PwC IFRS blog

What should the future hold?

In a previous posting, I commented on the IASCF’s proposals to make the IASB more accountable – for example, by requiring the Board to consult with the Trustees and the Standards Advisory Council (SAC) on agenda decisions. Although still a proposal and not yet part of the Constitution, as usual the papers for this month's SAC meeting were available in advance on the IASB’s website.

The IASB’s focus continues to be on the convergence agenda consistent with its Memorandum of Understanding with the FASB. However, an important topic for discussion by the SAC this month was the IASB’s agenda beyond 2011. At that juncture the Board could change strategy, focussing not on wholesale change but on post-implementation reviews and ‘repairs and maintenance’ of existing standards. Alternatively (or in addition), it could focus on a few larger projects.

A paper presented to the SAC noted five projects that had come to the attention of the IASB in recent years that could be considered..

• Disclosure framework. A comprehensive reconsideration of required disclosures, building on work already started by the FASB.

• Extractive industries. By September 2010, the IASB expects to have analysed comment letters in relation to its request for views on the discussion paper prepared by national standard-setters.

• Foreign currency translation. The IASB has received several requests to review the current standard by jurisdictions moving to IFRS.

• Impairment of non-financial assets. The IASB started a joint project with the FASB but decided to focus on other priorities in the short term.

• Intangible assets. The IASB previously considered this topic on the basis of research undertaken by the Australian Accounting Standards Board, but decided in 2007 not to add the project to its agenda.

Do these sound like the most important subjects that the IASB ought to address? Is there anything else that needs attention? One thought could be to complete the conceptual framework, or perhaps tackle the question of performance reporting and what ‘other comprehensive income’ represents. Or would you welcome a period of reflection in which care and maintenance of existing standards is the order of the day?

As always, I am interested to hear your views, either by commenting here or by email.

Business combinations: Soon we will see the ‘new’ standard’s effects

It feels like a long time (approaching two years) since my posting on the subject of the IASB’s revised business combinations standard. It was probably the most controversial accounting topic of its day; but now, of course, the debate has moved on, and subjects such as fair value and financial instruments are taking centre stage.

There have been few high-profile deals since the revised versions of IFRS 3 on business combinations and IAS 27 on consolidated financial statements were issued in January 2008. However, there are signs in some parts of the world that M&A activity is starting to pick up, and the timing could not be better as the revised standards are effective for years beginning on or after 1 July 2009. Although many companies with calendar years will not apply the revised standards until 2010, some of the potential deals currently attracting media attention may not be completed until next year, and these may fall to be accounted for under the new approach. This could have an impact on earnings and may influence the way in which deals are structured

Here’s a reminder, at a very high level, of some of the revised standards’ implications:

• The cost of a business combination includes cash paid, shares issued and any payments that are contingent on future events. Items traditionally considered as part of the cost of the business combination may no longer be so. In particular, transaction costs, such as legal and accountants’ fees, will be written off as incurred.
• The consideration also, in effect, includes any previously held interest in the acquired business. When control is obtained, the previously held interest will in future have to be re-measured to fair value and a gain or loss recognised in the income statement. The converse is also true: when control is lost – for example, when a former subsidiary becomes an associate – the remaining interest is also fair valued through the income statement.
• Many acquisitions are made with an element of the payments being contingent on, for example, the future performance of the acquired business. Previously, contingent payments were accrued only when probable, and they were added to and adjusted against goodwill. Under the new approach, all contingent payments are measured at fair value at the time of the acquisition. They are subsequently re-measured to fair value through the income statement. So, if an acquired business does better than originally assumed and the fair value of the liability increases, it may, paradoxically, result in a debit in the income statement; on the other hand, if the opposite occurs it would be a credit.

Most companies follow a ‘parent-company’ approach to consolidation, which means that a purchase of a minority interest (or non-controlling interest, as it is now known) leads to goodwill, while a sale of shares to a minority results in a gain or loss. The new standards take the 'economic entity' view (a concept in my view that has yet to have the benefit of an adequate debate), whereby minorities are viewed in the same way as the parent shareholders, as just another class of equity. This means that transactions with them under the new standards will not result in goodwill or gains: all effects will be recorded in equity.

These are just some of the ways in which earnings may be impacted by the revised standards. There are many reasons why an acquisition makes economic sense, but will the potential for increased volatility in the income statement influence decisions? Good deals will remain good deals, but will the structure of transactions change?

As always, I am interested to hear your views, either by commenting here or by email.

Making the accountants more accountable

Consider the stakeholders, be more open about agenda-setting, accelerate the Board’s due process – these are some of the key recommendations arising from the IASCF’s consultation exercise aimed at improving the IASB’s accountability.

The points raised in the consultation paper, published on 9 September as part of the IASCF’s constitutional review could have far-reaching implications for the standard-setting process. Let’s look at some of the most important areas, which I also raised at the recent London roundtable.

Stakeholder perceptions

Many of the concerns that have been raised regarding the IASB’s accountability have been as much about behaviours and perceptions of the organisation’s willingness to listen and respond to input, as they have about the constitutional arrangements. There is evidence that the IASB and the IASCF have been better at listening to outside input recently. However, public perception to the contrary seems to  persist and can be difficult to overcome. Some constituents feel that the constitutional changes overall seem relatively modest as the end-product of an 18 month-process of deliberation. The IASB will need to demonstrate in its actions and behaviours that it is responsive to constructive input. 

Accountability, agenda-setting & due process

Many stakeholders argue that the process of setting the IASB’s technical agenda and work priorities should be more transparent, with clearly understood channels through which stakeholders can provide input and reactions, while not becoming overly bureaucratic.

The proposal to require the IASB to consult with the Trustees and the Standards Advisory Council (SAC) on agenda decisions is helpful, as is the proposal to enable the general public to provide input on papers on the Board’s agenda.

That said, there could be a greater emphasis on ‘feedback loops’, which would require the IASB to be accountable for its positions. Of course, the ultimate decision on the agenda should be made by the IASB itself; but if, for example, the SAC has provided advice on the IASB’s work priorities and the IASB has chosen not to follow that advice, it should explain and justify its reasons for doing so. A similar principle applies to other aspects of the IASB’s due process. If a sizeable proportion of comment letters on a draft pronouncement indicate that constituents are opposed to or have significant concerns about the IASB’s proposals, the IASB should be required to explain and justify its reasons for following a particular course.   

Accelerated due process

While it is important that the IASB should be permitted to consult quickly on emergency situations, it is also important that stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on proposed changes. There should still be due process, even if that process is accelerated. 

People can move quickly when the need arises, but it is unrealistic to expect stakeholder organisations to assess and comment on complex accounting proposals in anything less than 30 days.

It may be easy to put a subject such as constitutional review towards the bottom of the ‘to do’ list, as I have said before. After all, there will be little impact on the day jobs of most people, certainly in the shorter term. But the questions raised in this review are important and go to the heart of the future of standard setting on the global stage.

As always, I am interested to hear your views, either by commenting here or by email.