Page 1 | Confidential and Proprietary Information IESBA Strategy and Work Plan Ken Siong, IESBA Technical Director IESBA Meeting June 10-12, 2013 New York

Page 2 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Two of three standard-setting projects on Strategy and Work Plan (SWP) recently completed: –Breach of a requirement of the Code –Conflicts of interest Third project likely to continue into 2014 –Responding to a Suspected Illegal Act Strategy review in early 2012 General Context

Page 3 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Four new work streams added to current SWP in 2012: –Long association of senior personnel with an audit client –Non-assurance services –Structure of the Code –Part C of the Code Board expected to operate to capacity until end of 2014 Preliminary Planning Committee recommendation for deferral of approval of next SWP until Q to cover period General Context

Page 4 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Strategy survey released January 2013 –115 responses received Detailed comment letter from IOSCO Agenda Item 6-A: –Summary of input from survey and from IOSCO –Preliminary analyses and recommendations from Planning Committee Development of Next Strategy and Work Plan

Page 5 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Keep stable platform and promote Code’s robustness Prioritize Code structure work first before other changes –Do not underestimate amount of work involved in restructuring Important for the standards to be principles-based –Too many examples discourage thinking about the principles Some support for idea of “annual improvements” project Need for greater clarity on initial PC recommendations re: –Additional guidance for PAs in public practice providing NAS –Fee dependency May 2013 IESBA-NSS Meeting – Key Comments

Page 6 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Comment letter brings together matters identified over a number of years Opportunity seen to look at the Code more holistically Some C1 suggestions viewed as more important and extensive than others –More important matters set out more upfront in comment letter –Some items seen as needing shorter timeframes than others Lowest common denominator perception June 2013 Teleconference with IOSCO C1

Page 7 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Need for a fresh review of effectiveness of safeguards in the Code Enforceability of the Code –Lack of precision in requirements –Need for an IAASB-type clarity format Definition of a public interest entity –A number of jurisdictions not going beyond IESBA definition –Definition of “public interest” seen as important relative to enforceability IOSCO C1 – Key Concerns

Page 8 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Important to make final determinations based on what would best serve the public interest Capacity for at most four new standard-setting projects or initiatives Key assumptions: –Four board meetings a year, three days each –Staff complement of three –Adherence to current due process, including minimum 90-day exposure period for proposed changes to the Code –Each project to need a minimum of two years to complete Key Considerations

Page 9 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Comments from some respondents to survey: –Establish a period of stability to facilitate implementation of 2009 Code –Focus on outreach and promote robustness of the Code –Understand and address implementation support needs of SMPs/SMEs –Understand extent of adoption of the Code internationally and reasons for any differences Need for flexibility to respond to emerging issues Review strategic priorities at least annually? Key Considerations

Page 10 | Confidential and Proprietary Information CAG discussion September 2013 IESBA consideration of CAG input and revised Planning Committee proposals September 2013 IESBA approval of SWP exposure draft December 2013 NSS consideration of ED responses May 2014 IESBA consideration of ED responses July 2014 CAG consideration of revised draft SWP September 2014 IESBA approval of SWP October 2014 Forward Timeline

Page 11 | Confidential and Proprietary Information 1.Views on Planning Committee recommendations: a)Areas worth considering b)Areas not worth considering c)Areas noted for further analysis or research 2.Views on level of priority re areas worth considering 3.Views on merits of an “annual improvements”-type project 4.Views on other Planning Committee recommendations –Continue focus on implementation support needs of SMPs –Seek greater understanding of extent of adoption of the Code Matters for Consideration