Fair value measurement
Download
Report
Transcript Fair value measurement
®
Financial
Accounting Standards
Board
International
Accounting Standards
Board
Updating IASB – FASB
Memorandum of Understanding
Wayne Upton – IASB Director, International Activities
Sue Bielstein – FASB Director
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the
presenter, not those of the IASB or FASB
First, Who are these people?
®
IASC was founded circa 1972, about the same
time as the FASB
A part-time board with limited staff resources
Reorganized in 2001
A full-time board ( two part-time members) and a
greatly expanded professional staff
Members chosen based on criteria similar to
those used by the FASB
Board members are not “representatives” of
geographical or “background” constituencies
2
Evolution of the IASB – FASB
Convergence Program
®
First step, The Norwalk Agreement
Shared goal: high-quality, compatible standards that can be
used for domestic and cross-border financial reporting
Means: converge by eliminating differences in existing
standards
Result: a slow process that produced improved standards but
often failed to eliminate all differences
The SEC 2005 road map to eliminating the 20-F
reconciliation requirement
The 2006 Memorandum of Understanding
Shift in goal: common, high-quality standards
Shift in means: improve and converge -- serving investor
needs means the boards converging by replacing weaker
standards with stronger, common standards.
3
The MoU – setting 2008 goals for
11 major projects
Business combinations,
complete convert standard
Consolidations, work
aimed at development of
converged standards
Fair value measurement
guidance, to have issued
converged guidance
Liabilities and equity
distinctions, one or more
due process documents
®
IFRS 3 and SFAS 141R
issued
Work continues
FASB standard issued;
Discussion paper issued
by IASB
IASB and FASB have both
issued initial documents
4
The MoU – setting 2008 goals for
11 major projects
Financial statement
presentation, one or more
due process documents
Postretirement benefits,
one or more due process
documents
Revenue recognition, one
or more to process
documents
Derecognition, one or
more due process
documents
®
Joint initial document
expected by summer
2008
FASB issued new
standard, IASB issued
discussion document
Joint initial document
expected by summer
2008
Work proceeding
5
The MoU – setting 2008 goals for
11 major projects
Financial instruments, one
or more due process
documents
Intangible assets, agenda
decision
Leases, agenda decision
®
IASB and FASB issued a
discussion paper on
reducing complexity, FASB
work on simplifying hedge
accounting proceeding
Boards declined to place
this project on their
agendas, based in part on
investor recommendations
Boards agreed to place
this project on their
agendas; work proceeds
6
It’s now 2008 and time to update
the MoU
®
The April 2008 joint Board meeting
Agreement on a June 2011 target for completion
of major projects
Building “improved” IFRS as a platform for
jurisdictions moving down IFRS in the next few
years
7
Why June 2011?
®
Widespread frustration among constituents about
the slow pace of board projects
Sharpening our focus – what improvements in
financial reporting are important to investors
Imposing discipline on ourselves
Avoiding potential for doubling up on changes in
those jurisdictions adopting IFRS
8
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Revenue recognition
Two possible models, both based on an asset – liability
approach
Key issues
Identifying performance obligations and how they are satisfied
When should the measurement of a performance obligation
change for reasons other than performance
Accounting for conditional obligations such as rights of return
Disclosure
Testing
9
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Fair value measurement guidance
Key issues for the IASB
SFAS 157 exit value, or is there a complementary entry value?
Fair value is more common in IFRS than in US GAAP, several
standards will need to be amended
Consolidation policy
Heightened attention brought on by the current banking
environment
Key issues
Effective control
Applicability to special-purpose entities and others. Is there a
better way to capture the principles inherent in FIN 46R?
10
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Derecognition
Again, heightened attention brought on by the current
environment
Neither IASB nor FASB has the best standard in this area,
work proceeds to developing a better approach for the
October 2008 joint Board meeting
11
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Financial statement presentation
Key issues
Presentation, not recognition and measurement
The cohesiveness principle and a new format or all three
statements
The role of net income, comprehensive income, and recycling
Initial testing already performed and it will continue during the
comment period on the upcoming discussion document
12
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Postretirement benefits
The IASB discussion paper
Places the full obligation on the balance sheet, but
Argues for including changes in the obligation in net income
and/or comprehensive income and examines different
approaches to doing so
The “leap frog” phenomenon – IASB project may create new
differences
Measurement of so-called cash balance plans
Income statement presentation
No broadly scoped, joint phase 2 project for now
13
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Lease accounting, a focus on lessee accounting
for now. Lessor accounting to wait for revenue
recognition.
Key issues
Getting lease obligations on the balance sheet -- operating leases
would be reported as an intangible asset and the lease obligation
as a liability
Can we focus on the substantive lease term as the unit of
account?
Can we address lessee accounting without debating changes to
amortization and depreciation accounting?
Can we avoid reconsidering areas in which current lease
accounting provides answers, even if those answers are
imperfect?
14
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Financial Instruments
FASB work on hedge accounting
IASB Discussion Paper on reducing complexity
Approaches to classification of financial instruments
Approaches to hedge accounting
Is fair value to only way to eliminate complexity?
15
Thinking about the fair value and
financial instruments
Criteria to distinguish
between types of financial
instruments (‘classification’)
Identification and
quantification of impairment
Transfers between
measurement categories of
financial instruments
Would not be required
Would not be required
Would not be required
®
16
Thinking about the fair value and
financial instruments
Hedge accounting
®
Fair value hedge accounting—
no measurement mismatches
between financial instruments.
There may be other recognition
and measurement mismatches
(eg those relating to nonfinancial instruments); in such
circumstances, there will be
demand for fair value hedge
accounting.
Cash flow hedge accounting—
there will be demand for hedge
accounting for exposures to
changes in expected future
cash flows.
17
Thinking about fair value and
financial instruments
Identification and separation
of embedded derivatives
®
Not applicable for financial
instruments. May still be
required for other items (eg
non-financial instruments
with embedded derivatives).
18
MoU: Plans for Completion by
2011
®
Distinguishing Liabilities and Equity
Issues for the IASB
Narrow view of equity?
Consistency with concepts?
Application to puttable shares?
Issues for the IASB and FASB
Reaching consensus on a preferred model (considering carefully
constituent views)
Presentation in the statement of income?
Earnings per share implications?
19
MoU: What about short-term
convergence?
®
Differences are narrow but the possible changes are often
significant and contentious
Some question whether the benefits justify the resources
Projects often took many years to complete
The scopes were often narrow, addressing some but not all
differences
Two scope recommendations
Complete projects in process (earnings per share, joint ventures,
income taxes)
Defer work on all others (investment property, impairment of longlived assets, research and development)
Allocate Board time and staff resources to other, higher priority
improvements
Income taxes – a possible change in approach
FASB would propose to replace FAS 109 with the revised IAS 12
20
A U.S. Perspective
What Exactly is the End Goal?
®
“Common,” “high-quality” financial reporting by listed
companies (perhaps others) around the world
That system requires several elements
Single set of high-quality accounting standards established by a
single, independent standard setter
Mechanisms for consistent application and interpretation
internationally
Common, high-quality disclosures outside of financial
statements and a common delivery system
High-quality auditing standards and practice
Common approach to regulation and enforcement
Accounting standards have been leading the way
21
A U.S. Perspective
Where are we now?
®
Accounting standards internationally
Over 100 counties have or will adopt IFRS, but
“As adopted” versions of IFRS
National flavors due to application differences
Accounting standards in the U.S.
Active convergence program with IASB
Active dialog with other standard setters around the world
FASB actively improving/maintaining other US GAAP
Addressing weaknesses (e.g., derecognition, consolidation)
On-going interpretative function
Less focus (but some progress) on common auditing
standards and practices and cooperative efforts
between securities regulators and PCAOB and
international counterparts
22
A U.S. Perspective
Where should we be going?
®
Internationally?
In U.S.?
23
A U.S. Perspective
What’s needed internationally
®
Address national/regional endorsement mechanisms
that produce “as adopted” versions of IFRS
More consistent application of IFRS to avoid
“national flavors”
Further strengthen IFRS
IASB to fill in major gaps (e.g., insurance, extractive industries, rate
regulation?)
Improve major areas (e.g., per FASB – IASB MOU)
Strengthening IASB as a global standard setter
Funding — ongoing efforts by IASC Foundation Trustees
Staffing
Governance/Oversight — proposed regulatory “monitoring body”
Structure? (e.g., having multiple locations?)
Improve coordination of global regulatory review and
enforcement
24
A U.S. Perspective
What’s needed in the US?
®
Decide on an end game:
“Mutual recognition” for foreign filers only
With continued convergence over many years
Without convergence (perhaps competition between
standards)
Two-GAAP System for U.S. Registrants
With continued convergence over many years
Without convergence (perhaps competition between
standards)
A single set of hiqh-quality international standards
Each path has very different implications:
Standard setters, preparers, auditors, investors,
regulators, educators
Overall system costs and complexity
25
FASB and FAF View of End Game
Single Set of Quality International
Standards
®
Preferred by investors — enhances
comparability, reduces analytical complexity
Consistent with globalization of capital markets
Would bring U.S. into alignment with most other
international capital markets (Europe, Australia,
China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Canada, India, etc.)
Avoids added costs and complexity of a two –
GAAP system for an extended period
We advocate a well planned “improve and adopt”
approach to transitioning U.S. to IFRS
– Improvement through continued joint projects
between IASB and FASB in major areas
– Directly adopt other parts of IFRS
26
U.S. Adoption of IFRS?
A complex, multi-year effort
®
Requires consideration of many issues
Private company reporting (IFRS, IFRS-SME, US GAAP?)
Role of FASB
Implications for company systems, internal controls, data
gathering
Education, training, CPA exams, etc.
Possible changes to contracts, regulatory requirements, state
laws
Evaluating SEC accounting and disclosure requirements
(both within and without the financial statements
First time adoption issues
XBRL
FAF/FASB Forum to consider those and other issues
27
27
A US Perspective
Summary Thoughts
®
FASB Remains Committed to Convergence
Single set of high-quality common standards
Goal is improved reporting, not convergence for the sake of
convergence
Significant Resources Devoted to this Effort
Convergence Considerations Embedded in our Process
Uncertainty about the path forward in the US
Which end state scenario?
When and how will it be decided?
When might it be implemented?
Who will be impacted (public companies, private companies,
NFPs)?
One thing is certain – there will be change
28
Questions and comments
®
Expressions of individual views by
members of the IASB, FASB and
their staff are encouraged. The
views expressed in this presentation
are those of the presenters. Official
positions of the IASB or the FASB on
accounting matters are determined
only after extensive due process and
deliberation.
29