This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version, or you may have 'compatibility mode' selected. Please turn off compatibility mode, upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.


IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) (blue) Image

Updated IASB work plan — Analysis

12 Apr 2019

Following the IASB's April 2019 meeting, we have analysed the IASB work plan to see what changes have resulted from the meeting and other developments since the work plan was last revised in March. Eight exposure drafts are expected to be published in June 2019.

Below is an analysis of all changes that were made to the work plan since our last analysis on 21 March 2019.

Standard-setting projects

  • No changes.

Maintenance projects

  • The following exposure drafts are now expected in June 2019 (formerly Q2 2019):
    • Amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts
    • Deferred Tax Related to Assets and Liabilities Arising from a Single Transaction (Amendments to IAS 12)
    • Fees in the ‘10 per cent’ Test for Derecognition (Amendments to IFRS 9)
    • Lease Incentives (Amendment to Illustrative Example 13 accompanying IFRS 16)
    • Subsidiary as a First-time Adopter (Amendments to IFRS 1)
    • Taxation in Fair Value Measurements (Amendments to IAS 41)
    • Updating a Reference to the Conceptual Framework (Amendments to IFRS 3)
  • Disclosure Initiative—Accounting Policies — An Exposure Draft is expected in Q3 2019 (formerly H2 2019).
  • Onerous Contracts—Cost of Fulfilling a Contract (Amendments to IAS 37) — Exposure Draft feedback is expected in May 2019 (formerly Q2 2019).

Research projects

  • Extractive Activities — The review of research is now expected in H2 2019 (no date given before).

Other projects

  • Due Process Handbook Review — An Exposure Draft is expected in June 2019 (formerly Q2 2019).
  • The following projects were removed from the work plan, as the 2019 IFRS XBRL taxomomy was issued in March 2019:
    • IFRS Taxonomy Update—2018 General Improvements
    • IFRS Taxonomy Update—Common Practice (IFRS 13)

The above is a faithful comparison of the IASB work plan at 21 March 2019 and at 12 April 2019. For access to the current IASB work plan at any time, please click here.

Not yet reflected in the work plan are two annoucements made by the staff during the update on the research programme at the April 2019 meeting:

  • The staff expect to start work on the PIR of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities in Q2 of 2019.
  • The staff also expect to start work on the pipeline project on the Equity Method in Q2 or Q3 of 2019 because there is some overlap with some of the issues that will be considered in the PIR of IFRS 11.
IASB podcast (blue) Image

IASB podcast on recent IFRS 17 discussions

12 Apr 2019

The IASB has released a podcast reporting on the discussions at two recent meetings on IFRS 17 'Insurance Contracts'.

The podcast discusses the meeting of the Transition Resource Group (TRG) for Insurance Contracts on 4 April 2019 and the IASB discussion of possible amendments to IFRS 17 on 9 April 2019. The IASB's discussion considered some of the TRG findings.

The 10-minute podcast can be accessed on YouTube.

TRG meeting (mid blue) Image

Insurance contracts transition resource group holds fourth technical meeting

11 Apr 2019

The Transition Resource Group (TRG) for Insurance Contracts held its fourth technical meeting on 4 April 2019.

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

  • Investment components within an insurance contract
  • Reporting on other questions submitted

The meeting summary and audio recordings of each session are available on the TRG meeting page on the IASB’s website. For more information, see Deloitte's related IFRS in Focus newsletter. The IASB's discussion on amendments to IFRS 17 on 9 April also considered the TRG findings.

IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) (blue) Image

IASB issues 'Investor Update' newsletter

10 Apr 2019

The IASB has issued the eighteenth edition of its newsletter 'Investor Update', which provides investors with quick access to information about current accounting and financial reporting topics.

This issue features:

  • Spotlight — Crypto-assets: The standard-setting perspective
  • Preview — The Essentials: Analysing lessee financial statements and Non-GAAP performance measures
  • We need your views
  • Stay up to date
  • Resources for investors

The Investor Update newsletter is available on the IASB’s website.

IASB meeting (blue) Image

IASB concludes discussion of possible amendments to IFRS 17, gives permission to develop an ED

09 Apr 2019

At its meeting currently held in London, the IASB discussed as a whole the amendments to IFRS 17 that the Board has tentatively decided to propose and confirmed that it wishes to proceed with an exposure draft to amend IFRS 17.

The Board discussed the following topics and questions:

  • Sweep issues. The Board discussed additional stakeholder concerns relating to IFRS 17 (and IFRS 9) that have arisen in the project on the amendments to IFRS 17. On the effective date of the proposed amendments to IFRS 17, the staff recommended that the effective date is aligned with that of IFRS 17. On all other issues, the staff recommended that the Board not undertake any further action. The Board agreed unanimously with the staff recommendations.
  • Annual improvements.
    • The Board discussed a number of minor changes the staff have become aware of through the ongoing implementation activities on IFRS 17 that would fall within the scope of the annual improvements process. There were some questions by the Board and additional clarifications will be added to the wording proposed by the staff. The Board agreed unanimously to include these changes in the forthcoming exposure draft.
    • The Board also agreed to include the minor changes to IFRS 17 identified as candidates for the annual improvements process in June 2018 in the forthcoming exposure draft.
  • Overview of the amendments to IFRS 17. The Board was provided with an overview of all the amendments to IFRS 17 that the Board has tentatively decided to propose, the likely effects of the proposed amendments to IFRS 17, and a cost-benefit analysis for all amendments. This part of the session was educational in nature, and no vote was taken.
  • Due process steps and permission for balloting.
    • The Board was asked to confirm its tentative decisions from the November 2018 meeting relating to the mandatory effective date of IFRS 17 and the fixed expiry date for the temporary exemption in IFRS 4 from applying IFRS 9. The Board confirmed that it wants to propose deferring the effective dates (unanimous vote).
    • The Board was asked to confirm that it wishes to proceed with an exposure draft to amend IFRS 17. The Board confirmed that it is satisfied that it has complied with the applicable due process steps and that it should begin the balloting process for the exposure draft (unanimous vote).
    • No Board member indicated a planned dissent at this stage.

The staff will now begin drafting the exposure draft, which it expects to issue by the end of June 2019. The comment period will be discussed at the May 2019 Board Meeting after obtaining permission from the Due Process Oversights Committee for a reduced comment period.

IASB meeting (blue) Image

Pre-meeting summaries for the April IASB meeting

03 Apr 2019

The IASB will meet at its offices in London on 9–11 April 2019. We have posted our pre-meeting summaries for the meeting that allow you to follow the IASB’s decision making more closely. For each topic to be discussed, we summarise the agenda papers made available by the IASB staff and point out the main issues to be discussed by the IASB and the staff recommendations.

The Board will consider the package of amendments to IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts it has been considering since June 2018. The staff conclude that none of the amendments either unduly disrupts implementation, or where there could be disruption, that the potential disruption is justified. In June 2018 the Board decided to propose some minor changes that it planned to include in the next Annual Improvements cycle. These will instead be included with the Exposure Draft for the package of IFRS 17 amendments. The staff also recommend that the effective date of IFRS 17 and of the proposed amendments be for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2022 (with earlier application permitted). The staff will be seeking clearance from the Due Process Oversight Committee to have a shorter than normal comment period.

The Board will consider the feedback it received on the Exposure Draft Accounting Policies and Accounting Estimates (Amendments to IAS 8). The staff’s preliminary view is that the Board should proceed with the project.

The project looking at goodwill and impairment returns to the Board. The staff recommend that the acquirer of a business be required to provide information to help a user of the financial statements assess whether a business combination was a good investment decision and whether that business is performing as expected. The paper sets out the recommended disclosures.

In Dynamic Risk Management the staff recommend that negative balances within the target profile should not be permitted within the DRM model; the changes to the risk management strategy and the target profile must occur infrequently; and the risk management strategy must be clearly documented within a specified time horizon and cannot be defined in a way that is contingent. They also recommend that separate line items in the primary financial statements should not be required for derivatives designated in the DRM model from other derivatives or for accumulated changes in fair value of designated derivatives. That information would be provided in the notes to the financial statements. Also, net interest margin should include the aligned portion but not the misaligned portion.

For the Disclosure Initiative the Board will be asked for clearance to proceed with an Exposure Draft to propose adding two examples to the Materiality Practice Statement related to accounting policies.

The Board will consider the potential to explore a form of predecessor approach for some business combinations under common control.  

In the Primary Financial Statements project the staff recommend that the Board clarify that MPMs (management performance measures) are subject to the general requirement that information included in the financial statements must provide a faithful representation. They also recommend that entities can only identify a measure as an MPM if they use the same measure in their public communications. The staff also have recommendations to clarify presentation issues related an entity’s “main business activities.”

There are also updates on Implementation Matters, the Research Programme and (orally) Management Commentary.  

More information

Our pre-meeting summaries are available on our April meeting notes page and will be supplemented with our popular meeting notes after the meeting.

European Union Image
EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group) (dk green) Image

Videos from the first European Reporting Lab@EFRAG Conference now available

03 Apr 2019

The EFRAG has made available a series of videos from the first conference of the European Reporting Lab held in Brussels on 5 March 2019. The theme of the conference was fostering innovation in corporate reporting.

The video series contains two videos on the whole event as well as nine short interviews with participates. For more information, see the press release on the EFRAG’s website and the EFRAG’s YouTube channel.

IASB speeches (blue) Image
Leaf - sustainability (green) Image

IASB chair discusses sustainability

02 Apr 2019

At the Climate-Related Financial Reporting Conference in Cambridge, UK, IASB chair Hans Hoogervorst gave a speech titled ‘What sustainability reporting can and cannot achieve’.

Mr Hoogervorst admitted that he had been sceptical about climate change in the past, but changed his mind over the years. During his speech, he criticized public policies that have enabled climate change; he called climate change “a massive example of such market failure.” He highlighted (1) the importance of sustainability reporting, (2) how it relates to financial reporting, and (3) the role of the IASB. Mr Hoogervorst was clear:

I do not think the IASB is equipped to enter the field of sustainability reporting directly. Setting sustainability reporting standards requires expertise that we simply do not have. Moreover, there are already more than enough standard-setters active in this field.

He went on to discuss how sustainability issues will become more visible in financial statements as the effects of climate change become more prominent. He noted, “[M]any sustainability issues may only emerge in the long run. In such cases they will tend to escape the financial statements, which are essentially backward-looking.”

He then explained how the IASB is working to improve ‘broader financial reporting’. Mr Hoogervorst discussed the IASB’s management commentary project — a renewal of its 2010 Management Commentary Practice Statement. He mentioned that the updated Practice Statement will focus more on intangibles and require companies to report on sustainability issues — including climate change — if those issues impact their businesses in a material way.

Mr Hoogervorst closed his speech by reflecting on the plethora of sustainability standards and initiatives. He praised the Corporate Reporting Dialogue, which is working to align the frameworks of various standards. He also cautioned against expecting too much from sustainability reporting as an agent for change: “[W]e should not expect sustainability reporting to be very effective in inducing companies to prioritise planet over profit.” He explained that financial incentives are crucial in combatting climate change and stated:

I strongly believe that the most promising strand of sustainability reporting comprises those standards that focus on the investor and on the impact of sustainability issues on the future returns of the company. This is the type of sustainability reporting which will fit well with our Management Commentary Practice Statement, rather than the reporting that focuses primarily on a company’s contribution to the public good.

For more information, see the transcript of the speech on the IASB’s website.

IFRS IC meeting (blue) Image

IFRS IC conference call cancelled

01 Apr 2019

The conference call of the IFRS Interpretations Committee that was supposed to take place on 30 April 2019 has been cancelled and removed from the IASB's diary.

The next meeting of the IFRS Interpretations Committee will take place on 11-12 June 2019.

IFASS (International Forum of Accounting Standard Setters) (dark green) Image
European Union Image

IFASS meeting with detailed analysis of responses to the EC fitness check on public reporting by companies

29 Mar 2019

At the meeting of the International Federation of Accounting Standard Setters (IFASS) currently held in Buenos Aires, Peter Sampers, Chairman of the Dutch Accounting Standards Board (DASB) and Professor of Financial Accounting at Maastricht University, provided an update on the outcome of the public consultation on the EU framework for pubic reporting by companies.

For his detailed analysis, Mr Sampers drew on the summary report of the EU and on further analysis of individual responses to the consultation that were made public by the EU. The focus of his research was on the IFRS-related questions in the consultation.

Mr Sampers noted that stakeholders from 23 Member States and 25 third countries submitted 338 responses with 82% of the responses being from organisations and companies, 9% from public authorities and international organisations and 9% from private individuals. In this context, Mr Sampers especially noted the high number of responses from private individual that would show that stakeholders were really concerned about developments. He also noted the high number of responses from Germany.

In discussing the responses to individual questions, Mr Sampers noted the confusing design of certain elements of the consultation document that led to some false positives and contradictory answers and that only allowed additional comments in case of support for what seemed to be the EC Commission's preliminary view. He summarised the following insights:

  • Regarding the question of whether the EU should be able modify the content of IFRSs on adoptions, the majority of respondents was clearly against "carve-ins", however, clear regional differences became obvious with 75% of respondents in France supporting the possibility of carve-ins against only 15% in Germany, the UK and the Netherlands doing so.
  • A clear majority of respondents (68%) is convinced that the EU endorsement process is appropriate to ensure that IFRS do not pose an obstacle to broader EU policy objectives such as sustainability and long-term investments. This correlates with the answers to the question of how the EU could ensure that IFRS do not pose an obstacle to sustainability and long-term investments, where only 11% of respondents believed the possibility of modifications to IFRS was needed to ensure this.
  • On the question of whether an EU conceptual framework should underpin the IFRS endorsement process, the answer was clearly negative, however, a surprising number (not a majority, though) supported adopting the IASB's Conceptual Framework for use in the EU. (Discussing this point, participants made clear that adopting a pronouncement that is not binding for the IASB would lead to a legally difficult situation, especially since some of the IASB's standards are not aligned with the Conceptual Framework. Therefore, outright adoption would not seem to be an option.)

Overall, Mr Samper's presentation showed that it can be concluded that there is little support for changes to the current endorsement process and for the introduction of an ability for Europe to modify the content of IFRS. This is in line with the overall summary in the EC Commission's summary of responses which stated that the EU framework overall brings added value, is effective and relevant for achieving its objectives and is coherent.

Mr Sampers kindly gave us permission to make his presentation slides available on IAS Plus. They can be accessed here.

Correction list for hyphenation

These words serve as exceptions. Once entered, they are only hyphenated at the specified hyphenation points. Each word should be on a separate line.