![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Keeping the foot on the pedal despite deadline deferral
![IFRS17_0119](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/2019-01/IFRS17_0119.jpg.webp?itok=1tfarMuN)
The insurance industry has long been vocal about the need for a two-year extension to the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB’s) proposed 2021 implementation date for International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 17 – the accounting standard for valuing the liability side of insurers’ balance sheets that replaces IFRS 4. Eventually, IASB met them halfway, opting for a 12-month extension – a decision that hasn’t been greeted with universal approval from the sector.
What has been less talked about is IASB’s move at the same time to delay IFRS 9 – which looks at the valuation of financial instruments – for insurers until 2021. In other words, the industry will be able to co-ordinate the implementation of both the asset and liability accounting reform in the same year, a move that William Gibbons, asset-liability management specialist at PwC, says is a major boon to be drawn from IASB’s November announcements.
“The continuing alignment of implementation dates for IFRS 17 and IFRS 9 is a positive because it means insurers don’t have to introduce IFRS 9 one year and then IFRS 17 the next. Insurers can assess the asset and liability implications together.
“It might have been hard for IASB to give an additional year for IFRS 9, as insurance will be the only significant sector the delay applies to. So the delays of both IFRS 17 and IFRS 9 make sense for insurers.”
The insurance sector is the only part of the financial markets to be given a reprieve from IFRS 9, which is pretty much mandatory from January 1, 2019, so does this exemption contradict the IFRS’s mission statement to bring “transparency”, “accountability” and “efficiency” to global financial markets?
“No”, is the general answer from those asked by Risk.net and, while IASB has come under a lot of criticism over IFRS 17, the move to co-ordinate its implementation with IFRS 9 appears well thought-out and should benefit the industry.
But there are still complaints. IASB has recognised 25 areas of dispute as part of an ongoing dialogue with the European Insurance CFO Forum and time is running out to resolve these. But, even without this clarity, insurers need to continue with their implementation programmes, and consultants warn of the need to heed the lessons learnt from Solvency II implementation.
One such consultant has some blunt words for insurance risk managers when it comes to IFRS 17 – it’s big and complex, so make use of the lessons from the previous project of that type: Solvency II.
“The accounting standard was published 20 months ago and, while not all companies started their IFRS 17 programmes quickly, they are all up and running now. But we would suggest insurers don’t use this one-year extension as a means to slow down, and instead use the time wisely to improve the implementation process.
“There’s always the temptation with a deferral to slow down implementation but that ultimately costs more. There’s lots of evidence of that from Solvency II where the industry downed tools at certain points and total costs started rising. Has the industry learnt those lessons? We will soon see.”
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU banks hedge net interest income to pass new IRRBB test
Would-be outliers look to cut sensitivity of cashflows to rate moves, but at what cost?
Banks cry foul over shock decision from Basel Committee
Asset and liability management professionals question severity of criteria in revised IRRBB tests
Fresh EU push for single securities supervisor to compete with US
But MEP expresses ‘concern’ EU nations will stall revival of capital markets union
Discord deepens over fund-linked trades in FRTB
More banks use punitive approach to capital treatment under new trading book regime, irking regulators
AI, quantum computing and tokenisation set to transform finance – Menon
But significant barriers remain preventing the technologies from unlocking their full potential
Could the SEC revive the private fund adviser rule?
Industry experts deem a second life for the reviled rule unlikely
Vendors lack silver bullet for FRTB’s fund-linked issue
EU and UK legislators tried to ease capital charge by leaning on vendors, but problems persist
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk