EFRAG & UK ASB Discusssion Paper: Considering the Effects of Accounting Standards 31 January 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
International Financial Reporting Standards The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS.
Advertisements

The IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project A Public Sector Perspective Kevin Simpkins.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) in Canada
1 Introducing Multi-Level Government in the EUs Better Regulation Agenda Werner Stengg European Commission; DG Internal Market and Services; Impact Assessment,
International Financial Reporting Standards The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IFRS Foundation.
Safety Management Systems CAA Update. Scope  Background  Benefits  Policy development / RIS  NPRM  Advisory Circular  Sector engagement & participation.
International Federation of Accountants International Education Standards for Professional Accountants Mark Allison, Executive Director Institute of Chartered.
International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants Monitoring Group Report Ken Dakdduk Paris June 2010.
EFRAG & OIC Discussion Paper: Business Combinations under Common Control 21 October 2011.
Endorsement advice progress report Accounting Regulatory Committee 23 March 2015.
Luxembourg, Ville Kajala Senior Officer on Transparency Directive Issues Pan-European Access to Financial Information Disclosed by Listed Entities.
Project Monitoring Evaluation and Assessment
EU Information and Publicity Policy Claudia Salvi e Anna Claudia Abis Formez 8 May 2007.
Engaging with Planning Agents Reform of the Planning System 30 April 2015.
® International Accounting Standards Board A set of slides to support our outreach activities 2006/7.
Copyright © 2014 by The University of Kansas Member Survey of Process: Ratings of Satisfaction.
REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL
EFRAG’s preliminary position on the IASB Supplementary Document Financial Instruments: Impairment Draft comment letter 28 February 2011.
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT. Process Centre receives Scenario Group Work Scenario on website in October Assessment Window Individual Work.
International Financial Reporting and Analysis, 5 th edition David Alexander, Anne Britton and Ann Jorissen ISBN © 2011 Cengage Learning.
Social Value – a Norfolk commissioning perspective Mick Sanders Head of Integrated Commissioning Norfolk CC and Norwich CCG.
1 The First OECD- SOUTHEAST ASIA REGIONAL FORUM January Jakarta Concept and function of a peer review mechanism By Nicola Bonucci, Director, Legal.
Costs and benefits First proposals on CES Recommendations for the 2020 census round & Key results from the UNECE Survey on National Census Practices.
EFRAG’s views on IASB Request for Views on Effective Dates and Transition Methods Final comment letter 31 January 2011.
Financial Statements 2 Lecture 1 1. The module Please look carefully at the module guide under Module Information on the module website You should have.
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Developmental Reviews at King Saud University and King Faisal University.
Policy Influencing strategies & Tactics. What is Public policy? Public policy: It is a guideline to the actions of the governments in addressing societal.
Consolidation and Review of Financial Services Legislation (“ CAROL ”) Jane D N Bates Head of Policy and Legal Unit Financial Supervision Commission 21.
International Financial Reporting Standards The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IFRS Foundation.
Communication Paper on Smart Regulation COM(2010) 543, 8 October 2010 Presentation by Savia Orphanidou 3 rd November 2010.
Revise Lecture 2 1. Revise Lecture The regulatory system 2.2. A conceptual framework 2.
1 Status of PSC recommendations (January December 2007) Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration 14 March 2008.
Workshop – Carrying out disability equality impact assessments Dr Christine Rose.
The Commission's Impact Assessment system 18 September 2014 María Dolores Montesinos Impact Assessment unit Secretariat General 1.
Professional Certificate in Electoral Processes Understanding and Demonstrating Assessment Criteria Facilitator: Tony Cash.
PSC INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee The auditing function of Supreme Audit Institutions A systematic mapping of the auditing assignments of selected.
SUPPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION’S OBNOVA AND PHARE PROGRAMMES Public Involvement EIA TRAINING RESOURCE MANUAL FOR SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE.
International Federation of Accountants April 28, 2009 Impact Assessment Process for IFAC Linda Lach and Alta Prinsloo.
A Guide for Management. Overview Benefits of entity-level controls Nature of entity-level controls Types of entity-level controls, control objectives,
Chapter 5 Environment of International Research
©2005 Deloitte & Touche LLP. Private and confidential 1 The role of a National Accounting Standard Setter in the EU.
Annual Report Constitution Public Audit Act Public Finance Management Act Other legislation Minister of Finance Establishment and operations National.
Regulatory Administrative Institutions MPA 517 Lecture-7 1.
EFRAG & ASB Discussion Paper: Improving the Financial Reporting of Income Tax 9 November 2011.
EVALUATION OF THE SEE SARMa Project. Content Project management structure Internal evaluation External evaluation Evaluation report.
Workshop on Disproportionate Costs, 10./ Copenhagen Summary and draft conclusions 11 April 2008.
Better regulation in the Commission Jonathon Stoodley Head of Unit C.1 Evaluation, Regulatory Fitness and Performance Secretariat General of the European.
Developing a national governance framework for health promotion in Scottish hospitals Lorna Smith Senior Health Improvement Programme Officer NHS Health.
Organizations of all types and sizes face a range of risks that can affect the achievement of their objectives. Organization's activities Strategic initiatives.
Torbay Council Partnerships Review August PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Date Page 2 Torbay Council Partnerships Background The Audit Commission defines.
Financial Statement Presentation EFRAG – ASB outreach 1 December 2010.
BREXIT: The Future of IFRS Customer Care No
EFRAG’s preliminary position on the IASB Supplementary Document Financial Instruments: Impairment Draft comment letter 28 February 2011.
Parent Council engagement: September 2015
Regulatory Strategies and Solutions Group, LLC
Non-Assurance Services
Regulatory Strategies and Solutions Group, LLC
Structure of the Code – Phase 1
April 2010 IASB Update SEMINARIO SOBRE NORMAS INTERNACIONALES DE INFORMACIÓN FINANCIERA SUPERINTENDENCIA DE ENTIDADES FINANCIERAS Y CAMBIARIAS Buenos.
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
Structure of the Code – Phase 2 TF Comments and Proposals
Setting Actuarial Standards
Overview of IFRS for SMEs
Structure–Feedback on Structure ED-2 and Task Force Proposals
Performance Audit Subcommittee Project for ISSAI Level 4 review 66th INTOSAI Governing Board Meeting Vienna, November 5-7, 2014.
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT
Structural Funds: Investing in Roma
Fiduciary Forum 2008 Henri Fortin, LCSFM
Member Survey of Process: Ratings of Satisfaction
Financial Reporting Policy
Presentation transcript:

EFRAG & UK ASB Discusssion Paper: Considering the Effects of Accounting Standards 31 January 2011

Why we have issued this Discussion Paper For decades there have been debates about how standard setters should deal with the ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ of accounting standards. Governments and other public bodies (including the European Commission) have increasingly called on the IASB to demonstrate the effects or consequences of their standards (as they are being developed and once implemented). The IFRS Foundation responded to these concerns by including effects analysis within the IASB due process but to date that policy has not been fully implemented. The adoption of IFRS in many jurisdictions has highlighted the need for there to be more careful consideration of the effects of those standards. For these reasons EFRAG and the UK ASB decided to issue this discussion paper. The intention is to stimulate debate about these issues and assist the IASB in developing a practical and workable response to these issues. The comment period closes on 31 August. Please send comments to Background to the Project

What we have said The conclusion we have drawn from our research is that standard setting, like many other areas of public policy, needs to draw on evidence throughout the process. The paper presents four key principles: Principle 1 – Explain intended outcomes. Standard setters should explain the intended outcomes of a proposed accounting standard or amendment in terms of their objective of serving the public interest. This should be done at the agenda setting stage. Principle 2 – Encourage input on anticipated effects. Constituents should be actively encouraged to provide input on the anticipated effects. Principle 3 – Gather evidence. The evidence gathered should demonstrate that the proposals faithfully represent the underlying economic reality and produce information that is useful. Principle 4 – Consider the effects throughout the due process. The consideration of effects should be embedded in the due process and not considered as a single event. In summary, we argue that it is important to think about the effects of accounting standards as an integral part of the standard setting process and not as a compliance activity to produce an ‘effects study’ at the end of the process. Key Messages in the Discussion Paper

Objective of Considering the Effects of Accounting Standards It is argued in the discussion paper that effects analysis is likely to strengthen the standard setting process, enhance its transparency and increase the accountability and credibility of the standard setter. Ultimately it should contribute to improving financial reporting. The paper sets out the pros and cons of that assertion. EFRAG and the UK ASB are keen to hear from constituents what they think about the issues discussed in the paper. What do we hope to achieve?

Definitions What are effects? Effects are defined as consequences that flow, or are likely to flow, from an accounting standard, referenced against the objective of serving the public interest by contributing positively to delivering improved financial reporting. Effects include both micro- and macro-economic impacts. What is effects analysis? Effects analysis is a systematic process for considering the effects of accounting standards as they are developed and implemented. It is not merely about a document or a single point-in-time event but an integral part of the standard setting process. The standard setter should carry one the analysis on a proportionate to the anticipated scale of the effects. ‘Effects’ and ‘Effects Analysis’ Explained

IASB Due Process 6 1. Agenda Decision 2. Project Planning 3. Development and publication of DP 6. Procedures after an IFRS is issued 5. Development and publication of IFRS 4. Development and publication of ED Discussion Paper Exposure Draft Feedback Statement IFRS Impact Assessment Post- implementation Reviews Consultation with constituents and national standard-setters Field Testing Non-mandatory Mandatory New Elements introduced by the Trustees in 2007 Consider effects at each of the six stages

How it might work Effects analysis can be applied to proposed accounting standards or amendments to: Validate the intended outcomes; Identify and assess the effects; and Identify options. In order to develop the proposals set out in the paper, it is suggested that the IASB should ‘field test’ them in the development of IFRSs via a ‘live’ project. National standard setters and other similar institutions should assist the IASB in gathering evidence of the effects of accounting standards and should play a more active part in the due process. Performing Effects Analysis