The 'Red Book' contains all official pronouncements that have an effective date after 1 January 2016. Accordingly, the 2016 edition includes the following changes made since 1 January 2015: IFRS 16 Leases as well as amendments to IFRS 15 (effective date) and IFRS 10/IAS 28 (effective date of amendments).

Copies will be priced at £72 each before discounts, plus shipping. More information is available on the IASB's 'register my interest' webpage (link to IASB website).

• an option that would permit entities to reclassify, from profit or loss to other comprehensive income, some of the income or expenses arising from designated financial assets; this is the so-called overlay approach;
• an optional temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 for entities whose predominant activity is issuing contracts within the scope of IFRS 4; this is the so-called deferral approach.

The comment letters on the ED made available on the IASB website seem to focus on two questions:

1. Is one of the two approaches preferable?/ Can one or the other be dropped altogether?
2. How can predominance best be determined for the deferral approach?/ What is the appropriate level for assessing predominance?

On the first question, the vast majority of respondents state that both approaches are needed. They claim that both the overlay approach and the temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 are needed as these address different issues depending on the type of business activities and group structures. On the ends of the spectrum are the insurance industry on the one side, and user organisations on the other side. The insurance industry is asking for a deferral of IFRS 9 until the insurance standard is completed; they mostly cite cost reasons. Some user groups are asking for the overlay approach only, some very few even argue that it is best to do nothing; these respondents mainly cite lack of comparability if multiple options exist.

One level down, it is especially the deferral approach that triggers suggestions for refinement. While most respondents agree that assessing predominance is the right approach, the IASB's proposal to assess predominance "at the reporting entity level" causes confusion. Most respondents seem to believe that the IASB sees the group level as the reporting entity level. Others believe that "reporting entity level" is an empty phrase that could also mean lower levels than the group level. The question of how to treat conglomerates is important in both cases. Therefore, respondents assuming that the IASB intends testing at the group level often argue that a testing "below the reporting entity level" is needed; respondents assuming an assessment at a lower level often wonder of the implications for the group. The two possibilities that seem to emerge are:

• Assessment is at the group level and results are cascaded down - this would leave pure insurance companies that are subsidiaries of conglomerates without the option of deferral while companies that are not subsidiaries of conglomerates would have the option.
• Assessment is at a lower level than the group level, however, there is the question of roll-up - this could either mean that groups need to consolidate IFRS 9 and IAS 39 numbers or that qualifying subsidiaries would need to keep two sets of books - an IAS 39 one for reporting to their users and an IFRS 9 one for reporting within the group.

Expectations are currently (as communicated at the October 2015 IASB meeting) that the IASB will begin re-deliberation of the exposure draft in the second quarter of 2016. Final amendments are expected in the third quarter of 2016.

The issues to be added are:

• Pensions and other postretirement employee benefit plans;
• Intangible assets;
• Distinguishing liabilities from equity; and
• Financial performance reporting.

With the exception of intangible assets, which the IASB currently does not address in a research project, the issues to be added correspond to a large part with the issues respondents to the IASB's agenda consultation, which had asked repondents to rank the IASB's research projects as high, medium or low priorities, ranked as "high importance". A full analysis of the 118 responses on the IASB website is not available yet, however especially pensions and other postretirement employee benefit plans and distinguishing liabilities from equity rank high among the research projects currently on the IASB's agenda.

Please click for the following information on the FASB website:

• tentative Board decisions of 3 February 2016
• "From the Chairman's Desk" - explaining the results of the survey more closely