In the interview, Mr Hoogervorst generally takes stock and then expands on four questions:

• Has the Board's private, not-for-profit status been a hindrance or a help?
• Who are IFRS for?
• How do you think the Board's due process has been working?
• What's next for the IASB?

Please click to access the interview, which runs slightly over five minutes, on the ACCA website.

Just as the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) yesterday, FEE believes the problem should not be solved on a European level alone (by means of a carve-out). On 10 November 2015, EFRAG published a draft letter to the European Commission, stating that EFRAG is "not in a position to amend" its endorsement advice on IFRS 9 and extend it to businesses carrying out insurance activities.

On 10 November 2015, EFRAG published a draft letter to the European Commission, stating that EFRAG is "not in a position to amend" its endorsement advice on IFRS 9 although the IASB has decided to propose a deferral approach and an overlay approach, both aimed at addressing the mismatch, in December this year. EFRAG argued that any final decisions in the project will be made at the earliest in six to nine months from now and that uncertainty exists as to whether the IASB will provide an appropriate remedy when it makes these final decisions.

In its letter to EFRAG, ESMA emphasises the importance of fully implementing IFRS 9 and of applying the expected loss model to financial assets in a timely manner, as the introduction of the expected loss model responds to an important G20 request following the financial crisis. Even though final amendments to IFRS 4 adressing the mismatch are not to be expected until mid-2016, ESMA highlights that the IASB responded quickly and adequately to EFRAG’s concerns about the different application dates. ESMA states:

ESMA reiterates its position that a European carve-out is not a feasible solution for insurance activities in light of their global nature. [...] In light of the solution for the insurance industry being developed by the IASB, ESMA is of the view that EFRAG should enable endorsement of IFRS 9 in the EU as soon as possible.

Please click for access to the full comment letter on the ESMA website.

Please click through for direct access to the notes:

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

• Fair value measurement.
• Post-employment benefits.
• Goodwill and impairment — Identification and measurement of intangible assets acquired in a business combination.
• Insurance contracts — Comparison of the general model and the variable fee approach.

Thursday, 19 November 2015

• Research project share-based payment — Global trends in pensions, potential models that might address the issue of contribution-based promises and other hybrid plans, and the potential impact of the Agenda Consultation and other IASB projects.
• IFRS implementation issues — IFRIC update.

The pre­lim­i­nary and un­of­fi­cial notes taken by Deloitte observers for the entire meeting are also available.

So far, the IFRS Foundation has collected this information for 19 jurisdictions: Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Macao, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Taiwan, Turkey, and Uganda.

Please click to access the IFRS filing profiles on the IFRS Foundation's website.

In its comment letter, ESMA supports the IASB's initiative and agrees with most proposals in the EDs. However, ESMA "regrets that the ED does not provide guidance on some essential issues in financial reporting which leaves the Conceptual Framework incomplete". The two point ESMA particularly stresses are:

• According to ESMA, the ED does not include sufficient guidance on distinguishing between liability and equity. ESMA agrees with the view that the definition of a liability should be used to distinguish between liability and equity, but is concerned that the IASB has not sufficiently considered the issue yet. ESMA is also worried that dealing with this matter in a separate project might lead to subsequent changes to the definition of a liability.
• ESMA is concerned that the ED does not attempt to define performance. ESMA concludes that as a result the Conceptual Framework will include neither a clear basis for distinguishing between items that should be recognised in profit or loss and items that should be recognised in other comprehensive income (DCI), nor a principle establishing whether and when recycling is appropriate.

Please click to access the full comment letter on the ESMA website.

The alternative had been introduced by Jim Schnurr, Chief Accountant of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), at a financial reporting conference in early December 2014. At the annual American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments a week later, Mr Schnurr and Julie Erhardt, Deputy Chief Accountant of the SEC, further discussed this possible option. Since then, little has been heard of the proposal or any other proposal or the progress regarding the rule-making process.

In his speech, Commissioner Piwowar has now pointed out an another benefit the proposal might have in addition not taking away anything from investors who currently use and like U.S. GAAP and lowering the cost of providing IFRS financial reporting for companies want to provide IFRS information:

It is difficult to gauge investor demand for financial reporting under IFRS by U.S. domestic issuers. How does one predict investor demand for IFRS reporting when it is largely not available in the domestic context? For instance, twenty years ago, it was difficult to predict the demand for “smart phones” when the product was not available to the general public. […] Our chief accountant has raised an interesting and incremental approach that should provide further insight as to whether there is investor demand for IFRS reporting. His idea – to allow, but not mandate, IFRS financial reporting as a supplement without reconciliation to GAAP – is worthy of serious consideration. […] It would provide useful data on investor demand for us to analyze. Of course, the specific details would still need to be worked out, but I think – eleven months after the idea was first broached – that the Commission should take this additional step forward.

Please click to access the full text of the speech on the SEC website.