GAAP ALERT No.1/2010 To read on line please click here
By Colin Parker B.Bus FCA MAICD
Principal, GAAP Consulting, colin@gaap.com.au
Member of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (2006-2009)
INTRODUCTION
ASIC’s Review of 30 June 2009 Accounts and Focus Areas for 31 December 2009
Re-exposure of Proposals on Measuring Liabilities
Insights into Challenge of Implementing Operating Segments Standard
ASIC Secures Enforceable Undertakings from Two Sydney Auditors
Productivity Commission Report on Executive Remuneration
IPSASB Issues Standard on Agriculture
IPSASB December Meeting Highlights
IAASB Issues New Assurance Standard on Controls at Service Organisations
UK FRC and Audit Board to Investigate External/Audit Internal Boundary
Accounting Standards Issued but Not Yet Operative: GAAP Fact Sheet
Corporate Treasury Training Course
ASIC’s Review of 30 June 2009 Accounts and Focus Areas for 31 December 2009
ASIC released the results of its review of the 30 June 2009 financial reports of 350 listed and unlisted entities. For the first time, the review included a sample of 100 financial reports of unlisted entities that have a larger number of potential non-shareholder financial report users. ASIC identified a number of key areas for continued focus, including the appropriateness of going concern assumption, asset impairment and fair value determinations. ASIC also identified its focus areas for entities preparing their 31 December 2009 financial reports.
The results from its 30 June 2009 surveillance program included:
Going Concern: The appropriateness of the going concern assumption in the preparation of financial reports continues to be a significant issue in current market conditions. Of the 30 June 2009 reviews undertaken by ASIC, 18 per cent of audit reports contained an emphasis of matter paragraph, relating to the ability to continue as a going concern. The 18 per cent compares to 25 per cent of listed entities at 31 December 2008, and 15 per cent of listed entities at 30 June 2008. Common reasons for the emphasis of matter paragraphs were: negative or minimal net assets or net current assets; uncertainty over the recoverability of the value of assets; and a debt refinancing requirement.
ASIC notes that while accounting standards require the going concern assessment to take into account a minimum of 12 months from the reporting date, they also require consideration of all available information about the future. Where refinancing is required outside 12 months, entities are required to consider their prospects of obtaining the necessary funding for the entity to continue as a going concern.
Entities should continue to focus on reduced liquidity and ability to refinance debt, and on compliance with lending covenants. Where the ability of a listed entity to continue as a going concern is subject to refinancing, the entity must keep the market informed about the status of finance negotiations.
Asset Impairment: Writedowns made up 11 per cent of the total value of indefinite life intangible assets (including goodwill) for the 12 months to 30 June 2009. For the six months to 31 December 2008, the writedowns were six per cent, and less than one per cent for the 12 months to 30 June 2008. Further writedowns may be expected, and directors should continue to focus on asset values at 31 December 2009.
Common issues identified associated with asset impairment included:
Unrealistically optimistic discount and growth rates (the rates used should reflect the risks and uncertainties associated with the assets being tested) Cash flows were projected for more than five years in value in use calculations without any explanation justifying the longer period. Periods of more than five years should only be used if the forecasts are detailed and explicit, management is confident that the projections are reliable, and there is past evidence supporting the ability of management to forecast accurately over the longer period Cash-generating units (CGUs) used for testing goodwill impairment, were not chosen at a sufficiently low level. For example, some CGUs were larger than the primary or secondary segments disclosed in the entity’s segment reporting note. Accounting standards require CGUs to be identified at a low level so that cash flows from assets in one unit do not support asset values in other units The failure to disclose carrying amounts allocated to each CGU and the basis for determining recoverable amount Flawed discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations, including pre-tax discount rates being applied to post-tax cash flows or vice versa No sensitivity analysis disclosed for changes in key assumptions; and A lack of disclosure of assumptions used in DCF calculations, particularly growth rates and discount rates. Disclosure of these assumptions has always been required for ‘value in use’, and is also required for fair values based on DCF projections from 31 December 2009 year ends.
The accounting standards specify disclosure requirements for full year financial reports. Entities should also be mindful of disclosures in relation to impairment of assets that may assist users of half-year financial reports.
Directors should ensure that there is a reasonable basis for cash flows and assumptions used, that impairment is considered at CGUs at the lowest levels, and that appropriate internal or external expertise is used. Cash flows should be relevant to the assets being assessed and the same cash flows should not be used to support different assets covered by different calculations.
Investment Properties: Writedowns of investment properties accounted for 12 per cent of the carrying value of the properties, compared to six per cent in the half year to 31 December 2008. Values are required to reflect current market conditions. It is important to note that ASIC is contacting some entities to better understand the basis for the extent of their writedowns. Some entities carrying investment properties at fair value failed to appropriately disclose the methods and significant assumptions applied in determining the fair values.
Financial Assets: Financial assets at fair value should be valued by reference to quoted prices in active markets, including most ASX-listed securities. ASIC stresses that a careful assessment should be made as to whether or not there is an active market. In those instances where there is an inactive market, fair values should be determined with the maximum use of market inputs and key assumptions should be disclosed. ASIC’s review highlighted wide variations in interpretations of when an available for sale (AFS) asset is impaired.
AFS financial instruments are reported at fair value. If the market price of an AFS investment is significantly below cost, or has been below cost for a prolonged period of time, the investment is considered impaired and the writedown is recognised in the income statement rather than in a reserve. While the requirement is principle-based and it is not appropriate to apply blanket criteria for all investments, the quantitative criteria for the significant or prolonged test used by some entities may not comply with accounting standards.
While not having legal force, a rejection statement from the IFRIC highlights that an investment may be impaired even though a decline in its values is consistent with the relevant market or there are forecasts of market recovery.
Intangible Assets: The review indicated some entities were carrying intangible assets at fair value in circumstances where it may not have been appropriate to do so. Accounting standards only allow certain identifiable intangible assets to be revalued, and then only where there is an active market for the intangible asset. The criteria for an active market in accounting standards are strict, and ASIC has not yet seen intangible assets in Australia that would meet those criteria. ASIC recently asked some companies to revert to using amortised cost rather than fair values for their intangible assets. Entities that are carrying intangibles at fair value should review the basis for that treatment.
Off Balance Sheet Exposures: ASIC recently identified instances where entities should have consolidated other entities. Directors should carefully review any off-balance sheet arrangements to ensure that they are correctly treated. Where arrangements remain off balance sheet, the nature and scale of the arrangements should be disclosed, together with the reasons why they are not on balance sheet.
Financial Instrument Disclosures: ASIC expects companies to provide full disclosure of the significance of financial instruments, the associated risks, and how the entity manages those risks, notwithstanding the complexity of the financial instrument. Disclosures should be meaningful to users, and boilerplate disclosures should be avoided. Common shortcomings identified by ASIC’s review were:
Insufficient disclosure to enable users of financial reports to evaluate the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments Failure to disclose sensitivity analysis to market risks Lack of ageing analysis of financial assets past due but not impaired, and analysis of impaired financial assets, and Failure to separately disclose material gains and losses arising from a group of similar transactions, as required by AASB 101 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’.
Other issues related to current market conditions: These include:
Failure to disclose significant judgements in applying accounting policies Failure to disclose key assumptions and sources of estimation uncertainty Incorrect classification of debt as non-current when it should be current
Balance sheets presenting assets and liabilities on a liquidity basis, with no separate note disclosure of the current and non-current split of assets and liabilities, and Entities should also focus on appropriate revenue recognition, expense recognition and debt versus equity classification, as well as related party disclosures and disclosure of subsequent events.
31 December 2009 Focus: The review of 31 December 2009 financial reports will also include a focus on compliance with revised accounting standards, including those concerning segment reporting, business combinations, consolidated financial statements, and the presentation of financial statements.
ASIC Commissioner, Mr Michael Dwyer, said the review highlighted a number of areas where companies and their auditors needed to pay greater attention. ‘We have made contact with a number of entities to better understand their accounting treatments and identified matters for further explanation’. Mr Dwyer added that ASIC will conduct follow up reviews to ensure that these issues have been appropriately addressed. “The global financial crisis has affected Australian entities in different ways. Despite signs of improvement in the Australian economy, we encourage companies and their auditors to continue to focus on issues such as going concern, asset impairment and fair value determination”, he concluded.
Re-exposure of Proposals on Measuring Liabilities
The IASB released for public comment ED/2010/1 one section of a replacement for IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’. The section contains revised proposals for measuring liabilities within the scope of IAS 37. IAS 37 applies to liabilities not covered by other accounting standards, such as liabilities to decommission assets and liabilities arising from legal disputes. The IASB previously published proposals to amend IAS 37, including revised measurement requirements. In the light of the comments received the IASB identified a need to develop more guidance on one part of those proposals: the measurement of these liabilities.
The new IFRS will replace IAS 37 and apply to all liabilities that are not within the scope of other standards. The new IFRS will apply to liabilities such as: liabilities arising from legal disputes, statutory asset decommissioning obligations, other environmental obligations, and liabilities arising under contracts that have become onerous. However, it will not apply to items such as financial liabilities, pension liabilities, income tax liabilities and insurance liabilities, because they are within the scope of other standards.
IAS 37 currently requires an entity to record an obligation as a liability only if it is probable (likelihood greater than 50%) that the obligation will result in an outflow of cash or other resources from the entity. The revised ED does not include the 'probability of outflows' criterion. Instead, an entity would account for uncertainty about the amount and timing of outflows by using a measurement that reflects their expected value, namely the probability-weighted average of the outflows for the range of possible outcomes.
The exposure draft proposes that the measurement should be the amount that the entity would rationally pay at the measurement date to be relieved of the liability. Normally, this amount would be an estimate of the present value of the resources required to fulfil the liability. The estimate would take into account the expected outflows of resources, the time value of money and the risk that the actual outflows might ultimately differ from the expected outflows.
If the liability is to pay cash to a counterparty (for example to settle a legal dispute), the outflows would be the expected cash payments plus any associated costs, such as legal fees. If the liability is to undertake a service, e.g., to decommission plant at a future date, the outflows would be the amounts that the entity estimates it would pay a contractor at the future date to undertake the service on its behalf.
The IASB invites comments on the ED ‘Measurement of Liabilities in IAS 37’ by 12 April 2010. The AASB has issued the Australian equivalent ED AASB ED 191 ‘Measurement of Liabilities in AASB 137 (Limited re-exposure of proposed amendment to AASB 137)’ comments are due to the AASB by 15 March 2010. The IASB expects to issue the new IFRS in the third quarter of 2010.
Insights into Challenge of Implementing Operating Segments Standard
The Financial Reporting Review Panel of the UK Financial Reporting Council is concerned about how companies are reporting the performance of key parts of their business in the light of the introduction of IFRS 8 ‘Operating Segments’. The comments of the Panel should also be of assistance to Australian listed entities applying AASB ‘Operating Segments’.
IFRS 8 requires companies to provide an analysis of profit, assets and liabilities so that investors can see the performance of the principal operations or ‘segments’. The new standard requires management to define the company’s operating segments in accordance with how its operations are managed in practice. In this way the IASB sought to respond to criticisms of IAS 14 (the previous standard), to reduce the ability of management to disguise poor performance of a part of the business, and to enable investors to review a company’s operations from the same perspective as management.
The Panel reviewed a sample of 2009 interim accounts and 2008 annual accounts (when they had early applied the standard) and has asked a number of questions about the implementation of IFRS 8. In particular, the Panel has asked a number of companies to provide additional explanations where:
Only one operating segment is reported, but the group appears to be diverse with different businesses or with significant operations in different countries The operating analysis set out in the narrative report differs from the operating segments in the financial statements The titles and responsibilities of the directors or executive management team imply an organisational structure which is not reflected in the operating segments, or The commentary in the narrative report focuses on non-IFRS measures whereas the segmental disclosures are based on IFRS amounts.
The Panel encourages Boards of Directors to test their initial conclusions about their segmental reporting by considering the following questions:
What are the key operating decisions made in running the business? Who makes these key operating decisions? Who are the segment managers (as defined in the standard) and who do they report to? How are the group’s activities reported in the information used by management to review performance and make resource allocation decisions between segments? Is any proposed aggregation of operating segments into one reportable segment supported by the aggregation criteria in the standard, including consistency with the core principle? Is the information about reportable segments based on IFRS measures or on an alternative basis? Have the reported segment amounts been reconciled to the IFRS aggregate amounts? Do the accounts describe the factors used to identify the reportable segments including the basis on which the company is organised? As a final question, management should ask themselves whether the reported segments appear consistent with their internal reporting and, if not, why not.
The Panel draws attention to the fact that no exemption is given from any aspect of IFRS 8 on the grounds that disclosure would be commercially prejudicial. Commenting on the challenge of implementing the new standard, Bill Knight, Chairman of the Panel, said: “IFRS 8 requires companies to report publicly in the same way as they measure performance and allocate resources internally. Implementation is a challenge, but also an opportunity to communicate better by linking the business review with the content of the IFRS accounts.”
ASIC Secures Enforceable Undertakings from Two Sydney Auditors
ASIC accepted enforceable undertakings (EUs) from two partners of accounting practice Moore Stephens Sydney (MSS), Christopher Chandran and Scott Whiddett. MSS is an independent member of the Moore Stephens Australia network. The EUs provide that: each of Messrs Chandran and Whiddett will not practise as a registered auditor for 12 months; they must participate in an additional fifteen hours of continuing professional audit related education in the 12 month period; and have each of their next five audits following the 12 month period reviewed by an ASIC approved registered auditor.
EPG and its 21 subsidiaries, including ACR, went into voluntary administration on 28 May 2007. ACR was the fund-raising arm of the group. It raised funds through a series of nine prospectuses offering unsecured deposit notes to the investing public between April 2000 and December 2006. ACR lent the funds it raised to other EPG subsidiaries that used the funds for the purchase and development of properties. As at 28 May 2007, ACR had lent $332 million of noteholders’ funds to 13 of its property owning subsidiaries. On 17 September 2007, the Administrator of EPG entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) with EPG and ACR. The DOCA was to return to ACR unsecured noteholders approximately 59 cents in the dollar.
Mr Chandran was the lead auditor and signed an unqualified audit opinion for Estate Property Group Limited’s (EPG) Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2006. An ASIC investigation found that the audit conducted by Mr Chandran was inadequate and that as lead auditor he failed to ensure that the audit complied with Australian Auditing Standards as required by the Corporations Act 2001.
Mr Whiddett was the lead auditor and signed unqualified audit opinions in respect of the financial report of: Australian Capital Reserve Limited (ACR) for the financial year ended 30 June 2006; Estate on Miller Pty Limited (EOM) for the financial year ended 30 June 2005; and Estate Property Group Limited (EPG) for the financial year ended 30 June 2005. ASIC investigations found that the audits conducted by Mr Whiddett were inadequate and that as lead auditor he failed to ensure that the audits complied with Australian Auditing Standards as required by the Act.
Mr Chandran and Whiddett have acknowledged the concerns relating to their respective audits but do not agree with them.
Productivity Commission Report on Executive Remuneration
The Government welcomed the Productivity Commission’s final report on Australia’s director and executive remuneration framework. The Government commissioned the inquiry in March 2009, as part of its broader response to curb excessive remuneration practices. The Commission’s inquiry has concluded that Australia’s corporate governance and remuneration framework ranks highly internationally, but recognises that there is scope to further strengthen Australia’s remuneration framework. The report contains a number of recommendations to achieve this aim. These recommendations are designed to improve board capacities, reduce conflicts of interest, encourage stakeholder engagement and improve relevant disclosure and to ensure well conceived remuneration policies.
Key recommendations include:
The ASX Corporate Governance Council should introduce an ‘if not, why not’ recommendation specifying that remuneration committees: have at least three members; comprise non-executive directors, a majority of whom are independent; be chaired by an independent director; and have a charter setting out procedures for non-committee members attending meetings A new ASX listing rule should specify that all ASX300 companies have a remuneration committee and that it should comprise solely non-executive directors The Corporations Act 2001 should specify that companies prohibit their executives from hedging unvested equity remuneration or vested equity subject to holding locks The usefulness of remuneration reports to investors has been diminished by their complexity and by crucial omissions. Remuneration reports should include: a plain English summary statement of companies’ remuneration policies; actual levels of remuneration received by the individuals named in the report; total company shareholdings of the individuals named in the report, and The Australian Government should establish an expert panel under the auspices of the ASIC to advise it on how best to revise the architecture of section 300A of the Corporations Act 2001 and the relevant regulations to support these changes.
“The Government will now consider the PC’s recommendations and intends to respond during the first quarter of 2010,” Mr Bowen, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, said.
IPSASB Issues Standard on Agriculture
The IPSASB has taken a further step in its global convergence program with IFRSs, scheduled for completion by 31 December 2009, by issuing International Public Sector Accounting Standard (IPSAS) 27 ‘Agriculture’. IPSAS 27 provides requirements for accounting for agricultural activity.
IPSAS 27 is primarily drawn from the IASB’s IAS 41 ‘Agriculture’, with limited changes dealing with public sector-specific issues. For example, IPSAS 27 addresses biological assets, such as livestock, held for transfer or distribution at no charge or for a nominal charge to other public sector bodies or to not-for-profit organisations. IPSAS 27 also includes disclosure requirements that are aimed at enhancing consistency with the statistical basis of accounting that governs the Government Finance Statistics Manual.
“Agricultural activity can be significant for the public sector in certain parts of the world, including many developing countries,” stated Mike Hathorn, Chair of the IPSASB. “This IPSAS provides financial reporting requirements that enhance accountability for such activity and are a further step towards our convergence target.”
IPSASB December Meeting Highlights
Highlights from the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) meeting in Rome, Italy on 8-11 December 8–11, 2009:
Financial Instruments: Approved for issue IPSAS 28 ‘Financial Instruments: Presentation’. IPSAS 29 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’, and IPSAS 30 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosures’. The effective date is for annual financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013
Intangible Assets: Approved for issue IPSAS 31 ‘Intangible Assets’, the effective date is for annual financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 1 April 2011
Service Concession Arrangements – Grantors: Approved the Exposure Draft, with a proposed publication date of February 2010 and a comment period to 30 June 2010
Improvements to IPSASs: Considered responses to the ED 42 ‘Improvements to IPSASs’. The proposed amendments are to converge existing IPSASs with the relevant IFRSs and arise from the improvements adopted by the IASB in May 2008. Approved for issue ‘Improvements to IPSASs with an effective date for annual financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 1 January 2011, and
Entity Combinations: Considered draft IPSAS 32 ‘Entity Combinations from Exchange Transactions’ amendments will be made with a view to approving it as a standard in 2010.
IAASB Issues New Assurance Standard on Controls at Service Organisations
Recognising the widespread international use of outsourcing, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) released International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3402 ‘Assurance Reports on Controls at a Service Organisation’. This new standard addresses reports on the description, design, and operating effectiveness of controls relating to the broad range of services that today's service organisations provide. Such services can range from assisting with processing transactions to performing one or more business functions. ISAE 3402 is effective for service auditors’ reports covering periods ending on or after 15 June 2011.
“A single service provided by a service organisation can have direct relevance to the quality of financial reports prepared by entities around the globe. Effective controls for delivering the service are therefore essential,” said Arnold Schilder, IAASB Chair, adding, “This new standard sets a global benchmark for reporting on controls at a service organisation, thereby helping to fulfill the needs of those who use such services and their auditors under International Standards on Auditing (ISAs).”
‘ISAE 3402 is the first new assurance standard, other than the ISAs, developed under the IAASB’s International Framework for Assurance Engagements,” explained James Gunn, IAASB Technical Director. “Therefore, the IAASB will be interested in the experiences of service auditors and others with its implementation and has decided to actively seek feedback in 2013 on implementation of the standard,” Mr. Gunn concluded.
UK FRC says Improvements Needed in M&A Accounting
Companies have told the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) that M&A accounting is costly and difficult, yet investors say that the resulting information is not useful. This FRC study of the quality of accounting and reporting on acquisitions suggests a possible reason for this is that the IFRS on business combinations has been poorly applied by companies due to unfamiliarity with its requirements and the complexity of valuing intangible assets such as brands and customer relationships.
The study found that companies had provided insufficient or inconsistent information about material acquisitions in their audited accounts when compared to the rationale for these acquisitions and supporting explanations given in their business reviews.
Commenting on the study, Ian Wright, Director of Corporate Reporting at the FRC, said: “A step change is needed in the quality of the information about M&A transactions given in annual reports and accounts. Improvements should result, in part, from new fair value guidance and more practical experience of estimating fair values for intangible assets. In addition, recent amendments to IFRS 3 ‘Business combinations’ mean that, in future, more intangibles will be recognised for accounting purposes. This may help ensure a greater degree of consistency between what is disclosed about acquisitions in the accounts and the rationale for acquisitions set out in business reviews.”
The FRC intends to conduct further interviews with investors and other stakeholders in 18 months time to assess whether the information about acquisitions in annual reports and accounts has improved in quality and proved to be useful. In addition, the FRC will work with companies to better understand whether the costs of compliance and the complexity of performing the asset valuations are increasing or reducing. The FRC will publish the results of this work and will provide feedback to the IASB as part of its planned post implementation review of IFRS 3 (revised).
UK FRC and Audit Board to Investigate External/Audit Internal Boundary
In the context of the ongoing consultation on non-audit services being undertaken by the UK Auditing Practices Board (‘APB’) and recent public comment concerning the additional services (described as internal audit services or extended assurance services) that some auditors provide in conjunction with an audit, the Financial Reporting Council has written to the larger audit firms advising them of steps it intends to take to review current market practice. Those steps are:
They will work with the profession to understand the precise scope of those engagements that involve the provision of additional services in conjunction with an audit, including those described as extended assurance services Over the next three months, the APB will seek the views of stakeholders on the implications of auditors providing such services to their audit clients so that those views are available to it when considering the responses it gets to its Consultation Paper on non-audit services generally With the benefit of the information obtained the APB and the Public Oversight Board will determine whether such engagements, or similarly constructed packages of services, comply with the principles underlying the APB’s current Ethical Standards; and In the light of the information obtained and the conclusions reached, the APB will consider whether the principles on which it's Ethical Standards relating to such matters require reinforcement and, if so, in what way the provisions of its Ethical Standards need to be amended.
Paul Boyle, Chief Executive of the FRC commented: “The FRC believes it is important that audit firms and their clients should be aware of the steps being taken and may want to be cautious before entering into arrangements which stretch the internal/external audit boundary, not least because it could prove to be inconvenient and/or costly to change such arrangements should the outcome of the FRC’s work be that the Ethical Standards are changed in a way that affects the provision of such services.”
Accounting Standards Issued but Not Yet Operative: GAAP Fact Sheet
GAAP Fact Sheet No 3 “Accounting Standards Issued but not yet Operative as at 31 December 2009”, authored by Andrea Murphy CA, Manager –Accounting and Auditing Standards, GAAP Consulting is now available from www.gaap.com.au. The purpose of this Fact Sheet is to describe the requirements of AASB 108 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Policies and Estimates’, when an entity has not applied a new Australian Accounting Standard that has been issued but is not yet operative. It also provides listings of ‘Accounting Standards Issued but not yet Operative as at 31 December 2009’ and ‘Accounting Standards Operative’.
Corporate Treasury Training Course
Our colleague Susan Campbell is conducting a two day workshop ‘Introduction to Corporate Treasury’ in Melbourne on 9-10 March. The extensive program covers the following topics:
Day 1 Topics: What is a corporate treasury?; Roles of the front, back and middle offices; Understanding the markets; Major risks in treasuries; Understanding treasury products and how they are used to manage/create risks; Basic concepts within AASB 7 and 139; Cash flow and treasury systems issues; Foreign exchange and commodity products; Hedging vs trading; FX forwards, swaps & options; and Commodity futures, and Day 2 Topics: Interest rate derivatives and futures markets; Bills, bonds, forwards, swaps and futures; Caps, floors and collars; Hedging strategies; Processes and controls in corporate treasuries; Aims, benefits and limitations of controls; Hard and soft controls; Control environment; Spreadsheet issues; Treasury policy; and Limits and controls.
For further details: email; web - www.argyll.net.au; phone - David or Susan 03 9744 5062. Venue: Thomson Reuters 80 Collins Street, Melbourne. Price $1800 including GST, lunch and course notes.
Susan and her friends at GAAP Consulting are also available to present in-house training courses on corporate treasury operations and on the financial instruments suite of standards including the new AASB 9 ‘Financial Instruments’. For further information contact colin@gaap.com.au, mobile 0421 088 611 or visit www.gaap.com.au.
Accounting
1 March 2010 ED/2009/6‘Management Commentary’ – IASB 17 March ED 189 ‘Financial Instruments: Amortised Cost and Impairment’ – AASB 30 April Consultation Paper “Reporting on the Long-term Fiscal Sustainability of Public Finances’ – IPASB
Other
22 January Consultation Paper 124 ‘Duty to prevent insolvent trading: Guide for directors’ – ASIC 29 January Consultation Paper ‘Proposed Revision of APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’ – APESB 21 February Consultation Paper 128 ‘Handling confidential information’ – ASIC
Please forward this GAAP Alert to a colleague for their information and use. GAAP Alert registrations can be made directly at http://www.gaap.com.au
Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe.
Consulting, Training, Information Services
© GAAP.COM.AU
While all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of information contained in this newsletter, we take no responsibility for any action(s) taken on the basis of information contained herein or for any errors or omissions in that information. We expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever, to any person in relation to any reliance, in whole or in part, on such information. Readers should consult a suitably qualified professional adviser to obtain advice tailored to their particular circumstances.
|
