Welcome to the website of the IFRS Foundation and the IASB

Saturday 25 October 2014

Banner graphic

Novation of derivatives and continuation of hedge accounting


 Due process steps

Stage 1: Exposure Draft

 

Step Required/
Optional
Metrics or
evidence
Actions
Board meetings held in public, with papers available for observers. All decisions are made in public session.

Required

Meetings held.

Project website contains a full description with up-to-date information.

Meeting papers posted in a timely fashion.

This issue was discussed on the basis of publicly available agenda papers at the Interpretations Committee meetings in January 2013.

The results of the discussions of the Interpretations Committee was also summarised in the IFRIC Update for the meeting.

Afterwards, the IASB discussed the issue at its January 2013 meeting and decided to add this issue to its agenda and to propose a narrow-scope amendment to IAS 39 and IFRS 9.

Sweep issues were presented orally to the IASB at its February 2013 meeting, and reported in IASB Update
A project webpage was created after the February 2013 IASB meeting.

Consultation with the Trustees and the Advisory Council.

Required

Discussions with the Advisory Council and/or Trustees.

This proposed amendment is part of the IASB’s and the Interpretations Committee’s work on maintenance of IFRSs.

The proposed amendment is narrow in scope and occupies little of the IASB’s time. Given the limited nature of the project and the narrow scope of the proposed amendment, the IASB does not undertake a separate consultation with the Advisory Council.

Consultative groups used, if formed.

Optional

Extent of consultative group meetings, and evidence of substantive involvement in issues.

Consultative group review of the draft ED.

N/A

Fieldwork is undertaken to analyse proposals.

Optional

The IASB has described publicly the approach taken on fieldwork

The IASB has explained to the DPOC why it does not believe fieldwork is warranted, if that is the preferred path.

Extent of field tests taken.

N/A

Outreach meetings with a broad range of stakeholders, with special effort to consult investors.

Optional

Extent of meetings held.

Evidence of specific targeted efforts to consult investors.

The staff did conduct outreach with the IFASS group and interested parties. The results from the outreach were discussed by the Interpretations Committee at its meeting in January 2013 and presented to the IASB.

Webcasts and podcasts to provide interested parties with high-level updates or other useful information about specific projects.

Optional

Extent of, and participation in, webcasts.

N/A

Public discussions with representative groups.

Optional

Extent of discussions held.

N/A

Online survey to generate evidence in support of or against a particular approach.

Optional

Extent and results of surveys.

N/A

The IASB hosts regional discussion forums, where possible, with national standard-setters.

Optional

Schedule of meetings held in these forums.

N/A

Round-table meetings between external participants and members of the IASB.

Optional

Extent of meetings held.

N/A

Analysis of the likely effects of the forthcoming Standard or major amendment, for example, initial costs or ongoing associated costs.

Required

Publication of the Effect Analysis as part of the Basis for Conclusions.

The staff assessed the likely effects of the proposed amendment as limited because the scope of the proposed amendment is narrow.

The staff provided the IASB with a description of the financial reporting effects of the proposed amendment at the January 2013 IASB meeting, which are included in the Basis for Conclusions.

Due process steps reviewed by the IASB.

Required

Summary of all due process steps discussed by the IASB before a Standard is issued.

The discussion of the issues and the decision by the IASB to publish an exposure draft was taken in a single IASB meeting. Consequently there was no history of the project to discuss in the IASB meeting.

However, this record of steps followed was completed and circulated to IASB members prior to publication of the exposure draft.

The ED has an appropriate comment period.

Required

The period has been set by the IASB.

If outside the normal comment period, an explanation from the IASB to the DPOC has been provided, and the decision has been approved.

The IASB agreed at its January 2013 meeting that a comment period of not less than 30 days will be used for this exposure draft because of the urgency of this issue. This decision to use a 30 day comment period was agreed to by the Trustees’ Due Process Oversight Committee and their agreement was notified to the IASB in its February 2013 public meeting.

Drafting:

 

 

 

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Required

The Translations team has been included in the review process.

The translation team reviewed drafts of these proposals before they were published.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Required

The XBRL team has been included in the review process.

The XBRL team reviewed drafts of these proposals before they were published.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

The Editorial team has been included in the review process.

In addition, external reviewers are used to review drafts for editorial review and the comments collected are considered by the IASB.

The Editorial team reviewed drafts of these proposals before they were published.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

The Editorial team has been included in the review process.

In addition, external reviewers are used to review drafts for editorial review and the comments collected are considered by the IASB.

The Editorial team reviewed drafts of these proposals before they were published.

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

Drafts for editorial review have been made available to members of the International Forum of Accounting Standard-Setters (IFASS) and the comments have been collected and considered by the IASB.

N/A

Drafting quality assurance steps are adequate.

Optional

Review draft has been posted on the project website.

N/A

Publication:

 

 

 

ED published.

Required

ED has been posted on the IASB website.

 

Press release to announce publication of ED.

Required

Press Release has been published.

Media coverage of the release.

Press release has been prepared and reviewed by Comms and Editorial.

Snapshot document to explain the rationale and basic concepts included in the ED.

Optional

Snapshot has been posted on the IASB website.

N/A