The complications arise from the IASB's difficult and unfinished IFRS 4 phase II project and from Solvency II's replacement of FSA rules that underpin both FRS 27 and the ABI SORP - they even still support IFRS 4 based accounts to some extent. The ASB's options are derived from those two changing regimes and they try to deal with the significant timetable uncertainties involved.
The long-term IFRS 4 Phase II option would give consistency to insurance accounting across the UK. It also has the advantage of avoiding the potential difficulties in developing separate UK accounting requirements that the IASB's decade old project so clearly suggests. But on the other hand, IFRS 4 Phase II will not be fully consistent with Solvency II.
For the shorter term (the ASB's ‘gap' period), much depends on how long that is. Simply using the current IFRS 4 would permit current practices to continue, with improvements, and it clearly supports the later use of IFRS 4 Phase II. However, the current IFRS 4's lack of comprehensiveness might reduce consistency. And again, with this option, regulatory numbers would be different - but perhaps to some extent that is inevitable.
By contrast, incorporating IFRS 4 Phase II early would bring consistency and comprehensiveness. But it would require non-listed insurers to apply new requirements earlier than listed insurers, and that would be a big step for the ASB to take. Further, and perhaps crucially, it is not known what IFRS 4 Phase II will finally look like and when it will be applied.
Whichever way forward is supported, the changes may be significant. It's important for non-listed life insurers in particular that the direction of travel is right at the outset.
Press release
© AccountancyAge.com
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article