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

• Primary financial statements (1–15): ASAF members discussed (1) introducing additional defined subtotals in the statement(s) of financial performance ('profit before investing, financing and income tax’ and ‘profit before financing and income tax’), (2) an ‘income and expenses from investments’ category presented between these two subtotals and a ‘finance income and expenses’ category presented below the ‘profit before financing and income tax’ subtotal, and (3) better ways to communicate other comprehensive income (OCI). Most ASAF members were generally supportive of introducing additional defined subtotals in the statement(s) of financial performance. As regards OCI, ASAF members noted that relabelling OCI without clarifying the distinction between profit or loss and OCI, and without clarifying the principles for recycling, would only cause confusion.
• Disclosure initiative — Definition of material (16–22): ASAF members commented on the September 2017 Exposure Draft. Most of them expressed concerns with the reference to ‘obscuring’ information in the proposed definition of material. Some members also made additional suggestions to improve the application of the definition of material.
• Disclosure initiative — Principles of disclosure (23–35): ASAF members discussed the feedback received on the Priciples of Disclosure Discussion Paper and provided feedback on: (1) technology and digital reporting considerations, (2) development of disclosure principles, (3) standards-level review of disclosures, and (4) project direction and focus.
• Post-implementation Review of IFRS 13 (36–41): ASAF members received an overview of the feedback received in response to the request for information, which they generally agreed with (especially the fact that IFRS 13 is perceived to be working well). ASAF members provided advice on how the Board could respond to that feedback.
• Wider Corporate Reporting (42–47): ASAF members commented on the Wider Corporate Reporting project the Board has added to its agenda. Most ASAF members supported the Board’s decision to revise and update the Practice Statement Management Commentary and also provided suggestions for the Board to consider in moving the project forward.Several ASAF members commented on the current nonmandatory status of the statement.
• Academic liaison (48–50): ASAF members explained about their experience in liaising with academics, and offered their views on whether the activities they engaged in with academics would work in the broader international context of the Board.
• Information deficiencies and consolidated financial statements (51–53): Andreas Barckow, German ASAF member, presented on the perceived information deficiencies of consolidated financial statements, in particular, the loss of information about subsidiary entities through the elimination procedures in preparing consolidated financial statements (see our earlier announcement of his paper in November 2017).
• Proposed improvements to IFRS 8 (54–70): The IASB staff summarised the feedback on the March 2017 Exposure draft, which had been mixed. Therefore, the staff sought ASAF members’ views on some ideas on how the proposals in the Exposure Draft could be improved.
• Business Combinations Under Common Control (71–91): ASAF members received an update on the Board’s discussions in this research project and commented on: (1) clarifications of the scope of the project and (2) methods of accounting for transactions in the scope of the project. ASAF members supported the clarification of the scope of the project made by the Board in October 2017.
• Project updates and agenda planning (92–93): ASAF members were updated on the IASB technical projects and how the IASB used the ASAF advice from previous meetings.

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

Most respondents commented that they largely agreed with the prioritisation of the topics discussed in the consultation document and the suggested categorisation of critical, medium term, or long term, even though some respondents expressed priority for different topics.

The following points were also raised:

• It was considered to be at least a challenging schedule to address all the items categorised as "critical" by the IVSC in the prescribed 0-2 years for critical items.
• It was also suggested that the IVSC should also supply implementation guidance.
• It was noted that the IVSC is suggesting to also address valuation issues that relate to recently issued IFRSs or to projects that are currently on the IASB work plan — for these it was suggested that the IVSC contribution may be more effective if it was made within the context of the IASB work streams.

Please click to access the full report on the IVSC website. The individual responses can be accessed here.

The purpose of the TRG is to seek feed­back on po­ten­tial issues related to im­ple­men­ta­tion of IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts. During the meeting, the TRG discussed the following:

• Separation of insurance components of a single contract.
• Boundary of contracts with annual repricing mechanisms.
• Boundary of reinsurance contracts held.
• Insurance acquisition cash flows paid on an initially written contract.
• Determining quantity of benefits for identifying coverage units.
• Insurance acquisition cash flows when using fair value transition.
• Reporting on other questions submitted.

Audio recordings of each session are available on the TRG meeting page on the IASB’s website. In addition, a summary on the meeting is expected soon.

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

On 22 November 2017, the EFRAG requested volunteers to participate in a detailed case study on IFRS 17; however, requests were made to simplify the case study for participants who did not have the resources to complete the detailed case study. The EFRAG invites any European insurance group that applies IFRSs under the provision of the IAS Regulation and has not completed the detailed case study to participate in the simplified version.

Responses are requested by 31 May 2018. For more information, see the press release on the EFRAG’s website.

Most recently, Mr White was the Chief Executive Officer of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. Previously, he worked as Chief Accountant at the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and was a member of the Australian Financial Reporting Council, the International Organization of Securities Commissions, and the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators.

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

Changes

The amendments in Plan Amendment, Curtailment or Settlement (Amendments to IAS 19) are:

• If a plan amendment, curtailment or settlement occurs, it is now mandatory that the current service cost and the net interest for the period after the remeasurement are determined using the assumptions used for the remeasurement.
• In addition, amendments have been included to clarify the effect of a plan amendment, curtailment or settlement on the requirements regarding the asset ceiling.

Effective date and transition requirements

An entity applies the amendments to plan amendments, curtailments or settlements occurring on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period that begins on or after 1 January 2019. Early application is permitted but must be disclosed.

Additional information

Please click for:

• IASB press release (link to IASB website)
• IFRS in Focus newsletter explaing the amendments
• Our IAS Plus project page on IAS 19/IFRIC 14 — Remeasurement at a plan amendment, curtailment or settlement / Availability of a refund of a surplus from a defined benefit plan
• Updated EFRAG endorsement status report

In December 2017 the IASB concluded its discussions of the scope of the project and the webinar discussed the Board’s decisions and illustrative examples of transactions within the scope.

Please click to access the recording on the IASB website.

The strategic objective of the IPSASB is stated as strengthening public financial management through increasing adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). The IPSASB intends to deliver this objective through developing IPSAS and other high-quality financial reporting guidance for the public sector and raising awareness of IPSAS and the benefits of accrual adoption.

To develop standards on critical areas in public sector accounting, the IPSASB proposes to take on three new major public sector specific projects:

• accounting for natural resources,
• discount rates, and
• differential reporting.  

The IPSASB will also continue to strive to maintain convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs).

Please click to access the proposed strategy and work plan and supporting material on the IPSASB website. Comments are requested by 15 June 2018.

In addition to giving updates on their respective standard-setting activities at the meeting, the two boards exchanged views on technical topics in which they both have an interest, including the conceptual framework, financial statement presentation and disclosures, impairment of financial assets, and leases.

The next meeting between the FASB and ASBJ is expected to be held in August 2018 in Norwalk. For more information about the meeting, see the press release on the FASB website.

The HLEG calls on the European Commission (EC) to “place greater emphasis on the need to integrate non-financial information” in the EU Directive on non-financial reporting. The final report states, “The ultimate ambition has to be convergence or integration of financial and non-financial or sustainability information… Integrated reporting supports this convergence qualitatively through reporting that links sustainability factors with company strategy.”

In more detail, the recommendations of the HLEG to the EC are:

Please click to access the final report and supporting materials on the EC website.