IFRScommunity.com

This is an interesting issue, and I am not sure it is clear cut, I mean we can always play the "it's not material" card :-). But I am not sure the example you provide, which is about disclosure of specific terms in the notes (which I agree with) applies in this situation, and if it did, wo...

Yeah this is another of my concerns, I think the word covenant is a red herring, the ED talks about conditions and specific conditions, and I don't know how to put limits around that. I am also partial to the "Alternative View".

Here is the ED if anyone is interested: https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/p ... -nclwc.pdf

I have a lot of thoughts and questions on the new ED: Non-current Debts with Covenants. The first question I would be interested to hear views on is: The new paragraphs effectively say (among other things) (they are self referential so I have tried to pull them together): When an entity classifies l...

JRSB wrote: ↑23 Nov 2021, 10:37 I have never gone anywhere near IFRS 17 but they look great anyway!

Agreed!

No. Paragraph P17 of the IFRS for SMEs specifically addresses this (emphasis added): The IFRS for SMEs is a stand-alone document. SMEs shall not anticipate or apply changes made in full IFRS before those changes are incorporated into the IFRS for SMEs unless, in the absence of specific guidance in t...

Thanks that helps my understanding a lot. Basically the broker only gets paid if the share price rises, and effectively we have a formula to determine the payment to the broker. Again, all the same warnings as earlier, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will jump in soon, but this feels much m...

I try to steer clear of Financial Instruments when I can, so take this for what it is worth, hopefully one of the more experience contributors will jump in. But my thoughts. So yes normally warrants or shares issued to a broker are captured by IFRS 2 as a payment for service. I have seen this freque...

Yes absolutely. This is simply PPE, which we often term leasehold improvements. There was a recent IFRIC related to these kinds of costs and specifically the period over which to depreciate them: https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/supporting-implementation/agenda-decisions/ifrs-16-ias-16-lease-te...

It doesn't sound like IFRS 6 really applies? You seem to be beyond the E&E phase? IFRS 6 Para 5: An entity shall not apply the IFRS to expenditures incurred... after the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource are demonstrable. and before we say, ahh at th...

What is the nature of your right? Did you lease the land then have to get regulatory approval to extract the minerals or did you lease the rights to extract the minerals?

I agree, I don't necessarily think the drafting is easy here. If I had a client (or country) on a long transition to IFRS I think then you might advise that this is something they should do (ie document internally generated intangible assets). So it wouldn't be retrospective as such, but it requires...

I think you have to read IFRS 1. IG47 in tandem with IG46, which states: "In accordance with paragraphs 65 and 71 of IAS 38, an entity capitalises the costs of creating internally generated intangible assets prospectively from the date when the recognition criteria are met. IAS 38 does not perm...

Then I think IAS21.26 comes in to play: When several exchange rates are available, the rate used is that at which the future cash flows represented by the transaction or balance could have been settled if those cash flows had occurred at the measurement date. If exchangeability between two currencie...

Yeah, funny when you read it quickly you can miss the key bit, my eyes just skipped over the open vs closed difference. I agree that the application is as you outline for each hypothesis.

Final note the BC to IFRS 3 (BC392) states: The boards decided to place constraints on the period for which it is deemed reasonable to be seeking information necessary to complete the accounting for a business combination. The measurement period ends as soon as the acquirer receives the necessary in...

Where it gets interesting is if instead your year end was say 30 June, you have prepared your 30 June 2020 accounts and then you find the cupboard these intangibles are hiding in later in the year. Note that IFRS3.B67 comes into play: To meet the objective in paragraph 61, the acquirer shall disclos...

I have to confess to being a little lost in your hypotheses, but the measurement period ended on the 31/01/2021. As you can see from the quote below the period relates to when the information is received. That being said, I would be tempted to find evidence that we knew about this before the end of ...

I interpreted the issue as a little broader than bid-ask spread, but if that is all we are talking about I would probably use the guidance in IFRS 13 as appropriate by analogy: Para 71: This IFRS does not preclude the use of mid-market pricing or other pricing conventions that are used by market par...

Yeah I have been following along too. If you want some entertainment around this share lurking around this bulletin board is... educational: https://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?sh ... pplyme-Cap

The IFRIC dealt with a kind of related issue a couple of years ago: https://cdn.ifrs.org/-/media/project/determination-of-the-exchange-rate-when-there-is-a-long-term-lack-of-exchangeability/ad-determination-of-the-exchange-rate-when-there-is-a-long-term-lack-of-exchangeability-sept-18.pdf . Though t...

My experience is it depends on the sophistication of the system used to record assets. Some good ones will go to the day, but to the nearest month is not uncommon.

The IFRIC don't want to get swamped with minor details I guess, and they definitely don't want to become a "help desk". So unless they see a significant problem they tend to stay out. I have sat in meetings where they have concluded a submission is clearly wrong, but still decided not to s...

I think for me the difference is pages 12 - 17 were provided by the submitter, not produced by the IFRIC. So the two views were the two views of the submitter, the IFRIC found little evidence of diversity, most entities use only one approach and the IFRIC choose not to say this was wrong. So certain...

I read the paper slightly differently, or at least, to say there are different approaches might lead people to think there is diversity in practice when there really isn't. Para 17 of the paper states that: "Almost all respondents said lessees do not—or generally do not—include non-refundable V...

There is no choice I am afraid. IFRS 10 is clear a parent shall (read must) prepare consolidated financial statements incorporating all controlled entities, with the one exception of investment entities.

Surely you can't have a negative equity component, as this would imply that an equity holder is expecting to have to pay more to the firm, but that would be a liability not equity. This is why you never see a share with a negative value. One of the things about being an equity holder is that only yo...

I think this is a really interesting question. And it might need some thought (then again there might be something really obvious I am missing). For me the first question is does IFRS 15 apply? This hinges on one key question, is the parent a "customer". Paragraph 6 (emphasis added): An en...

Note that IAS8.17 specifically deals with a move TO revaluation, not back from it. Also it is generally considered that a move from revaluation to cost fails the test in IAS8.14(b) as it will never(?) provide more relevant information to users of the financial statements.

Well in March (or thereabouts) your dreams will come true as you too can make a submission for the Trustees' IASB Agenda Consultation

https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan ... ultation/