresponding previous periods. 
8. The definition and calculation of the APM should be consistent over time. If that is not the case, an issuer should explain the reasons why the definition and/or calculation of the APM has changed.
9. If an APM is redefined, a prior period is corrected, or the calculation of the APM changes, an issuer should provide additional information to explain those changes, the effect of the change compared to the former APM and restated comparative figures.
10. If an APM ceases to be used, the issuer should explain its removal and the reasons for which any newly defined APM replacing the previous one provides more reliable and relevant information on the financial performance compared with the previous one.

The closing date for responses to the ESMA consultation is 14 May 2014. ESMA expects to publish the final guidelines in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Please click for additional information on the ESMA website:

• Press release
• Proposed ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures

IFRIC 21 was issued on 20 May 2013 and has a stated effective date of annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014.  The updated report indicates final endorsement is currently expected in the second quarter of 2014.

The endorsement status report, dated 11 February 2014, is available here.

The CMAC, formerly called the Analyst Representative Group (ARG), consists of a number of professional financial analysts who meet at least three times a year with members of the IASB to provide the views of professional investors on financial reporting issues.

A summary of the agenda for the meeting is set out below:

Agenda papers for the meeting are available on the IASB's website.

Ms Paul currently serves as the Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec. Her appointment to the IFRS Advisory Council begins immediately.

For more information, see the press release on the IASB website.

Under the IFRS Foundation Constitution, there are 22 IFRS Trustees, which are required to broadly reflect the world’s capital markets and have a diversity of geographical and professional backgrounds. Trustees are appointed for a three year term (with one possible renewal) and oversee the IFRS Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). For the 2015 vacancies, the IFRS Foundation is seeking Trustees from Europe, North America and for one "At Large" position.

Those interested in applying for the positions are asked to respond by 16 March 2014. More information for applicants is available through the press release on the IASB website.

The agenda for the meeting (as at 11 February 2014) is summarised below:

Agenda papers for the meeting are available on the IASB's website.

Topics discussed during the DPOC meeting were:

Update on technical activities

Updates were given on the progress of the major projects as well as implementation and maintenance projects on the IASB's work plan.

• Regarding hedge accounting, the DPOC noted that the project had been completed and final guidance had published in November 2013.
• On the classification and measurement project, the DPOC was informed that joint deliberations by the IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) had started in September 2013 but that the FASB, at its December 2013 meeting, had reached decisions that would mean the FASB would at least partially abandon convergence on this project. IASB representatives present at the DPOC meeting acknowledged that the situation was unfortunate and stated that the IASB would consider the position taken by the FASB at its February 2014 meeting.
• Regarding the impairment project, the DPOC was reminded that the prospect of convergence with the US was unlikely as the FASB, at its meeting in December 2013, had elected to proceed with its own expected credit losses model. The DPOC had questions regarding the differences between the IASB and the FASB model and especially what the views of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) were. The DPOC was informed that the FSB now accepted that there would not be convergence on impairment, but wanted to see the impairment proposals in place as soon as possible.
• On macro hedging, the DPOC was told that the IASB would shortly publish a Discussion Paper with an extended comment period as the issue is so complex.
• Regarding leases, the DPOC noted that there remained considerable concern among the constituents about the cost and complexity of the proposals in the second ED. They were informed that boards had started their redeliberations in January 2014 and hoped to reach decisions on major issues in March 2014. On the question of convergence, the IASB representatives noted that the risk of divergence could not be ruled out. They also pointed out that if important decisions could be reached in March 2014, an IFRS could be issued as early as beginning of 2015.
• For revenue recognition, the DPOC was informed that the proposed new Standard was in the process of being balloted and was expected to be issued in the first half of 2014. The suggested membership of the joint IASB/ FASB Implementation Group would be brought to the DPOC for its review before being announced.

Other major projects discussed insurance contracts and the conceptual framework.

The implementation and maintenance projects the DPOC was updated on were the disclosure initiative, bearer plants, proposed amendments to IFRS 11 and IAS 28 and the post-implementation review of IFRS 3. The DPOC also queried the decision by the Interpretations Committee not to add to its agenda a request to clarify IAS 19 regarding the discount rate. The IASB representatives noted that the issue of discount rates was a cross-cutting one and that a broader project on the issue had been added to the research programme.

IFRS 14 'Regulatory Deferral Accounts'

The DPOC received a report on the lifecycle of the due process to date on the project to develop an interim IFRS on the issue of rate-regulated activities. The DPOC challenged the IASB's decision to press ahead with the issue of an interim IFRS and asked whether the interim IFRS would result in less comparability, whether the interim IFRS raised an issue of fairness in being restricted to first-time adopters, after the significant level of resistance that the proposals had received, and the length of time the interim IFRS would remain in force, in particular if the main project on rate-regulated activities took a long time to complete. In discussion, the DPOC acknowledged the IASB's rationale for reaching the decisions it had on the interim IFRS but expressed the hope that such situations would be rare and temporary.

XBRL

The DPOC received an update on the previously approved plan of the IASB to restructure staffing and consultative activities related to electronic reporting. In particular, theses relate to: (1) the proposed changes to the due process for updating the IFRS Taxonomy and (2) proposals to replace the XBRL Advisory Council (XAC) and XBRL Quality Review Team (XQRT) with a single consultative group.

Update on consultative groups

The DPOC received an update on a number of consultative groups following the annual review that had been considered by the Committee at its July 2013 meeting: The Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF) remains very active, not least given its role as the consultative group on the conceptual framework project; the Capital Markets Advisory Committee (CMAC) will see a revised membership from the beginning of 2014 and efforts continue to broaden its membership in terms of both professional background and geographical representation; of the project-specific consultative groups (financial instruments, leases and insurance) none had held formal meetings for some time but the DPOC agreed with the staff's view to continue the three groups as lists of experts that the IASB could call on to get specific advice; the consultative group on Shariah-compliant Instruments and Transactions now features an expanded the membership as proposed at the DPOC's October 2013 meeting. The DPOC was also updated on the progress of the IASB's proposal to increase the size of the SMEIG to 30 members as from July 2014 and considered and approved proposals to amend the SMEIG's Terms of Reference and Operating Procedures.

Reporting of Outreach and Fieldwork and review of correspondence

The DPOC received an update on the staffs continuing efforts to improve the transparency of the reporting of feedback from outreach with investors and other users of financial statements and the reporting of the results of fieldwork undertaken on particular projects. The DPOC also noted that no new correspondence cases had been submitted since the October 2013 meeting.

Please click for the full summary of the meeting on the IASB's website.