GAAP ALERT No.19/2009 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
IFRS 9 Beginning of End of IAS 39
ASIC Liaison Meeting Highlights
Financial Instruments Impairment ED Released by IASB
IASB and FASB Reaffirm Convergence Commitment
IASB 15-16 October Meeting Highlights
IASB 19-23 October Meeting Highlights
IASB 26-28 October Meeting Highlights
CPA Quality Assurance Update
‘Clarity Auditing Standards – An Introduction’ Publication Released
ICAA Corporate Reporting Discussion Group on IFRS for SMEs
GAAP Team in Action
IFRS 9 Beginning of End of IAS 39
The IASB issued a new IFRS on the classification and measurement of financial assets which represents the completion of the first part of a three-part project to replace IAS 39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ with a new standard IFRS 9 ‘Financial Instruments’.
The effective date for mandatory adoption of IFRS 9 ‘Financial Instruments’ is 1 January 2013. Early adoption is permitted for 2009 year-end financial statements.
IFRS 9 enhances the ability of investors and other users of financial information to understand the accounting of financial assets and reduces complexity; an objective endorsed by the G20 and other stakeholders internationally. IFRS 9 uses a single approach to determine whether a financial asset is measured at amortised cost or fair value, replacing the many different rules in IAS 39. The approach in IFRS 9 is based on how an entity manages its financial instruments (its business model), and the contractual cash flow characteristics of the financial assets. IFRS 9 also requires a single impairment method to be used, replacing the many different impairment methods in IAS 39. IFRS 9 improves comparability and makes financial statements easier to understand for investors and other users.
IFRS 9 divides all financial assets that are currently in the scope of IAS 39 into two classifications (those measured at amortised cost and those at fair value) based on the following principles:
Debt Instruments: A debt instrument that meets two conditions (business model and cash flow characteristics) can be measured at amortised cost. Even if an instrument meets the two amortised cost tests, IFRS 9 contains an option to measure such instruments at FVTPL, with some restrictions. All other debt instruments must be measured at fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL)
Equity Instruments: All equity investments in scope of IFRS 9 are to be measured at fair value in the balance sheet, value changes recognised in profit or loss. There is no ‘cost exception’ for unquoted equities. Where the equity investment is not held for trading, an entity can make an irrevocable election at initial recognition to measure it at fair value through other comprehensive income (FVTOCI) with only dividend income recognised in profit or loss. IFRS 9 contains guidance on when cost may be the best estimate of fair value and also when it might not be representative of fair value
Derivatives: All derivatives, including those linked to unquoted equity investments, are measured at fair value
Embedded Derivatives: The embedded derivative concept of IAS 39 is not included in IFRS 9. Consequently, embedded derivatives that under IAS 39 would have been separately accounted for at FVTPL because they were not closely related to the financial host asset will no longer be separated. The contractual cash flows of the financial asset are assessed in their entirety, and the asset as a whole is measured at FVTPL if any of its cash flows do not represent payments of principal and interest
Reclassification: For debt instruments, reclassification is required between FVTPL and amortised cost, or vice versa, if the entity’s business model objective for its financial assets changes so its previous model assessment would no longer apply,
Enhanced Disclosure: IFRS 9 amends some of the requirements of IFRS 7 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosures’, including added disclosures about investments in equity instruments designated as at FVTOCI.
The IASB decided not to finalise requirements for financial liabilities in IFRS 9. The IASB has begun the process of giving further consideration to the classification and measurement of financial liabilities and it expects to issue final requirements during 2010.
Commenting on IFRS 9, Sir David Tweedie, Chairman of the IASB, said: “We have delivered on our commitment to the G20 and stakeholders internationally to provide an improved financial instrument standard for the classification and measurement of financial assets for use in 2009. Benefiting from unprecedented levels of consultation with stakeholders around the world, the IASB has made significant changes in its initial proposals to improve the standard, provide enhanced transparency and respond to stakeholder concerns.”
The AASB will approve the Australian version of IFRS 9, AASB 9 ‘Financial Instruments’, at its December meeting. Colin Parker, David Sauer and Stephen La Greca are ready to brief CFOs and auditors on IFRS9 /AASB 9 ‘Financial Instruments ’, as well as the critical standards as at 31 December AASB 8 ‘Operating Segments’ and the revisions to AASB 7 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosures’. To organise a briefing contact colin@gaap.com.au.
ASIC Liaison Meeting Highlights
The semi-annual ASIC liaison meeting took place on 12th November 2009 and was attended by GAAP Consulting’s Jim Dixon and Andrea Murphy. The purpose of the meeting was for ASIC to provide an update on the regulatory inspections they have performed, from both a financial reporting and audit perspective, in the past six months. The official results of these inspections will be published by ASIC in mid December, and the following information gives a flavour of the issues discussed.
The ASIC Financial Reporting Surveillance Programme for year ended 30 June 2009 is now 80% completed. The focus for June 2009 inspection was on the Global Financial Crisis and the knock-on effect on the financial report, specifically the impacts on fair value determination, asset valuation, going concern, and uncertainty and judgements. The findings from this inspection so far are consistent with the previous inspection, highlighting the need for greater focus in these areas. The following issues were identified by ASIC in the review to date:
Fair Value Determination: The fair value method adopted and significant assumptions made were often either inadequately disclosed or not disclosed at all in the financial statements
Impairment: The methods used for impairment testing were often flawed. There was general lack of disclosure of the criteria used for identifying impairment on available-for-sale assets. There was confusion over the distinction between significant or prolonged in respect of decline in fair value in the reports
Going concern assumption: ASIC determined there is need for companies to look beyond 12 months when assessing going concern assumptions. They also referred to the need for listed companies to ensure they keep the market informed of any issues identified in a timely manner
Uncertainty and Judgements: There was a general failure to disclose significant adjustments and uncertainty in the financial statements reviewed so far.
The June 2009 year-end Audit Inspection programme is the first cycle of programmes performed since the introduction of the ‘Network Firm’ definition in July 2008. As with the financial reporting surveillance programme, the audit inspection was focused on the current economic environment cause by the GFC. The following findings were indicated by ASIC at the meeting:
Firms Inspected for 2nd Time: Significant improvements in the problem areas previously indentified and firms have taken action since the prior review to enhance their progress with compliance
Competence: ASIC emphasised the need for staff to be sufficiently skilled to cope with complex and significant issues such as going concern. Where there is doubt about the capability, firms may need to obtain expert advice and must ensure that use of an expert was adequately documented in the file
Professional Scepticism: The importance for auditors to use professional scepticism was stressed given the impact of the GFC particularly around the areas of significant judgements being made by clients. The results of a survey carried out by ASIC on the work performed by audit firms in light of the GFC showed that firms had satisfactorily acknowledged the need for extra vigilance and caution in these times
Quality Control Systems: Where firms were visited for the first time, their systems were not fully developed. ASIC identified a need for smaller firms to formalise their procedures on independence and quality
Engagement File: The focus on file reviews was the presence of sufficient appropriate audit evidence, particularly in risk related areas. In most cases, firms had obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support conclusions drawn and complied with auditing standards. However, a number of firms lacked appropriate audit evidence in their files to support judgements made on fair value measurement and going concern, and had inadequate evidence in the files to explain the work performed to assess the risk of fraud and subsequent events testing. Also noted was a lack of documentation surrounding the involvement of the engagement quality control reviewer. Other issues identified were inadequate documentation of audit procedures and audit evidence. ASIC indicated there was room for improvement around the documentation of use of experts.
Financial Instruments Impairment ED Released by IASB
The IASB released ED 2009/12 ‘Financial Instruments: Amortised Cost and Impairment of Financial Instruments’ which forms the second part of the project to replace IAS 39 (see GAAP Alert No.112009). Both IFRSs and US GAAP currently use an incurred loss model for the impairment of financial assets. An incurred loss model assumes that all loans will be repaid until evidence to the contrary (known as a ‘loss’ or ‘trigger’ event) is identified. Only at that point is the impaired financial asset (or portfolio) written down to a lower value. The global financial crisis led to criticism of the incurred loss model for presenting an initial, over-optimistic assessment of no credit losses, only to be followed by a large adjustment once a trigger event occurs.
Under the proposals expected losses are recognised throughout the life of the loan (or other financial asset measured at amortised cost), and not just after a loss event has been identified. This avoids the front-loading of interest revenue that occurs now before a loss event is identified, and would better reflect the lending decision. Under the proposals, a provision against credit losses would be built up over the life of the financial asset. Extensive disclosure requirements provide users with an understanding of the loss estimates that an entity judges necessary. ED 2009/12 is open for comment until 30 June 2010. The resulting standard is scheduled for release in 2010, probably towards November/December period. There will be no mandatory application before 2013 or perhaps even later.
Introducing the exposure draft, Sir David Tweedie, Chairman of the IASB, said: “Consistent with requests from the G20 and others, the IASB has moved swiftly to reform the accounting for financial instruments. These proposals on the impairment of financial assets measured at amortised cost form the second part of this project.” “Although moving to a single impairment model significantly reduces complexity, the challenges of applying an expected loss approach should not be underestimated. For this reason the IASB will tread carefully and seek input from a broad range of interests before deciding how to proceed”, he concluded.
IASB and FASB Reaffirm Convergence Commitment
The IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) reaffirmed their commitment to improve IFRS and US GAAP and to bring about their convergence. The Boards also agreed to intensify their efforts to complete the major joint projects described in their 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), as updated in 2008. As a further affirmation of that commitment, the IASB and FASB issued a joint statement describing their plans and milestone targets for completing the major MoU projects in 2011. The statement also describes the values and principles underpinning the Boards’ collaboration and significant successes achieved to date. The Boards also committed to monthly joint meetings and to provide transparency and accountability by providing quarterly updates on their progress on convergence projects.
The Boards assessed the timelines and developed strategies to ensure timely completion of: Financial Instruments; Consolidations; Derecognition; Fair Value Measurement; Revenue Recognition; Leases; Financial Instruments with the Characteristics of Equity; Financial Statement Presentation; Other MoU Projects and Other Joint Projects.
In affirming their commitment to developing a common set of high quality standards, the Boards took note of the support of the leaders of the Group of 20 nations, the Financial Crisis Advisory Group of the FASB and IASB, and the Monitoring Board of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) Foundation for the joint convergence efforts underway.
Commenting on the update, Sir David Tweedie, chairman of the IASB, said: “The two boards are committed to improving financial reporting internationally by completing the convergence programme described in the Memorandum of Understanding. The statement published today describes a series of important and concrete steps that will help us to achieve our June 2011 targets.”
Robert Herz, chairman of the FASB, said: “Our successful joint meeting with the IASB in late October demonstrated that improvements in financial reporting and convergence are very much on track. Our joint efforts have and will continue to produce significant benefits to investors and the economy at large. We will continue our dual objectives of working toward global convergence while addressing reporting issues of critical importance to U.S. investors and financial markets”
IASB 15-16 October Meeting Highlights
The IASB is replacing IAS 39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ in three phases Phase 1: Classification and Measurement; Phase 2: Impairment (methodology); and Phase 3: Hedging. The relevant part of IAS 39 will be replaced as each phase is completed.
The following decisions were made in respect of Phase 1.
Unquoted Equity Instruments: Eliminate the cost exception in IAS 39 and measure all equity instruments at fair value with guidance provided on how to determine fair value for these instruments when they are difficult to value because of little or no timely or relevant information (including when cost might be representative of fair value)
Reclassification: Require reclassification between fair value and the other measurement categories when there is a change in the entity’s business model. Reclassification is prohibited in all other circumstances; such reclassifications are expected to occur infrequently, if ever. Reclassifications would be accounted for prospectively. Amend IFRS 7 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosures’ to include disclosures for all reclassifications between measurement categories
Instruments Measured at FV through OCI: Require recognition of dividends received from held for trading investments in profit or loss, so long as they represent a return on investment
Concentrations of Credit Risk: Require separate assessment of the classification criteria by the issuer of the contractually linked instruments that affect concentrations of credit risk. Require a ‘look through’ approach for holders of tranches to determine their measurement whereby the holder would look through the underlying instruments pool until the assets generating (and not only passing through) the cash flows were identified. To qualify for measurement at amortised cost, the underlying instruments pool can contain instruments that: have only basic loan features; change the cash flow variability of the instruments with basic loan features in accordance with the ‘basic loan features’ criterion; and/or align the cash flows of the issued instruments with the underlying instrument pool. Measurement at fair value is required where the underlying instruments pool contains any instrument used to create additional leverage or any non-financial items. Reassessment of the underlying instruments pool is not permitted. If the underlying instruments pool can change subsequent to initial recognition in a manner that would prohibit classification at amortised cost, this would prohibit measuring any of the issued instruments (i.e., tranches) at amortised cost, and
Financial Assets Acquired at a Discount that Reflects Incurred Credit Losses: An asset that is acquired at a discount that reflects incurred credit losses does not disqualify it from being measured at amortised cost.
In respect of Phase 2, an ED will be drafted as a stand-alone document to be published in October with a comment period of eight months for the ED. The final standard is to be released by the end of 2010.
In respect of Phase 3 confirmed that financial instruments managed on a contractual cash flow basis are eligible hedged items of a fair value hedge.
IASB 19-23 October Meeting Highlights
The highlights of the 19-23 October meeting of the IASB included the following.
Financial Instruments: Continued to discuss responses received to the ED ‘Financial Instruments: Classification and Measurement’ (July 2009). Financial liabilities are to be excluded from the scope of the forthcoming IFRS. In the short term, the requirements of IAS 39 would continue to apply to financial liabilities. The effective date will be 1 January 2013 for the finalised guidance on classification and measurement of financial instruments. Early adoption of the final IFRS will be permitted. Permit, but not require, restatement of comparative periods by entities that implement the standard in 2009 or 2010. Comparative information will be required if an entity adopts the final guidance after 2010. Expect to publish a final IFRS in November 2009
Fair Value Measurement: Discussed the comment letters received on the ED ‘Fair Value Measurement’. In January 2010 will start re-deliberating the issues raised in the comment letters and during the round-table discussions. Plans to issue an IFRS on fair value measurement in the third quarter of 2010
Liabilities (Amendments to IAS 37): Decided to publish a limited-scope document, exposing for comment the proposals to clarify the measurement requirements. The ED is expected to be issued in December
Post-employment Benefits: Discussed the following possible amendments to IFRIC 14 ‘IAS 19 – The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction and IAS 19 Employee Benefits”: prepayments of a minimum funding requirement; discount rate for employee benefits; and termination benefits. Intends to publish final amendments to IFRIC 14 and IAS 19 in December 2009
Consolidation: Continued deliberations on the proposals in ED 10 ‘Consolidated Financial Statements’ considering comments received from respondents to the ED and from round table meetings. Made a number of decisions to progress towards a final standard
Credit Risk in Liability Measurement: Considered a summary of the responses to the discussion paper ‘Credit Risk in Liability Measurement’. Decided to: to stop work on credit risk as a free-standing project; not to reach a general conclusion on credit risk but to incorporate it in the conceptual framework measurement project; not to change the role of credit/performance risk in the definition of fair value; consider the application of the fair value definition in every project involving measurements that would otherwise be at fair value; and to consider the question of credit risk in every project involving a current measurement of liabilities that is not fair value
Derecognition: In March 2009 published an ED to replace the derecognition requirements in IAS 39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ and to improve the disclosure requirements in IFRS 7 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosures’ relating to the transfer of financial assets and liabilities. Began redeliberation of the comments received on the ED
Financial Statement Presentation: Continued deliberations on the proposals in the discussion paper ‘Preliminary Views on Financial Statement Presentation’
Other Comprehensive Income: Discussed comparability issues for an income statement prepared in accordance with the US GAAP with one prepared in accordance with IFRS. Considered whether financial reporting would be improved by removing some of the options and choices available in IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’. Preferable for the IASB and FASB to develop together EDs to amend their respective requirements. Entities would be required to present one statement of comprehensive income, and
Insurance Contracts: Discussed unbundling, deposit floor, presenting income and expense; and will continue discussions with FASB.
IASB 26-28 October Meeting Highlights
The IASB held a joint meeting with the US FASB on 26 – 28 October where the following key decisions were made:
Consolidation: Identified differences in the application consolidation principles to variable interest entities (e.g., mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, money market funds, and venture capital funds) and agreed to conduct their respective projects on consolidation jointly. The objective is that the FASB would publish an ED that is consistent with the consolidation standard issued by the IASB. The FASB expects to publish an ED at the beginning of the second quarter of 2010. The IASB decided that it would publish its final standard after it has considered, with the FASB, comment letters the FASB receives on its proposals
Fair Value Measurement: Agreed that their objective is to ensure that fair value has the same meaning in US GAAP and IFRSs. The FASB agreed to consider comments received on the IASB’s ED and to propose amendments to US GAAP fair value measurement requirements
Financial instruments: Agreed on a set of core principles for working to achieve a converged solution on financial instruments accounting. The core principles are designed to achieve comparability and transparency as well as consistency of credit impairment models and reduced complexity of financial instruments accounting. Agreed that for financial instruments with principal amounts that are held for collection or payment of contractual cash flows rather than for sale or settlement with a third party both fair value and amortised cost are relevant information. The IASB will consider whether to require presentation of fair value of financial instruments measured at amortised cost on the statement of financial position, information about changes in fair value of financial instruments recognised at amortised cost on the performance statement, and the components of other comprehensive income, including any fair value changes recognised in other comprehensive income, on the performance statement
Discontinued Operations: Directed staff to assess IFRS 5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’, to explore the option of adopting, as the converged definition, the definition of a discontinued operation in IFRS 5. Further directed staff to analyse the disclosures required by IFRS 5 and FASB Statement No. 144 ‘Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets’ and develop a proposal for converged disclosures
Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity (Proposed ED): Decided to consider an approach that would classify as equity particular share-settled instruments. Under that approach, an issuer would classify as equity an instrument it must settle by issuing equity instruments unless the issuer is using the equity instruments as currency (e.g., either party has a cash settlement option, the contract requires net settlement in shares or either party has a net settlement option, and the contract exposes either party to risks of changes in value other than those resulting from share price changes, time value of money, counterparty performance risk, and possibly foreign currency)
Income Tax: Considered an analysis of the comment letters received on the IASB’s ED ‘Income Tax’. Agreed that they would consider undertaking a fundamental review of accounting for income taxes at some time in the future
Insurance Contracts (Proposed ED): Directed the staff to prepare an analysis of policyholder accounting with the goals of identifying possible issues arising from lack of symmetry between policyholder accounting and the accounting by the issuer of the insurance contract, and any similarities with accounting for reinsurance contracts from the perspective of the policyholder. Agreed with a three building block approach (current estimates of expected, that is, probability-weighted future cash flows, incorporation of time value of money, and an explicit margin). Directed staff to analyse the potential remaining differences between the FASB’s measurement approach (current fulfilment value) and the IASB’s measurement approach (developed in its project to amend IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’). The goal of the analysis is to arrive at a converged tentative decision on measurement
Leases (Proposed ED): Reconfirmed the right-of-use approach for lessees. Decided to exclude from proposed standard a contract that represents the purchase (lessee) or sale (lessor) of the subject item. Decided to adopt the performance obligation approach to lessor accounting by which a lessor would: recognise an asset representing its right to receive rental payments (a lease receivable); and recognise a liability representing its performance obligation under the lease-that is, its obligation to permit the lessee to use one of its assets (the leased item). The lessor would recognise revenue as that performance obligation is satisfied over the lease term. A lessor would not recognise revenue at the inception of a lease contract
Revenue Recognition (Proposed ED): Decided an entity should allocate the transaction price to segments of a contract rather than to individual performance obligations. A segment includes one or more performance obligations for which the entity has evidence of a market-that is, evidence that a segment of the contract could be sold separately
Statement of Comprehensive Income: Decided to work together to develop guidance that requires an entity to prepare a single statement of comprehensive income, and
Financial Statement Presentation (Proposed ED): Continued their deliberations on the proposals in the discussion paper ‘Preliminary Views on Financial Statement Presentation’, and considered the reconciliation schedule ; the presentation of cash flow information; the disaggregation of items of income and expense by function and nature ; the decisions made on the definitions of the business and financing sections.
CPA Quality Assurance Update
CPA Australia reminded members of the following quality assurance developments.
2010 quality review selection: Approximately 1000 CPA Australia Public Practice Certificate holders were recently notified of their selection to undergo a quality assurance review in 2010. The members who have been selected will be notified of their reviewer allocation in the coming weeks
APESB issues APES 330 ‘Insolvency services’: In September, APESB issued the standard APES 330 ‘Insolvency services’ that is effective for all insolvency engagements commencing on or after 1 April 2010. APES 330 will replace the existing APS 7 ‘Statement of Insolvency Standards’, and
Auditing standards being released in clarity format: Members who offer auditing engagements to their clients are reminded that the AUASB are reissuing the auditing standards in clarity format. These standards are applicable for reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010.
‘Clarity Auditing Standards – An Introduction’ Publication Released
Justin Reid CA, with the assistance of his colleagues at GAAP Consulting, has released a timely introduction to the ‘Clarity’ Auditing Standards. ‘Clarity Auditing Standards – An Introduction’ provides an overview of the ‘Clarity’ Auditing Standards to partners and senior managers of accounting firms so that the audit practice can:
Understanding the principles underlying ‘Clarity’ rewrite of Auditing Standards Identify the key changes to individual Auditing Standards that warrant attention Start to assess the implications of ‘Clarity’ Auditing Standards on the audit practice (e.g., timing, methodology management, training, resource requirements) Assist with an orderly implementation of the ‘Clarity’ Auditing Standards through a structured process, and Begin the client communication process.
Highlights of the publication include: A concise introduction to the ‘Clarity’ (Objectives of ‘Clarity’ Project, Operative Date of ‘Clarity’ ASAs, Clarity Auditing Standards with the Most Significant Changes, Standards Not Affected by Clarity); Comparative Table of Extant ASA and ‘Clarity’ ASA; Summary of ‘Clarity’ key changes; and Key Implementation Steps.
The importance of a successful implementation cannot be overstated, and the level of effort for such should not be underestimated. ‘Clarity Auditing Standards – An Introduction’ is an important first step in this process; and retails for $99.00. Act now and place your orders to colin@gaap.com.au. Publication (approx 30 pages) will be available by 30 November 2009.
ICAA Corporate Reporting Discussion Group on IFRS for SMEs
The ICAA is hosting the next meeting of its Melbourne Corporate Reporting Discussion Group on Thursday 3 December 2009 (12.30-2.00) at its Melbourne office, Level 3, 600 Bourke Street. This session will cover the proposed changes to the differential reporting regime as it applies to private companies (including subsidiaries of listed companies) reporting under the Corporations Act. The guest speakers for this session are Colin Parker, FCA, Principal, GAAP Consulting and Rob Mackay, Associate Director, Moore Stephens, who will cover the following key points: Recap on current requirements; An overview of the proposals; The implications for business; What alternatives to the proposals exist. If you have any questions regarding the forum, please email crdg@charteredaccountants.com.au. If you wish to attend this forum, please register online at the Institute website. Registrations will open on Monday 16 November 2009.
GAAP Team in Action
Colin Parker, team leader at GAAP Consulting presented “Applying Lessons Learnt from QA Reviews & Related APES 320 Issues” at a mid-sized accounting firm national partners’ conference in Sydney. The purpose of the presentation was to provide an insight into the findings of the Accounting Bodies’ and the ASIC’s recent quality review reports so that the network firms could: benchmark the practices against the QA results; identify areas where improvements could be made; plan future training needs; and managed risks in a proactive manner. The presentation dealt with issues associated with quality control at network and firm levels, as well as in specific engagement circumstances such as audit, compilations, and forensic accounting services.
Susan Orchard, GAAP Consulting network member, was involved in consultations considering the questions in the Cooper Review Phase 2 consultation paper, providing input to the Institutes responses to the questions posed in the consultation paper. Phase 3 will focus on issues associated with the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of the superannuation system associated with SMSFs.
GAAP Consulting’s Justin Reid, recently presented ‘Audit Issues in Volatile Markets’ to the Morison International Asia Pacific 2009 Annual Conference on the Gold Coast. His presentation focused on some of the challenges facing auditors and their clients in the current economic conditions. Delegates from 19 different countries attended the conference including delegates from South East Asia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, England and the USA. The conference was hosted by Hayes Knight Brisbane.
Accounting
24 November ED/2009/11 ‘Improvements to IFRS (proposed amendments to International Financial Reporting Standards’ – IASB 30 November ‘Proposals for enhanced public accountability’ – IASC Foundation 30 November ED 180 ‘Income from Non-exchange Transactions (Taxes and Transfers)’ – AASB 31 December ED 183 ‘Management Commentary’ – AASB 1 March 2010 ED/2009/6‘Management Commentary’ – IASB
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.
|
