News

Australia Image

AASB seeks user perspective on improvements to IFRS 3 and IAS 38

19 Aug 2011

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) has launched a survey of users of financial statements on the initial accounting for intangible assets acquired in business combinations under IFRS 3 Business Combinations and IAS 38 Intangible Assets (or similar GAAP).

The IASB considered a project proposal on intangible assets at its December 2007 joint meeting. The IASB decided that although a project on intangible assets was not urgent, it was an important project that should remain on the research agenda and asked the IASB staff to discuss the future of the project 'offline' with AASB staff and other national standard setters. In addition, the IASB Chairman at that time suggested that the research continue under the aegis of the National Standard Setters (NSS) group, with the IASB being involved through its usual representation as part of this group.

The survey of financial statements users follows on from a similar survey of preparers, advisors, auditors and regulators launched earlier this year and a separate Discussion Paper on intangible assets released in November 2008.

The survey is open until 15 December 2011. Click for access to the AASB survey (link to external website). More information is available in this AASB press release (link to AASB website).

Canada Image

Canadian banks ask regulators to remember existing reforms when setting reform timetable

19 Aug 2011

The Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) has noted that regulators should carefully monitor the total regulatory burden.

In a pre-budget submission to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the CBA notes that one of the most significant challenges for the Canadian banking sector over the next few years will be the implementation of numerous global and domestic regulatory, capital and liquidity reforms (such as Basel III). The submission argues too rapid an adoption of reform may place Canadian banks at competitive disadvantage, noting the implementation of other reforms as well as Canada's current transition to IFRSs:

Click for CBA submission (link to CBA website) and our Canada country page.

New Zealand Image

Use of more concise English could help reduce translation problems

18 Aug 2011

On 9 August 2011, Professor Rachel Baskerville gave her inaugural professorial lecture at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

Professor Baskerville is co-author of The darkening glass, a study on translation questions and IFRSs (see our earlier story).

In her lecture, Professor Baskerville looked closely at how technical complexity and the lack of concise English render international accounting standards difficult to translate. She mainly draws on a survey in which translators of accounting textbooks and accounting standards in the EU took part.

The list of 'Translators' nightmares' discussed in the lecture highlighted "technical complexity", both in general and of particular IFRSs, as the top concern. IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement is quoted as an example of a standard that poses translation difficulties because of its technical complexity.

Translators address their 'nightmares' with a number of tools, ranging from circumlocution and paraphrasing to approximation and even omitting parts of the original text. Not surprisingly, this can lead to different interpretations of IFRSs in different jurisdictions.

In addition to complexity of financial standards, the lack of concise English and inconsistent use of terms across standards and across time cause problems for translators. Professor Baskerville claims these problems are even aggravated by the convergence project:

[W]ith the USA being thought by some to be not as respectful of language as those across the Atlantic; and that in terms of size, the tendency of the standard setters in the USA is to produce very large quantum of regulation, compared with the two volumes of IFR standards there is a danger in this process we call 'Convergence' that the IFR standards will get bigger, with longer sentences and more complex language.

The lecture concluded on the note that less is sometimes better than more, and that the use of more concise language will not only ease the burden of the translators but might also assist native speakers to come to terms with the complexity of IFRSs.

Professor Baskerville has reported on these findings to the staff at the IASB in London, and has been asked also to report to the IPSASB later this year. Please click for the notes for her inaugural lecture (PDF 1.42mb), which we post with kind permission of the author.

AICPA (American Institute of CPAs) (lt green) Image

AICPA recommends optional adoption of IFRS by US public companies in comment letter to SEC

18 Aug 2011

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has submitted a comment letter (link to AICPA website) to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on its views of the SEC staff paper, Work Plan for the Consideration of Incorporating International Financial Reporting Standards Into the Financial Reporting System for U.S. Issuers Exploring a Possible Method of Incorporation.

The AICPA's comment letter expresses support of IFRS and the continued efforts of the IASB and FASB to develop a single set of financial reporting standards for public companies worldwide. The letter supports an "endorsement approach" similar to the one described in the SEC Staff Paper, and emphasises that US companies should be given an option to adopt IFRS, as long as they also remain compliant with US GAAP. See our earlier story for more information on the Staff Paper.

The letter includes the following opinions:

Whether or not the SEC decides to incorporate IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system through an endorsement/convergence approach, we believe U.S. issuers should be given the option to adopt IFRS as issued by the IASB. An adoption option would provide a level of consistency in the treatment of U.S. companies and foreign private issuers that report under IFRS that does not exist today, and would facilitate the comparison of U.S. companies that elect IFRS with their non-U.S. competitors that use IFRS. Furthermore, giving U.S. companies an option to adopt IFRS as issued by the IASB would be another important step towards achieving the goal of incorporating IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of companies that would choose such an option would not be such that system-wide readiness would become an issue. . . .

We pragmatically accept the concept of an endorsement approach for the incorporation of IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system and the retention of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) as the U.S. standard setter to facilitate the incorporation of IFRS into U.S. GAAP. . . .

[A]fter completion of the MoU priority projects, we recommend an endorsement process that would incorporate IFRSs not subject to standard setting into U.S. GAAP for public companies at one point in time, with a date certain for adoption. . . .

As it relates to private companies, we support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Private Company Financial Reporting for establishment of a separate board for developing exceptions and modifications to current U.S. GAAP for private companies.

The AICPA is also hosting jointly with the IFRS Foundation The North American Perspective IFRS Conference, which will include information on IFRS including major convergence projects and the status of incorporating IFRS into US financial reporting. The conference is scheduled to take place in Boston MA, United States on 5-7 October 2011. More information about the conference is available on the IASB's website.

Click for AICPA comment letter (link to AICPA website)

PCAOB (US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) (dark gray) Image

PCAOB explores mandatory audit firm rotation

17 Aug 2011

The United States Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has issued a concept release to solicit public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional scepticism can be enhanced, including through mandatory rotation of audit firms.

The proposals follow earlier proposals for audit reform in Europe (see our earlier story).

Mandatory audit firm rotation would limit the number of consecutive years for which a registered public accounting firm could serve as the auditor of a public company, with the PCAOB considering the implications of a 10 year limit. The concept release paper outlines the PCAOB's rationale for proposing mandatory rotation, and asks for constituent feedback on matters such as the appropriate maximum term, which types of entities the rotation proposal should apply to, and transitional and implementation considerations.

Comments on the proposals are due by 14 December 2011 and a public roundtable on auditor independence and mandatory audit firm rotation is expected to be held in March 2012. Please click for:

 

Robert Bruce Image

The Bruce Column — Brickbats and buybacks

17 Aug 2011

It is almost twenty years since Terry Smith first hit the business headlines.

He was head of UK company research at what was then, UBS Phillips & Drew. He took an interest in financial reporting and accounting matters, unusual for the time, particularly as it was the heyday of what was referred to, carefully and with tact, as "creative accounting". What he did was identify what he felt were the main creative accounting techniques at some of the biggest companies of the day and place a blob against each of the techniques they used. This dramatised the issue. The more blobs a company had the more they should be treated with suspicion by investors. His system became famous. He wrote a book about it, ("Accounting for Growth: Stripping the Camouflage from Company Accounts"), for Random House. Then some of the companies concerned brought pressure to bear on him to stop its publication. He pointed out that it was now the publisher's book, not his. The book became a bestseller on the back of the publicity. Smith was escorted from the UBS building and set about building a new career, first with brokers Collins Stewart and now as Chief Executive of brokers Tullet Prebon and investment company Fundsmith.

These days he is a happy man in business terms and a happier man in terms of financial reporting. The near-twenty years since his book came out roughly coincided with Sir David Tweedie's efforts to sort out the problems, first at the UK Accounting Standards Board and, second, at the International Accounting Standards Board. 'Tweedie & Co did a good job', he says. 'They did most of the work needed to change accounting'. So the old creative accounting techniques have mostly been hit on the head.

But he does have one complaint about current practice. And that is the practice of share buybacks. He puts his case succinctly. 'The problem is that when a company repurchases shares they disappear from the balance sheet', he says, 'and this can be used to distort measures of company performance. Simply by executing a share buyback rather than paying out dividends companies can inflate their earnings per share figure and are almost universally seen to have created value for shareholders when mostly they clearly have not'.

He invents an example where two identical companies, (same profits, tax rate, number of shares in issue, shareholders fund and debt), have identical earnings per share figures. They both decide to return the same amount to shareholders. One does a share buyback. The other pays a special dividend. The result is startling. The return on equity will be the same for both companies but the earnings per share figure will be higher at the company which goes the buyback route. And, as Smith argues: "If you review the comments of management, analysts and the press you will find that this will almost universally mean that the buyback company will be seen as having created more value".

Smith suggests this is not really the case. 'Can that really be so if their return on equity figures remain identical and so does the amount of equity capital employed and they have both returned the same amount to shareholders?'

As a result he questions the current reliance on earnings per share as a relevant benchmark. 'This raises the whole subject of whether growth in earnings per share should be the primary or even the sole measure of value creation, or is even valuable at all for this purpose', he says, 'a myth which we thought had been exorcised many years ago but which seems to keep coming back to life like a character in a vampire movie'.

And there is the question of why so many companies opt for share buybacks as a means of returning capital to shareholders. Smith thinks this is obvious. 'The answer, of course, lies in how company performance is judged and management incentives set', he says. 'Earnings per share is still the single most frequently used measure of company performance and metric used to set performance targets for equity incentive plans'.

So what should be done? First: accounting reform. 'We want an accounting change so that the shares remain as part of shareholders' funds and as an equity-accounted asset on the balance sheet in calculating returns. At the moment share repurchases disappear from the balance sheet', he says. 'We need to bring them back on'.

And the second change is one of company attitudes. 'Investors should say that they require the company to give them at least as much information on share buybacks as they would if they were buying shares in another company'.

Terry Smith is chief executive of the investor, Fundsmith, and so it has written to a wide variety of companies to ask them to explain their attitudes to share buybacks. 'We have had a shrug of the shoulders from some', says Smith, 'and some have come back with very good responses. But no one has come back to say: "No, You are wrong"'.

And, as the events of twenty years ago showed, Smith has a good record of getting his views heard.

Robert Bruce August 2011

Related links

 

 

Twitter (mid blue) Image

Our news stories are now available on Twitter

16 Aug 2011

We have today started announcing our news stories on Twitter.

Access and follow our Twitter feed (@iasplus) to see the latest news stories as they are posted on IAS Plus.

Our Twitter feed joins our RSS feed and email alert service as a convenient way to access the latest developments in global accounting as they happen.

Update 2013/09: Our subsites have also launched Twitter feeds:

IAS Plus siteTwitter handle
IAS Plus global site @iasplus
IAS Plus in German (www.iasplus.de) @iasplusde
UK Accounting Plus (www.iasplus.com/en-gb) @ukaccplus
US GAAP Plus (www.iasplus.com/en-us) @deloitteacctg
European Union (old) Image

The European Securities and Markets Authority issues summary of IFRS decisions

16 Aug 2011

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published its eleventh batch of extracts from its confidential database of enforcement decisions taken by EU national enforcers of financial information.

From time to time, the ESMA publishes extracts of selected decisions as a source of information to foster appropriate and consistent application of IFRSs in the EU. Topics covered in batch #11 of ESMA's extracts:
  • Determination of fair value less costs to sell
  • Classification of subsidiary held for sale
  • Impairment of financial assets
  • Aggregation of operating segments
  • Distribution of non-cash assets to shareholders
  • Investment properties
  • Disclosure on financial instruments
  • Presentation of fair value changes in the profit and loss account
  • Financial instruments — Disclosure
Click to download this and earlier decision summaries:

 

Deloitte Comment Letter Image

Deloitte comment letters on IFRS Interpretations Committee agenda decisions

15 Aug 2011

Deloitte's IFRS Global Office has submitted letters of comment on the following tentative agenda decisions discussed at the July 2011 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting:

We agree with the tentative agenda decisions made by the Committee, with the exception of the tentative decision not to take onto the IFRIC's agenda requests for Interpretations of IFRS 3 Business Combinations, with respect to providing guidance on the circumstances or factors that are relevant when identifying an acquirer in a business combination under IFRS 3 in the context of a situation where a group plans to spin off subsidiaries using a new entity and the acquisition of the subsidiaries by the new entity is conditional upon completion of an initial public offering. An extract from this comment letter follows:

We do not agree with the Committee's decision to deal with this issue, which is widespread in certain jurisdictions (albeit not, as noted in the tentative agenda decision, in many others) and for which we have seen real diversity in practice, through a rejection notice. Whilst we agree that a reasonable analysis of the requirements of IFRS 3 is presented in the tentative agenda decision, there would be significant transitional issues for entities that have previously applied a different treatment. Accordingly, any clarification of the treatment of transactions such as those described in the tentative agenda decision should be carefully considered, including consideration of potential changes in practice that may result and the need for transitional provisions. We believe that a full interpretation or an amendment to IFRS 3 via the Annual Improvements Project would be more suitable for these purposes than an IFRIC rejection notice.

All of our comment letters are available on our comment letter page.

Click for our July 2011 IFRS Interpretations Committee meeting notes.

Webcast (mid blue) Image

Q&A report from recent Deloitte global financial reporting Dbriefs webcast

12 Aug 2011

On 27 July 2011, we hosted a Deloitte Dbriefs webcast on global financial reporting, entitled IFRS: Important Developments.

A 'Q&A Report' has been published containing a summary of audience questions submitted during the live webcast and our suggested responses. Topics covered in the Q&A report include hedge accounting, leases, revenue recognition, fair value measurement (IFRS 13), and the effective date of IFRS 9.

Click for:

 

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.