As stressed before, the strategic plan confirms that the FASB's overall strategy is to improve financial reporting in general, but that in doing so "the FASB will first consider the best interests of those who provide capital to companies and not-for-profit organizations (investors, lenders, other creditors, and donors) both in the U.S. and other markets that use or reference Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)". However, the plan adds that the FASB will continue to work with other standard-setters internationally, though still with the topmost priority of improving the quality of US GAAP:

As an integral part of this strategy, the FASB will work to maintain and strengthen its existing cooperative relationships with other national and regional standard setters. The broader flow of information and ideas resulting from these relationships mutually informs each standard setter’s thinking and contributes to the shared understanding of perspectives and circumstances that can reduce or avoid unnecessary differences among standards used internationally. In some cases, however, the FASB (or other national standard setters) may conclude that the best interests of its own capital markets outweigh the goal of completely converged accounting standards.

The FAF strategic plan thus reflects the FASB comments on comparability in international accounting standards that were added to the FASB website post convergence.

Please click to access the following information on the FAF and FASB websites:

• Press release
• Strategic plan
• Comparability in International Accounting Standards - An Overview

The amendments to FAS 23 clarify, that control over an entity that triggers consolidation does not only exist if the Islamic financial institution preparing consolidated financial statements holds 50 per cent or more of the voting rights in the entity or if the Islamic financial institution has obtained control through agreement with the entity's other shareholders or with the entity itself. Rather, the amendments clarify that, in addition to the existing stipulations in the FAS 23, control may also exist through rights arising from other contractual arrangements, voting rights of the Islamic financial institutions that give de facto power over an entity, potential voting rights, or a combination of these factors. FAS 23 will thus be closer aligned with IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements.

The amendment is effective for annual reporting periods ending on or after 31 December 2015. The full text of the amendment will be included in the next publication of AAOIFI standards scheduled for early 2015.

Please click for the press release on the AAOIFI website offering more details on the amendments to FAS 23.

The ASU specifies that “issue costs shall be reported in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the face amount of the note” and that “[a]mortization of debt issue costs shall also be reported as interest expense.” According to the ASU’s Basis for Conclusions, debt issuance costs incurred before the associated funding is received (i.e., the debt liability) should be reported on the balance sheet as deferred charges until that debt liability amount is recorded.

For public business entities, the guidance in the ASU is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after 15 December 2015. For entities other than public business entities, the guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after 15 December 2015, and interim periods beginning after 15 December 2016. Early adoption is allowed for all entities for financial statements that have not been previously issued. Entities would apply the new guidance retrospectively to all prior periods (i.e. the balance sheet for each period is adjusted).

Requiring presentation of debt issuance costs as a direct reduction of the related debt liability (rather than as an asset) is consistent with the presentation of debt discounts under US GAAP. In addition, it converges the guidance in US GAAP with that in IFRSs, under which transaction costs that are directly attributable to the issuance of the liability are treated as an adjustment to the initial carrying amount of the financial liability.

For more information, see Deloitte's related Heads Up newsletter, as well as the ASU on the FASB’s website.

Under the listing rules of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSA), South African companies listed on the exchange have for a number of years been required to produce, on a 'comply or explain' basis, an integrated report following the King Report on Governance for South Africa and the King Code of Governance Principles ('King III') developed by the Integrated Reporting Committee (IRC) of South Africa. In March 2014, the IRC also endorsed the International Integrated Reporting Framework, issued in December 2013 by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), as guidance on good practice on how to prepare an integrated report. The purpose of the survey now published by SAICA was to distil a perspective on the current state of integrated thinking practice in South Africa. At the same time it offers insights into how integrated thinking gains traction in a jurisdiction that has been practising integrated reporting for several years.

The survey shows that:

• more than 70% of respondents believe that integrated reporting has been a driver of integrated thinking;
• more than 70% are convinced that integrated thinking has improved decision-making at the management as well as at the board level;
• more than 65% state that integrated thinking has helped organisations to develop a more cohesive approach to reporting;
• more than 70% see that integrated thinking has increased the quality of organisations' dialogue with providers of financial capital and other stakeholders; and
• more than 70% expect that organisations will derive further benefits in the short, medium and long term from integrated thinking.

However, the survey results also show that to date few organisations seem to be using the capitals model outlined in the IIRC Framework to identify and manage their capitals and do not use special tools to measure or manage the impact that capitals have on the business, or on each other, or to enhance integrated thinking, even though there does seem to be an awareness of the six capitals and that these contribute to the value creation process. The authors conclude:

This project has highlighted that many aspects of integrated thinking are not yet understood. Much research and development is needed to guide organisations on the road they must travel to integrated thinking and its consequent reporting. Looking to the future, we believe that organisations will increasingly recognise the significant benefits of integrated thinking to enhance their competitiveness and support their sustainability from all perspectives.

Please click to access the full report on the SAICA website.

As the information companies are required to disclose in their annual, sustainability or integrated reports varies and the landscape of reporting frameworks, regulation, policies, standards and guidance is diverse and complex, WBCSD and CDSB have launched a three year "Reporting Landscape Mapping" project. The project aims to develop a web-based tool and database that will help business navigate the corporate sustainability reporting landscape and assess which rules, methods or practices are relevant and applicable to them. WBCSD and CDSB hope that this will enhance and consolidate the disclosure of sustainability information in corporate reporting and encourage the convergence of reporting. The first pilot version of the database is planned for late autumn 2015.

Please click for more information on the CDSB website. WBCSD and CDSB are also looking for companies that would like to contribute to the development process and participate in the pilot programme.

Topics discussed at the meeting included:

• Allocation of the transaction price for discounts and variable consideration
• Material rights
• Consideration payable to a customer
• Partially satisfying performance obligations before identifying the contract
• Warranties
• Significant financing components
• Whether contributions are within the scope of the new revenue standard

For more information, see Deloitte’s TRG Snapshot.

At a separate FASB meeting on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, the FASB tentatively decided to defer the new revenue standard for one year. It is currently unclear whether the IASB will defer the effective date of IFRS 15; the IASB plans to discuss this issue later in April. For more information on the FASB's deferral, see Deloitte's Heads Up newsletter.