21st Century Disclosure Initiative

The study will be a fundamental rethinking of financial disclosure, beginning with the basic purposes of disclosure from the perspective of investors and markets. The inquiry will be aimed at identifying the objectives of the ideal disclosure system at the architectural level. Essential to the study will be the determination of how to match the capabilities of today's information technology with the SEC's regulatory aims and the needs of investors.

The study will include a review of all existing SEC forms and reporting requirements, as well as the manner in which information is provided to the Commission, with a special focus on needless redundancy. It will also include consideration of various alternative strategic approaches to acquiring and publishing disclosure information. In addition, the study will consider ways that regulatory requirements for the collection of information might be tailored to get the best real-time distribution of financial and narrative disclosure to investors. Finally, the study will examine how best to integrate public disclosure with the SEC's proposed new post-EDGAR architecture for investor search, assembly, and comparison of data.

A fundamental theme of this paper is the debate between input and output-based CPD measurement. Input-based measurement has recently been brought into question by many professional bodies. These bodies recognize that simply recording the time spent on CPD does not necessarily indicate that anything has been learned, or that CPD will lead to any change in practice. In a climate of increased accountability and external pressures, professional bodies are turning to output-based measurement techniques that can measure exactly what input-based measurement cannot: the impact of CPD on the professionalism of practitioners.

There is some resistance to the implementation of output-based measures, including perceived cost, and professionals feeling as if they are being 'tested'. The aim of this paper is to find out what professional bodies are currently doing in terms of CPD measurement, and to understand the success of different types of systems. This will result in an informed analysis of the arguments for and against input and output-based measurement systems. We discovered that there are many steps along the way to a fully output-based system, and that successful output measurement is not as far from reach as many professional bodies may suspect.

The Council adopted the following conclusions:

The Council welcomes the proposals that have been made in this direction by the IASCF and considers that the further reform of the IASCF and IASB's governance and public accountability should be made according to the following key principles:

• the public accountability of the IASCF should be enhanced through the creation of an effective Monitoring Board, which should have sufficient powers to provide the necessary oversight of the IASCF; it should first ensure that Trustees effectively discharge their oversight role towards the IASB, play an active role in the selection of Trustees and approve their final selection. The members of the Monitoring Body should be able to further refer issues of public interest, including those related to financial stability and prudential requirements, and matters of overall strategy for consideration by the IASB. The Monitoring Board should thus remain in close relation with the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, who should be put in charge, under the IASC constitution, to ensure that all views and concerns of public interest representatives are fully addressed by the IASB Board;
• the Monitoring Board should be composed of relevant authorities responsible for public interest related to the adoption and endorsement of accounting standards in their respective jurisdictions, including the global body representing authorities responsible for financial stability or key authorities involved in financial stability. The European Commission shall propose mechanisms to ensure that it represents the co-ordinated position of all relevant European institutions and bodies, and Member states;
• the IASB must achieve greater transparency and legitimacy of its standard-setting and agenda-setting processes, in particular through more systematic public consultations about the IASB's work programme, including the IASB-FASB convergence agenda and more field testing. The effectiveness of the Standards Advisory Council should be enhanced; the role of impact assessments as a mandatory part of the IASB's due process should be formalised; and, possible changes to the terms of service of IASB members should be considered, including a possible term limitation for the chairman of the IASB. The views of public authorities, in particular those charged with financial stability and prudential regulation, should be adequately reflected in the IASB's standard-setting process.
• members of the IASB should reflect an appropriate balance of practical and technical expertise, as well as a diversity of geographical experience in order to contribute to the development of high quality, global accounting standards. The role of the EU as the largest jurisdiction applying IFRS should be properly reflected.
• The Council emphasises the urgency of enhancing the EU's ability to contribute in a timely and consistent manner to the international accounting debate. It therefore welcomes efforts to enhance the role of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), especially in relation to timely upstream input to the IASB's agenda-setting process. EFRAG's governance arrangements should ensure a balanced representation of all European stakeholders. EFRAG should establish effective and transparent procedures ensuring that it operates in the public interest and in a manner consistent with the EU's financial reporting policy. The Council welcomes recent progress to reform EFRAG's structure of governance in this direction.

Chapters in Deloitte's new 164-page guide to IFRS 3 and IAS 27:

1. Introduction
2. Principles underlying the revised Standards
3. Acquisition method of accounting
4. Scope
5. Identifying a business combination
6. Identifying the acquirer
7. Determining the acquisition date
8. Recognising and measuring the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree
9. Identifying and measuring consideration
10. Recognising and measuring goodwill or a gain from a bargain purchase
11. Post-combination accounting
12. Step acquisitions and partial disposals
13. Business combinations with no transfer of consideration
14. Reverse acquisitions
15. Effective date and transition
16. Disclosure

• Appendix 1 Comparison of IFRS 3(2008) and IFRS 3(2004) and Comparison of IAS 27(2008) and IAS 27(2003)
• Appendix 2 Continuing differences between IFRSs and US GAAP