gain in year 30 just because the investment has been sold at that time? Economically the gain was amassed over the 30 year period. Secondly, this approach would have meant that we needed to reintroduce the concept of impairment for equity investments. Problems with recycling and impairment accounting under IAS 39 were the catalyst for the IASB's overhauling accounting for financial instruments on an expedited basis. Fourth, the ECB and the Basel Committee have called for further guidance for our reclassification requirement. In response, the IASB will monitor the need for further guidance supporting the reclassification requirement. Finally, we appreciate the concern of this Council and other stakeholders internationally that we and the FASB may arrive at different conclusions when financial instruments should be measured at fair value. Both the FASB and the IASB have agreed common principles to help us to achieve a common standard. That is our objective. At the same time, the IASB is conscious of the strongly held view of investors and other stakeholders internationally that a combination of cost-based and fair-value accounting remains appropriate for financial instruments. Next steps on financial instruments reform The publication of IFRS 9 marked the completion of the first phase of our IAS 39 reform. We are now tackling the important issues of provisions and hedging, as well as financial liabilities to which I alluded before. In particular, we are committed to pursuing a more forward looking provisioning model. In November 2009, the IASB published a discussion document for an