The article noted the "seismic change" IFRS 17 is expected to have on insurance companies as well as the user community. Though implementing the Standard may be turbulent, Ms Fisher emphasized it's impact: ". . . it will make a huge difference to the consistency and comparability of insurance companies."

The article explains:

• The "trouble" with IFRS 4, the interim insurance contracts Standard;
• comparability and transparency; and
• impact around the world.

The entire article is available on the IASB's website.

ASAF was set up in 2013 to formalise and streamline the relationships between the IFRS Foundation and IASB with representatives from across the standard-setting community, in order to bring important regional perspectives to the IASB's technical work and to offer feedback on the most important issues of the day.

The ASAF is comprised of 12 members and a non-voting chair (being the IASB chair or vice-chair).  The 12 members are sourced from the following geographical regions:

• Africa: 1 member
• Americas (North and South): 3 members
• Asia/Oceania: 3 members
• Europe (including non-EU): 3 members
• World at large*: 2 members

* subject to maintaining overall geographical balance.

The closing date for applications is 31 July 2018. The new membership of ASAF will be in place from November 2018 to 2021 (i.e. current IASB members will continue through the October meeting).

The IFRS Foundation has also published a feedback statement following its 2018 review of ASAF and has updated the ASAF terms of reference.

The following points were adressed in the review:

• Effectiveness of the engagement between ASAF and the Board. The feedback highlighted that respondents acknowledged the improvements made to the ‘feedback loop’ between the Board and ASAF since the 2015 Review.
• Reduction of the number of meetings. Some respondents suggested to reduce the number of meetings a year from four to three if a full two-day agenda cannot be guaranteed. The Trustees decided to maintain the schedule of four meetings a year but have amended the terms of reference to permit one ASAF meeting a year to be held via videoconference.
• Incorporating consultation with ASAF as a mandatory due process step in the Due Process Handbook and ASAF itself into the IFRS Foundation Constitution. The Trustees have concluded not to incorporate consultation with ASAF as a mandatory due process step and also found no compelling reason to amend the constitution.
• ASAF reviews. The Trustees have come to the conclusion that formal three-yearly reviews of ASAF are no longer necessary and will amend the ASAF terms of reference accordingly. If at any point in the future the Trustees consider there is a need for a more formal review, they will initiate such a review.

Please click for the following information on the IASB website:

• Press release
• ASAF call for candidates
• ASAF review feedback statement

COSO and WBCSD issue draft guidance to supplement COSO’s updated enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworkThe objective of the draft guidance is summarised in the introduction which states that:

The educational session will be held on 19 June 2018 with the FASB and discuss the following topics:

• Segments
• Primary financial statements
• Disclosure framework and disclosure initiative
• Fair value PIR and FASB FV disclosure project
• Goodwill and impairment
• Implementation:
  • Revenue
  • Leases
• Update on all projects not covered

The IASB only sessions will be held on 20 and 21 June 2018 and discuss the following topics:

• Disclosure initiative — disclosure objectives:
  • Principles of disclosure
  • Targeted standards-level review of disclosures
  • Definition of material
• Dynamic risk management:
  • Summary of discussions to date
  • Derivatives used for DRM purposes
  • Financial performance
• Research programme: update
• IBOR reform: research project proposal
• Primary financial statements:
  • Preliminary analysis on applying project proposals to financial entities
  • Preliminary findings on current reporting practice
  • Financial performance reporting
• Insurance contracts:
  • Annual improvements
  • Annual improvements on coverage units
• Implementation
• Islamic finance consultative group update
• Business combinations under common control:
  • Way forward for transactions affecting NCI

The full agenda for the meeting can be found here. We will post any updates to the agenda, our com­pre­hen­sive pre-meet­ing summaries as well as observer notes from the meeting on this page as they become available.

The topics covered during the meeting were the following (numbers in brackets are ref­er­ences to the cor­re­spond­ing para­graphs of the summary):

• Rate-regulated activities (1–9): ASAF members discussed (1) unit of account and asset/liability definitions and (2) scope of the model. In addition, the ASAF members discussed the development of communication materials.
• Disclosure initiative — Principles of disclosure (10–24): ASAF members discussed (1) location of information that includes IFRS information outside of financial statements and non-IFRS information within financial statements and (2) accounting policy disclosures.
• Commodity loans and related transactions (25–43): ASAF members discussed several topics related to items described in the Board’s January 2018 meeting. These include: (1) the extent that entities in their jurisdictions enter into transactions, (2) diversity in accounting, (3) standard-setting activities, and (4) potential standard-setting activities.
• Accounting policies and accounting estimates (44–48): ASAF members were provided feedback on Exposure Draft, Accounting Policies and Accounting Estimates, and provided views on next steps for the project.
• Is financial reporting still an effective tool for equity investor in Australia? (49–51): ASAF members viewed a presentation from by the AASB on financial reporting’s effectiveness for equity investors in Australia.
• Goodwill and impairment (52–71): The ASAF members discussed (1) a staff proposal that amends the impairment testing of goodwill by considering movements in headroom and (2) the IFRS 3 requirement to recognize all identifiable intangible assets acquired in a business combination separately from goodwill.
• Primary financial statements (72–88): ASAF members provided views the Board’s tentative decisions to date on the application to financial entities and aggregation and disaggregation.
• IFRS Foundation Due Process Handbook review (89–99): ASAF member were updated on the Trustees’ review of the Due Process Handbook and provided views on its scope.
• Project updates and agenda planning (100–104): ASAF members were updated on the IASB research pipeline and provided advice on how to proceed with the post-implementation reviews of IFRS 10, IFRS 11, and IFRS 12.

A full summary of the meeting is available on the IASB's website.

IASB members are appointed for an initial five-year term with the possibility of being reappointed for another three years (in exceptional circumstances for another five years). Nominations for IASB board membership close on 6 July 2018. For more information, see the press release on the IASB’s website.

The DPOC members discussed the following topics:

• Introduction and Actions from DPOC meeting held on 31 January 2018
• Technical activities: Key issues and update
• Agenda decisions: The IFRS Interpretations Committee’s approach in responding to questions
• Due Process Handbook Review
  • Summary of discussions and progress since the last DPOC meeting
  • Analysis of key due process steps as set out in the Due Process Handbook
• Management commentary advisory group membership
• Correspondence: Update

The recordings are available on the IASB's website.

The first point made in relation to financial reporting regarded general purpose financial reporting, special purpose financial reporting, and the expectation gap that results from confusing or mixing these two forms of reporting. While general purpose financial reports come with the objective of providing financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors, lenders, and other creditors in making decisions about providing resources to the entity, special purpose financial reports are prepared using a particular framework to address specific needs of specific users and these frameworks can include intentions to achieve a certain behaviour. Mr Bricker warned against applying expectations regarding special purpose financial reports to general purpose financial reports and against beginning standard-setting with additional objectives in mind that go beyond providing decision useful financial information. He noted:

I make the distinction between general and special purpose objectives to emphasize the value of keeping and maintaining general purpose financial reporting free from other objectives. [...] When formulating standards for general purpose financial reporting, the IASB and the FASB do not seek to influence the outcome of investor capital allocation decisions or actions taken by management; instead, the boards’ design standards that provide better information to inform those decisions and actions. The alternative, whereby standards are designed to privilege specific objectives, economic activities, financial products, or market participants, could diminish confidence in the accuracy or quality of reported information, which could thereby impair capital formation, and in turn, negatively impact economic activity.

Nevertheless, Mr Bricker expressed the belief that general purpose financial reporting needs to continue to evolve and the standard-setters must continue to strive to set standards that provide the best information to a broad baseline of investors and investment advisers while preparers need to use judgement in applying the standards:

Consequently, management with responsibility for making decisions and judgments about how to prepare information – and standard setters with responsibility for establishing standards to guide management’s decisions – must try to find the balancing point among many different users. This work of preparing information (or writing standards for preparation of information) is one of walking a fine line between preparing (or requiring) disclosure of too much or too little information for inclusion in general purpose financial information.

The second point Mr Bricker made followed on from the need to continue to advance general purpose financial reporting to address expectations around financial reporting and any gaps that might exist. He stressed that everyone in the financial reporting structure needs to support the work of the accounting standard-setters and that thinking needs to be shared. In his comments, he clearly went beyond the previous bilateral co-operation of IASB and FASB:

The collaboration of everyone involved in the financial reporting structure should transcend geographies. In my view, it is essential to continue a policy of ongoing coordination and collaboration on national and international standards, practices, and needs so that the best thinking is identified, shared with each other, and can prompt action.

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

The ITCG discussed the following:

• Better communication theme — short update
• Principles of Disclosure ― technology and digital reporting
• IFRS Taxonomy — technology review
• IFRS Taxonomy implementation support
• IFRS Taxonomy content — areas for discussion
• Handling of entity-specific disclosures
• Update by ITCG members on developments directly relating to the IFRS Taxonomy and/or the use of technology for financial reporting

For more in­for­ma­tion, see the summary on the IASB’s website.