110 likes | 211 Vues
IESBA Strategy and Work Plan. Ken Siong , IESBA Technical Director IESBA Meeting June 10-12, 2013 New York. General Context. Two of three standard-setting projects on 2011-2012 Strategy and Work Plan (SWP) recently completed: Breach of a requirement of the Code Conflicts of interest
E N D
IESBA Strategy and Work Plan Ken Siong, IESBA Technical Director IESBA Meeting June 10-12, 2013 New York
General Context • Two of three standard-setting projects on 2011-2012 Strategy and Work Plan (SWP) recently completed: • Breach of a requirement of the Code • Conflicts of interest • Third project likely to continue into 2014 • Responding to a Suspected Illegal Act • Strategy review in early 2012
General Context • Four new work streams added to current SWP in 2012: • Long association of senior personnel with an audit client • Non-assurance services • Structure of the Code • Part C of the Code • Board expected to operate to capacity until end of 2014 • Preliminary Planning Committee recommendation for deferral of approval of next SWP until Q4 2014 to cover period 2015-2017
Development of Next Strategy and Work Plan • Strategy survey released January 2013 • 115 responses received • Detailed comment letter from IOSCO • Agenda Item 6-A: • Summary of input from survey and from IOSCO • Preliminary analyses and recommendations from Planning Committee
May 2013 IESBA-NSS Meeting – Key Comments • Keep stable platform and promote Code’s robustness • Prioritize Code structure work first before other changes • Do not underestimate amount of work involved in restructuring • Important for the standards to be principles-based • Too many examples discourage thinking about the principles • Some support for idea of “annual improvements” project • Need for greater clarity on initial PC recommendations re: • Additional guidance for PAs in public practice providing NAS • Fee dependency
June 2013 Teleconference with IOSCO C1 • Comment letter brings together matters identified over a number of years • Opportunity seen to look at the Code more holistically • Some C1 suggestions viewed as more important and extensive than others • More important matters set out more upfront in comment letter • Some items seen as needing shorter timeframes than others • Lowest common denominator perception
IOSCO C1 – Key Concerns • Need for a fresh review of effectiveness of safeguards in the Code • Enforceability of the Code • Lack of precision in requirements • Need for an IAASB-type clarity format • Definition of a public interest entity • A number of jurisdictions not going beyond IESBA definition • Definition of “public interest” seen as important relative to enforceability
Key Considerations • Important to make final determinations based on what would best serve the public interest • Capacity for at most four new standard-setting projects or initiatives • Key assumptions: • Four board meetings a year, three days each • Staff complement of three • Adherence to current due process, including minimum 90-day exposure period for proposed changes to the Code • Each project to need a minimum of two years to complete
Key Considerations • Comments from some respondents to survey: • Establish a period of stability to facilitate implementation of 2009 Code • Focus on outreach and promote robustness of the Code • Understand and address implementation support needs of SMPs/SMEs • Understand extent of adoption of the Code internationally and reasons for any differences • Need for flexibility to respond to emerging issues • Review strategic priorities at least annually?
Forward Timeline • CAG discussion September 2013 • IESBA consideration of CAG input and revised Planning Committee proposals September 2013 • IESBA approval of SWP exposure draft December 2013 • NSS consideration of ED responses May 2014 • IESBA consideration of ED responses July 2014 • CAG consideration of revised draft SWP September 2014 • IESBA approval of SWP October 2014
Matters for Consideration • Views on Planning Committee recommendations: • Areas worth considering • Areas not worth considering • Areas noted for further analysis or research • Views on level of priority re areas worth considering • Views on merits of an “annual improvements”-type project • Views on other Planning Committee recommendations • Continue focus on implementation support needs of SMPs • Seek greater understanding of extent of adoption of the Code