Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172:body:0:p89
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 234186–237118

C as there was insufficient feedback from users to suggest that the reduced disclosures proposed in Approach C would be useful.  Those AASB members did not think it appropriate to delay adoption while further input from users is sought.
BC16 The AASB noted the wide range of arguments put forward by respondents to ED 233 for favouring Approach A including the view that fair value information is most relevant for investors of investment entities in many circumstances; and the cost to Australian preparers of financial statements compared with other jurisdictions of providing Australian additional disclosures . However, despite accepting Approach A, the AASB did not accept all of those arguments. In particular, the AASB did not accept the arguments that requiring Australian additional disclosures would reduce comparability (as distinct from uniformity) between Australian investment entities and their international counterparts or would lead to the perception that Australian investment entities are not IFRS compliant.
BC17 On balance, the AASB decided to adopt Approach A. This was on the basis that the AASB would monitor the implementation of the IASB amendments for Australian investment entities. This would include monitoring the disclosures made in accordance with AASB 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities and AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements paragraph 17(c)[3]. Such monitoring, which may be via a post-implementation review, would be undertaken with a view to potentially adding Australian additional disclosure requirements at a later stage, if it were to become evident that additional disclosures are warranted, noting that such disclosures might be different from those proposed in ED 233 or Approach C. Monitoring might also lead to the AASB deciding to write to the IASB, informing it of the findings and concerns arising from the Australian experience.

GAAP/GFS Harmonisation
BC18 In adopting Approach A, the AASB considered whether there would be any GAAP/GFS harmonisation implications that it would need to address in the context of AASB 1049 Whole of Government and General Government Sector Financial Reporting. The AASB noted that no such implications are expected to arise because, although the whole of government or general government sector might be a parent of an investment entity, the whole of government and general government sector would not themselves be investment entities.

Application to Tier 2
BC19 The AASB noted that the way in which the IASB has defined an investment entity (including that such an entity need not have more than one investor) could result in there being investment entities that do not have public accountability as defined in Appendix A of AASB 1053 Application of Tiers of Australian Accounting Standards and are therefore eligible to present Tier 2 general purpose financial statements.
BC20 In addition, the AASB considered the entities