- Kindly indicate the reason or reasons why it is now stated that an analysis of the Argentinian proposal would be included in the research project regarding Financial Reporting in High Inflationary Economies, while it is indicated that it is not certain that an analysis of my proposal would also be included? It is stated in the Staff Paper, Agenda Ref 20, Par. 17:
- Kindly inform me whether I will be given a reasonable chance of securing the inclusion of an analysis of my commentary and amended proposal in which I could collaborate using an efficient method of analysis agreed on beforehand or not?
- If your answer to (2) is affirmative, kindly inform me
- For the IASB to develop an efficient collaboration model that agrees beforehand with the submitter how decisions will be reached, that every disagreement to the final decision by the submitter will be indicated in the Staff Report, how disagreements will be resolved, etc., etc., etc.
- Allow the new method developed (mentioned in the previous paragraph) to be used to correct the 16 errors / problems / disagreements in a way that will improve IFRS.
- My proposal would be given the same treatment as the Argentinian Federation´s proposal – applying the new method.
- The IASB will develop a new method for collaboration with constituents as briefly indicated above.
- The Staff Report Agenda Ref 20 will be moved forward to a future Interpretations Committee meeting – not necessarily the next one to allow time to develop the new method.
- In terms of The Conceptual Framework (2010), Par. 4.59 (a), financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power is applicable during low inflation, high inflation, hyperinflation and deflation.
- In terms of IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies, Par. 8, this standard is only required for the restatement of historical cost and current cost financial statements and not in the case of financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power since all items in the latter financial statements would already be measured either
- I received an email from April Pitman asking confirmation that a short summary of my request (see above) would be that
- During the first conference call I had with Michael Stewart and Kenichi Yoshimura, I very clearly stated and emphasized that the accounting result and the financial reports under CMUCPP are totally different from IAS 29.
Mr Hoogervorst´s response is available here.
Copyright (c) 2005-2013 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.