| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are receiving this email because the email [jdsmartinez@gmail.com] was subscribed to our email list. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Topic | IASB/FASB Action | Convergence Outcome | Was IFRS Improved? |
| Borrowing Cost | In January 2009 the IASB amended IAS 23 to require capitalization (the U.S. principle). | Converged on the broad principle of capitalization of borrowing costs. Differences in how borrowing costs eligible for capitalization are defined and calculated and on which assets are eligible | IFRS were improved because a free‐choice option was removed. Whether capitalization or expensing is the better principle is debatable. |
| Business Combinations | New standards issued by both boards. | Partial convergence. Differences remain, including: • Measurement of goodwill (the IASB allows either 100% of goodwill or only the parent’s share. FASB is 100% only). • The level at which the goodwill impairment test is imposed. | Yes, particularly in eliminating pooling-of-interests accounting. Some argue that IFRS 3 would have been further improved if the result had been a single measure for goodwill, rather than two. However, there was only limited support among IFRS preparers and users for the 100% goodwill approach. |
| Combinations of Entities Under Common Control | No action by the IASB. U.S. GAAP already requires “pooling of interests.” | Not converged. | There was no standard, hence no improvement. |
| Conceptual Framework | In September 2010, the IASB and FASB published virtually identical chapters on “Objectives and Qualitative Characteristics” of the new Conceptual Framework. No other sections finished. | Converged on objective and qualitative characteristics. Other parts of the Framework were already broadly converged. | Readability was improved, but many question replacement of prudence with neutrality. |
| Consolidation (including special- purpose entities) | The IASB completed IFRS 10 in May 2011. FASB did not agree with effective control as the basic principle and did not join the IASB in the project. | Convergence broadly achieved for off‐balance-sheet activities and disclosures about unconsolidated structured entities. Not converged with respect to control and de facto control as the basis for consolidation. | There is a more clearly articulated effective control principle, clearer guidance for consolidating special-purpose vehicles, and much-improved disclosures. |
| Corrections of Errors | The IASB amended IAS 8 to require restatement, but the IASB added an impracticability exception that does not exist in U.S. GAAP. | Broadly converged. | Yes, though some question the need for an impracticability exception. |
| Derecognition of Financial Assets and Liabilities | Despite a joint exposure draft, in the end, the boards could not agree on derecognition principles for removing financial assets from the balance sheet. The boards agreed on broadly aligned disclosures in October 2010. | No success in convergence of derecognition principles. Substantial success on converged disclosures. | Improved disclosures, but no improvement to the principles for derecognition. |
| Discontinued Operations | The IASB adopted IFRS 5. FASB adopted Statement No. 144. Converged on timing for classifying an operation as discontinued. Not converged on definition of discontinued operation or on whether to present discontinued operations on the face of the income statement. | Substantial success. | Yes, IFRS were improved. (And many prefer the IASB’s answer to FASB’s). |
| Earnings per Share | In August 2008 the IASB issued an ED proposing amendments to IAS 33. This was never finalized. Nor did FASB propose similar amendments to U.S. GAAP. | IAS 33 and U.S. GAAP were broadly converged in the project. Nothing has changed. | Because no action was taken, there was no improvement. |
| Emissions Trading | In November 2010 the IASB and FASB decided to defer work on this project. | Not converged. Neither the IASB nor FASB has standards directly on point. | There was no standard, hence no improvement. |
| Extractive Industries | In April 2010 the IASB published a Discussion Paper. No action since. FASB already has an oil and gas standard. | Not converged. | There was no standard, hence no improvement. |
| Fair Value Measurement | IASB issued IFRS 13 as a virtually word-for-word equivalent to FASB Statement No. 157. | Substantial success. | Yes, the guidance on fair value in IFRS is much improved and made consistent across standards, plus disclosures were enhanced significantly. |
| Fair Value Option for Financial Assets | FASB has added a fair value option to its financial instruments standards similar to what the IASB had. | Converged regarding fair value option. But the issue is under reconsideration in the broader joint project on classification and measurement of financial instruments. | There was no change to IFRS, which already had a fair value option. |
| Financial Instruments— Hedge Accounting | Currently, IAS 39 and U.S. GAAP are substantially converged on hedge accounting (other than macro hedging). The IASB will soon issue a new general hedge accounting standard that will result in significant divergence from U.S. GAAP. | Not converged. | Despite lack of convergence, the IASB’s new general hedge accounting standard is a significant improvement to IFRS. |
| Financial Instruments— Impairment of Assets Carried at Amortized Cost | Still in process. | Both boards have agreed to adopt an expected loss approach rather than today incurred loss approach. However, the two boards are currently heading toward different ways of implementing that approach. | Moving to an expected loss approach is an improvement in principle. The specifics have not yet been decided. |
| Financial Instruments— Classification and Measurement | The two boards went different ways: The IASB issued IFRS 9 in November 2009 (for assets) and October 2010 (for liabilities). Some financial assets amortized cost and some fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL), (and some equity instruments at fair value through other comprehensive income, or FVOCI). Most liabilities at amortized cost, but with fair value option (FVO) and other comprehensive income (OCI) option for own credit. FASB proposed a full fair value model, but is now moving to a mixed measurement model different from the IASB’s. | Limited success in convergence. | Many thought IFRS 9 was an improvement over IAS 39. But those improvements are being eroded in the interest of convergence because of additional categories of financial assets, greater use of OCI, recycling, and inconsistent treatment of “available for sale” debt and equity instruments. |
| Government Grants | No action. | Not converged. | There was no change in IFRS. |
| Impairment of Nonfinancial Assets | In 2008 the boards decided to defer pending completion of “other work.” | Not converged. | There was no change in IFRS. |
| Income Tax | In March 2009 the IASB issued an ED (not with FASB) proposing amendments to IAS 12 basically to eliminate exemptions from recognizing deferred taxes. Responses were generally not supportive. The IASB did not finalize the ED. Small amendments to IAS 12 were made later. | Even before convergence work began, IFRS and U.S. GAAP were converged on the principle of the temporary difference method, although not converged on how that method is implemented. There has been no success in eliminating the differences. | Even though there was no convergence, the process did result in a few amendments to IFRS 12 that are considered improvements. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
