Transcript Headline 24pt Arial Bold

IESBA Strategy and Work Plan
Ken Siong, IESBA Technical
Director
IESBA Meeting
June 10-12, 2013
New York
Page 1 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
General Context
• Two of three standard-setting projects on 2011-2012
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
Page 2 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
General Context
• 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 Q4 2014 to cover
period 2015-2017
Page 3 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
Development of Next Strategy and Work Plan
• 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
Page 4 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
May 2013 IESBA-NSS Meeting – Key Comments
• 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
Page 5 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
June 2013 Teleconference with IOSCO C1
• 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
Page 6 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
IOSCO C1 – Key Concerns
• 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
Page 7 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
Key Considerations
• 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
Page 8 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
Key Considerations
• 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?
Page 9 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
Forward Timeline
• 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
Page 10 | Confidential and Proprietary Information
Matters for Consideration
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
Page 11 | Confidential and Proprietary Information