Examining the need for a single framework of financial accounting Essay

A individual model of fiscal accounting criterion for whole over the universe is an issue which has been widely debated and assessed over the past 40 old ages, with many treatments taking topographic point between the regulating organic structures of national legal powers in order to better the criterions, which have led to huge alterations being made. All of these regulating organic structures are looking to harmonize the models into a individual model for fiscal coverage in order to better the current system. To accomplish this mark, the universe ‘s accounting standards-setters have been working on “ meeting ” local and planetary accounting criterions. The International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) , once the International Accounting Standards Committee, began developing a conceptual model of accounting rules and fiscal direction coverage concepts that will efficaciously harmonise the pattern of accounting throughout the universe ( International accounting Standards Board, 2006 ) Central to these attempts has been the work of the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board ( FASB ) and the International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) to meet U.S. by and large accepted accounting rules ( U.S. GAAP ) and International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) .

GAAP, one time the gilded criterion of accounting and fiscal direction minutess throughout the universe, is progressively being applied in concurrence with freshly emerging international accounting criterions. Many accounting professionals from the full universe argued that this is an unwanted job and these attempts may stop up with assorted critical issues in the fiscal accounting criterions and statements. But in the other manus, some of the professional accounting critics against that, fiscal statements are all denominated in pecuniary footings and tend to hold similar classs across states. Further, users of fiscal statements may believe that the statements reflect the same fiscal linguistic communication ; nevertheless, the “ words ” ever have different significances depending on the state from which the statements originated. Devon, E. ( 2009 ) . Besides the regulations used to get the classs and Numberss frequently differ by state. Because national environments have different features, standard compositors and accounting organic structures have chosen different options for acknowledgment, measuring and presentation of assets, liabilities, equity, gross and disbursals. They have chosen that acknowledgment, measuring, consolidation and presentation policies that best fitted their national environments. Although the general mark is same in most states many difference between states occur. This study will take to critically analyze following sub headers

History about IASB & A ; IFRS, its activities over the convergence of ifrs, standard puting procedure, advantages & A ; disadvantages of the IFRS, Example of states late adopted ifrs, whether this convergence to ifrs good for modern concern universe and the likeliness of such alterations happening in the current system.

History of International Accounting criterions board ( IASB ) and International fiscal coverage criterions ( IFRS ) .

The FASB ( 2006, p. four ) defines the model as ‘The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting establishes the constructs that underlie fiscal coverage. The model is a consistent system of constructs that flow from an aim. The nonsubjective identifies the intent of fiscal coverage. The other constructs provide counsel on placing the boundaries of fiscal coverage, choosing the minutess, other events, and fortunes to be represented, how they should be recognized and measured ( or disclosed ) , and how they should be summarised and reported ‘ . This identifies the importance of these criterions to companies who wish to describe within the legal power of the standard scene commission.

The International Accounting Standards Committee ( IASC ) was established in 1973 by the professional accounting organic structures of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the USA, with the purpose to harmonize international fiscal coverage. This was a rules based attack to fiscal coverage, which are non compulsory unless and until they are adopted by the accounting profession in the state concerned. During the following 20 old ages, the IASC developed their model of fiscal coverage and disclosed International Accounting Standards ( IAS ) which came into consequence as of 1st January 1995 which covered 17 subjects and now it has been increased to 41 ( Please mention appendices 1 ) .

In 1988, the US Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , which is responsible for the control of listed companies, began to promote the IFRC ‘s attempts to develop a individual model for fiscal coverage which is used by all. The SEC once more reiterated its stance in 1997 and stated that for issuers wishing to raise capital in more than one state, fixing multiple sets of fiscal statements to follow with different jurisdictional accounting demands increased conformity costs and created inefficiencies.

In 2001, the IASC was comprehensively reorganized and became the International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) , intending that all new criterions would go International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) and non as they have antecedently been named International Accounting Standards ( IAS ) . ( Please mention appendices -2 for IASB ‘s Structure. )

Following this, the IASB and the FASB met to discourse the possibility of convergence between the two sets of criterions and as a consequence of this, the Norwalk Agreement was issued. The Norwalk Agreement pledges that both parties will do their best attempts to ‘ ( a ) make their existing fiscal coverage criterions to the full compatible every bit shortly as is operable and ( B ) to organize their hereafter work plans to guarantee that one time achieved, compatibility is maintained. ‘ ( The Norwalk Agreement, 2002 ) , and aims to travel the US GAAP ( Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ) and IFRS more in alliance with each other. The SEC has for many old ages been a strong protagonist of development of a individual model for fiscal coverage, and announced its support of the Norwalk Agreement. Nobes.C and Parker.R ( 2008 )

IASB ‘s activities to set up the IFRS as Local Accounting criterion of the universe.

The IASB ( 2009 ) defines its function and aims as the standard compositor as:

“ a ) to develop, in the public involvement, a individual set of high quality, apprehensible and enforceable planetary accounting criterions that require high quality, transparent and comparable information in fiscal statements and other fiscal coverage to assist participants in the universe ‘s capital markets and other users make economic determinations ;

( B ) to advance the usage and strict application of those criterions ; and

( degree Celsius ) in carry throughing the aims associated with ( a ) and ( B ) , to take history of, as appropriate, the particular demands of little and moderate-sized entities and emerging economic systems ; and

( vitamin D ) to convey about convergence of national accounting criterions and International Accounting Standards and International Financial Reporting Standards to high quality solutions. ”

The above aims highlights the fact that the IASB besides accept that they have a duty to the users of the fiscal studies to develop dependable model, and to carry through the aspiration to meet national accounting criterions, the FASB ‘s IAS ‘s with the IFRS ‘s.

In pattern, the chief purpose of international accounting criterions is to a good comparison that will do easy for investors to do their determinations while cut downing the costs of transnational companies in fixing the assorted types of histories and studies. ( Eg: IFRS, UK GAAP and US GAAP ECT ) . It ‘s been clearly apprehensible that IASB holding a planetary function to play in organizing and harmonising the activities of the many national bureaus involved in puting accounting and coverage criterions. Further it has been suggested, that the IASB ‘s criterions provide a utile theoretical account for developing states wishing to set up accounting criterions for the first clip. As per the Appendices -01 current IASB ‘s criterions, it ‘s published 41 International accounting criterions with its origin and has since completed 5 wholly new criterions and revised 15 bing criterions. As mentioned earlier in this study the new and revised criterions are designated as International fiscal coverage criterions ( IFRS ) , but the familial criterions still hold their original appellation of IAS. These cover a broad scope of Accounting issues, including the methods of accounting policy revelation, amalgamate fiscal statements, financess statements, segmental coverage for transnational companies, accounting for rentals, related party revelations, accounting for the effects of alterations in foreign exchange rates and fiscal instruments. The most recent IFRS ‘s explicating how to unwrap portion based payment, insurance contracts, and first clip acceptance of International fiscal coverage criterions.

In footings of accomplishments, early yearss the IASC made good advancement towards its end of accomplishing world-wide understanding on accounting criterions since its formation in 1973. As the freshly started IASB entered 2001, it embarked on a new phase of world-wide standard scene as a restructured, independent criterion compositor that has unrestricted support from authoritiess, standard scene bureaus, security committees, and professional accounting associations worldwide. Further, In 1995 IASB successfully signed an understanding and received an indorsement from the international organisation of securities committees ( IOSCO ) , as a consequence of the understanding followed turning acknowledgment of the demand for common and planetary accounting criterions that could be used transnational and local listed companies likewise. Besides the concern preparers were convinced and motivated by the possibility cost economy and investors by the demand for easy comparable fiscal information internationally. . A large development of the IFRSs is that as of January 1st, 2005, entities of member provinces of the European Union ( EU ) who are listed on the EU-regulated stock exchanges to fix their amalgamate fiscal statements must make so in conformity with IFRS. Most member provinces of the EU has retained its ain national set of fiscal coverage criterions which any company who is non listed on the EU regulated markets can make up one’s mind to utilize. This was a existent successful measure by IASB as its much of the attempts this past twelvemonth have focussed on the acceptance of these criterions by the 25 states of the European Union.

Standard puting Procedure

At present, there are two different attacks to standard puting. This causes a job for the harmonization of fiscal coverage criterions. The first is the regulations based attack, which is normally used in the US, and besides the rules based attack which is used by the IASB.

The regulations based attack attack incorporates a list of elaborate regulations which must be followed in conformity with the jurisprudence when bring forthing fiscal studies. This attack of a rigorous list of regulations is the traditional attack US comptrollers are required to follow and their method of bring forthing fiscal studies. Harden ( 2002, p. 2 ) , believes that this attack is excessively complex, and that the rules based attack is a much clearer manner of showing guidelines. In the article, Harden illustrates FAS 133 as an illustration of the regulations based attack being over complicated, saying that ‘FAS 133 spans 153 pagesaˆ¦ although this could be reasonably brief and uncomplicated- – possibly merely two paragraphs long ‘

The rules based attack is a conceptual based attack. It is a more simple set of cardinal aims to guarantee good coverage criterions. Although some regulations are ineluctable, the guidelines or regulations set are non meant to be used for every state of affairs. This attack is by and large less significant in measure than the regulations based attack, offers the users wide guidelines which can be practical in a assortment of fortunes, and reduces the complexness that is experienced in the expansive regulations based attack to fiscal coverage.

This issue of a regulations or a rules based attacks to the premiss of a individual model for fiscal coverage, is that these are the implicit in rules for fiscal coverage criterions, intending that one of the attacks will necessitate to be extinguished for this to happen.

There is an statement put frontward by some professionals that a regulations based attack is a just model of fiscal coverage as the regulations are made by a board that have no duties to the companies required to follow these regulations, where as a rules based attack allows the concluding determination to be that of the company involved.

Mintzer ( 2002, p. 1 ) provinces:

Surely, that ‘s a batch of regulations, but they are developed and deliberated by accounting experts without the influence of a peculiar concern ‘ fiscal statements in head. It is this due procedure and public argument in developing accounting regulations that result in our high-quality criterions. Principles-based criterions merely would travel the argument and deliberation off from the public forum and into each accounting section where the consequences would be inconsistent and possibly unknown.

As a consequence of the rules or regulations based argument, the chief attending sing the development of a individual set of accounting criterions on an international footing is focused on the FASB and the IASB. Most of the literature on this capable identifies these two organic structures as the chief entities in which convergence or harmonization demands to happen in order for a individual set of fiscal coverage criterions to be developed. This is chiefly due to the size of the user base of both and the significant differences in the underpinning premises of each model. But with the present significant differences between the regulations based attack and the rules based attack, there is a immense trouble in trying to harmonize the model of fiscal coverage. Nobes & A ; Parker ( 2006, p. 76 ) ) define harmonization as ‘the procedure of increasing the compatibility of accounting patterns by puting bounds to their grade of fluctuation ‘ . They so go on to notice ‘harmonisation is best suited to an environment where similar users receive similar information from their government organic structures. This is non presently the instance on a planetary position with the model for fiscal coverage, once more, due to the fact that there are presently regulations based attacks and besides rules based attacks.

Advantage and disadvantage of the IFRS

There are many grounds why companies are taking to migrate towards following IFRS before they become compulsory. One of the most of import grounds is due to globalisation, as most states have already made the switch over to IFRS. If companies in the US switched over to IFRS it would do minutess and trades with companies who operate under IFRS much easier. It would besides give companies and shareholders in other states a better economic index as to how companies here in the US are making. However, US is still maintains its ain Financial Accounting Standards Board ( FASB ) . Both IASB and FASB have created International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( U.S.GAAP ) severally. These accounting criterions are regulations of measurings for fiscal statements that companies publishing stock to the public must supply to shareholders ( Libby, 21 ) . I we chiefly concentrate on convert from US GAAP to IFRS, there are assorted advantages and disadvantages of the U.S. companies altering their systems from U.S.GAAP to IFRS. As the markets have grown to go more complex and planetary, the disparities between the two criterions have been a important issue as consumers and manufacturers call for reform.

As mentioned earlier in this essay the major benefit of the transition is comparison. Switch overing to IFRS would let people ( investors ) to see assorted companies from different parts of universe on the same angle. As willingness to merchandise additions, cross-border investing and integrating of capital markets are easier with greater market liquidness and lower cost of capital ( Hail, 12 ) . Investor bases would increase as the fiscal studies are going comparable. With better information, companies would be able to more efficaciously apportion their capital. Having one criterion, nevertheless, does non vouch comparison. With the same criterion, patterns and enforcement can differ well across houses and states. It is merely natural because diverseness in accounting criterions would ensue from diverseness of the states ‘ institutional substructures. Although there are presently more than 113 states on IFRS, an estimated 29 states utilizing IFRS added their ain exclusions, get the better ofing the intent of a planetary criterion ( IOMA, 6 ) ( Henry ) .

By and large chief issue involved with Convergence to IFRS is Implementation Cost. Users, directors, and hearers of fiscal statements all likely face important execution costs as the passage from GAAP to IFRS advancements. First of wholly, these people must give clip and resources toward larning the new international accounting criterions. Learning the differences between the two sets of accounting criterion is non an easy undertaking. Academic and professional organic structures will necessitate to play their portion as they rewrite text editions and revision classs to reflect IFRS, but a big portion of larning for directors and both internal and independent hearers will hold to happen on their occupation. In the other manus if we take the major international audit house for illustration TOP FOUR Firms ( PricewatethouseCoopers, Delliote, Earnst & A ; Young and KPMG ) are already started to supplying instruction classs on IFRS for their employees and for members of the academic community. The chief ground that big houses demoing involvement in convergence to IFRS is because of its cost economy benefit in the transition. Before companies can recognize cost nest eggs, passage costs are considerable. They include “ readying, enfranchisement, airing of studies, and chance costs ” ( Hail,13 ) . Businesss will be “ seting their computing machine systems and procedures, updating certification, developing employees, and engaging outside specializers and advisers ” ( Hail,40 ) . “ Based on study informations for 2005 compulsory passage to IFRS in the European Union, it was possible to build an estimation of the first-time readying costs of IFRS amalgamate fiscal statements for publically traded houses ” ( Hail,41 ) . Using the study ‘s measurings, the passage costs estimate “ to be at least 8 billion dollars for the full U.S. economic system ” ( Hail,41 ) . “ The mean erstwhile cost of $ 420,000 ” will be hard to absorb for local and little houses ( Hail,41 ) .

Again, the chief advantage goes to transnational companies. Despite “ the mean erstwhile cost of $ 3.24 million dollars ” , these companies will still be salvaging money when they cut down from three to two or one fiscal statements and studies Preparation ( Hail,41 ) . Those lone on U.S. GAAP, nevertheless, will harvest no benefits in the short tally. Although in the long tally, there may be cost nest eggs, the little companies will likely hold some issues in footings of lasting until they reach the appropriate degree and clip. Finally Investors besides will necessitate to educate themselves about IFRS if they want to avoid IFRS revelation disadvantages and incorrect investing determinations, due to an deficiency of understanding from the fiscal statements.

Cultural, legal and political influences besides a barrier in the procedure of convergence to IFRS.

The appropriate governments should assist IASB to minimise these troubles. PwC says in the View Point:

Legislators, regulators and standardsetting organic structures need to be cognizant of the mistake lines in the current convergence procedure and, where appropriate, should take action to guarantee advancement. peculiar there is important concern that, without some alteration, the bing U.S. legal, regulative and standardsetting system will unduly act upon the following critical stage of convergence. While few may doubt that the right focal point of ordinance is to maximize investor protection in a cost-efficient mode, legal and regulative models and cultural histories environing fiscal coverage vary greatly across districts. ( PWC View Point 2007 Pg: 4 – Convergence of IFRS and US GAAP )

The above statement by PwC clearly states the cultural influence and barrier from the relevant governments to implement the IFRS. Because many of these governments dislike accepting via media that involve altering accounting patterns towards those of other states. The major portion of disfavor accepting this alteration from the side of comptrollers and companies or on the portion of the provinces that may non to lose their laterality power. ( Nobes.C & A ; Parker.R:2008 ) A farther issue is nationalism which means deficiency of cognition or involvement in accounting elsewhere. Further PwC says that some long standing accounting and coverage patterns may be difficult to get the better of in certain states even after those states adopt IFRS. Because their traditions may act upon how they interpret and apply criterions. ( PwC View point: 2007 )

Example of Countries which are late adopted IFRS as their local Accounting criterions.

The convergence to around the international fiscal coverage criterions ( IFRS ) is bit by bit agencies, national GAAP is going rarer and in many states it is being supplemented or replaced by the usage of IFRS. The extent and method of this different from state to state. in some portion of the universe, for illustration parts of Africa and the Caribbean, IFRS has become or replaced national GAAP, even some times this involves local adaptation so the consequence is non pure IFRS. In others similar European as mentioned earlier in this study, national GAAP remains but EU authorized IFRS has been mandated for the listed companies and permitted elsewhere. It this essay, I would wish to discourse some of the illustrations of states which is adopted ifrs late.Eg: Turkey, Brazil, Japan, United States and United land

Turkey:

From 1st of January 2005, Bankss and houses in Meleagris gallopavo registered on the Istanbul stock exchange have prepared their fiscal statements in conformity with rules set out in IFRS. The latest responsible organic structure for accounting criterions in Meleagris gallopavo is the Turkish accounting criterion board ( TASB ) . It was formed in 1999 and it is a exclusive authorization of accounting ordinance in Meleagris gallopavo resulted in discontinue of TMUDESK ( old organic structure for accounting standard scene in Meleagris gallopavo ) . As TASB controls the finding and application of Turkish accounting criterions ( TAS ) has accepted a harmonisation ( uniformity ) with IFRS in order to accomplish international acknowledgment. Therefore, TAS/TFRS were introduced by interpreting the original IFRS paperss into Turkish and paying a copyright fee to the IASB. TASB has besides prepared a bill of exchange of a simplified set of accounting criterions for little and average sized endeavors ( SMEs ) , which is similar that of the IASB. The intent of the bill of exchange to TFRS for SME ‘s is to unwrap the information sing at that place fiscal place, public presentation, and hard currency flows of and entity, which will be utile for the stockholders to do reasonable economic determinations. ( www.iasb.org )

Brasils:

The Brazilian federal council of accounting and the Brazilian accounting dictums commission sighed a Memorandum of understanding ( MoU ) with the IASB on 28th of January 2010 ( www.iasb.org ) . This understanding has been made to aim for full convergence with IFRS before terminal of 2010 and set up a model for future co-operation between the organisations. This MoU besides aims to promote Brazilian engagement in international standards-setting by greater engagement in the early development of IASB undertakings, thereby construct a good foundation for speedier credence and acceptance of IFRSs in Brazil, and assisting their proper and easy execution. ( www.iasplus.com )

Japan:

The IASB and the Accounting Standards board of Japan ( ASBJ ) have been working together to achive convergance of IFRSs and Nipponese by and large recognized accounting rules ( GAAP ) since 2005 ( www.asb.or.jp ) This work was systemized in 2007 with the tokyo understanding. On this understanding IASB and ASBJ set 2008 as a mark day of the month for remove major difference between IFRSs and Nipponese GAAP with the aim of extinguishing the staying differences by 30 June 2011. Having achieved the 2008 mark day of the month, the boards are go oning their regular meetings and are now working to turn to the outstanding issues 2011. ( www.iasb.org )

United States:

In August 2008, the United States Security and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) nem con agreed to supply U.S. companies and investors with a “ roadmap ” for traveling toward possible compulsory filing of fiscal statements harmonizing to the International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) versus U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) . The SEC papers, issued in November 2008, is titled “ Roadmap for the Potential Use of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards by U.S. Issuers. ” This roadmap indicates that the SEC will let some U.S. companies to utilize IFRS for fiscal studies every bit shortly as 2010, and will necessitate all U.S. companies to utilize IFRS by 2014 ( Scannell & A ; Slater, 2008 ) . However, the new SEC chair, Mary Schapiro, has indicated that she does non experience bound by the bing roadmap, and has announced that the SEC plans to do a concluding determination in 2011 about U.S. companies traveling to IFRS ( Millman, 2009 ) .

United Kingdom:

As mentioned earlier in this essay, when EU listed companies were required to follow IFRS in their amalgamate histories, alterations to UK company jurisprudence besides provided all UK companies the pick to follow IFRS in their stand-alone ( unconsolidated ) statutory histories. At that clip there was a general outlook that UK GAAP would meet with IFRS, nevertheless the timescale was non clearly mentioned by relevant governments. Nobes.C and Parker.R ( 2008 ) The UK accounting criterions board has late indicated that it is sing replacing UK GAAP with full IFRS and the new signifier of IFRS being developed for private companies. In early phase in May 2006, the UK ‘s Accounting criterion board ( ASB ) issued a imperativeness release sketching its current programs for convergence of UK GAAP with IFRS. The proposals outlined a tiered attack, sectioning companies into different classs, each with different degrees of IFRS/UK GAAP application. PwC/ ifrs ( 2010 )

ASB ‘s proposals:

All UK populace quoted and other publically accountable companies would be required to use full IFRS, irrespective of turnover and whether they present group histories or non. This would intend that about another 1,000 to 1,500 companies would be required to describe under IFRS.

The usage of the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities ( FRSSE ) , which enables little entities to take advantage of simplified demands, would be extended beyond little companies to include moderate-sized entities. This would intend that about another 30,000 companies would be able to utilize the FRSSE.

UK subordinates of group companies that apply full IFRS would besides be required to use full IFRS in regard of measuring and acknowledgment, but with decreased revelation demands ( yet to be defined ) . This would impact about 14,000 companies.

There has non yet been a determination on the 7,000 companies that are non included above ( this being the ‘gap ‘ ) . The options seem to be widen the application of the FRSSE further ; ( two ) use IFRS to more companies ; ( three ) maintain UK GAAP for them ; or ( four ) some combination of these three options.

As can be seen from the above, the range of the FRSSE could be widened significantly. Given the IASB is presently set abouting a undertaking on little and moderate-sized entities ( SMEs ) , the ASB recognises that the result of this undertaking has important relevancy to its current programs and, hence, it will non do any concluding determinations until the result of the IASB ‘s undertaking is known. PwC/ ifrs page 8 ( 2010 )

Appendices-1

Up to day of the month list placing the subjects released and withdrawn of the IAS:

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements

IAS 2 Inventories

IAS 3 Consolidated Financial Statements

IAS 4 Depreciation Accounting – Withdrawn in 1999, replaced by IAS 16, 22, and 38, all of which were issued or revised in 1998.

IAS 5 Information to Be Disclosed in Financial Statements – Originally issued October 1976, effectual 1 January 1997. Superseded by IAS 1 in 1997

IAS 6 Accounting Responses to Changing Monetary values – Superseded by IAS 15, which was withdrawn December 2003

IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows

IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Mistakes

IAS 9 Accounting for Research and Development Activities – Superseded by IAS 38 effectual 1.7.99

IAS 10 Events After the Reporting Period

IAS 11 Construction Contracts

IAS 12 Income Taxes

IAS 13 Presentation of Current Assets and Current Liabilities – Superseded by IAS 1.

IAS 14 Segment Reporting

IAS 15 Information Reflecting the Effects of Changing Prices – Withdrawn December 2003

IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment

IAS 17 Leases

IAS 18 Gross

IAS 19 Employee Benefits

IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance

IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Ratess

IAS 22 Business Combinations – Superseded by IFRS 3 effectual 31 March 2004

IAS 23 Borrowing Costss

IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures

IAS 25 Accounting for Investments – Superseded by IAS 39 and IAS 40 effectual 2001

IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans

IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements

IAS 28 Investments in Associates

IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies

IAS 30 Disclosures in the Financial Statements of Banks and Similar Financial Institutions – Superseded by IFRS 7 effectual 2007

IAS 31 Interests In Joint Ventures

IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation – Disclosure commissariats superseded by IFRS 7 effectual 2007

IAS 33 Net incomes Per Share

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting

IAS 35 Discontinuing Operations – Superseded by IFRS 5 effectual 2005

IAS 36 Impairment of Assetss

IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assetss

IAS 38 Intangible Assetss

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement

IAS 40 Investment Property

IAS 41 Agribusiness