IFRS NEWSLETTER INSURANCE - KPMG

34 Pages·2015·1.67 MB·English

Issue 49, October 2015
IFR S LSWEN RETE
INSURANCE
While working to address
the consequences of
differing effective dates,
the IASB continues
to make progress on
participating contracts
and the completion
of its redeliberations

appears to be near.
Joachim Kölschbach,
KPMG’s global IFRS MOVING TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL
insurance leader INSURANCE ACCOUNTING
This edition of IFRS Newsletter: Insurance highlights the IASB’s
discussions in October 2015 on its insurance contracts project.
Highlights
Addressing the consequences of differing effective dates
l    The IASB agreed on a comment period of 60 days for the exposure draft to amend IFRS 4.
Classifcation and measurement of fnancial assets on transition
l    A ‘designation approach’ would be applied to reassess the business model for managing
fnancial assets on transition.
l    The Board confrmed the restatement of comparative information about insurance contracts
and that it would not be mandatory for transition reliefs for fnancial assets.
Mirroring approach
l    The Board decided not to proceed with the mirroring approach as proposed in the ED.
Presentation and disclosure assessments
l    The IASB made decisions on presentation and disclosure requirements based on previous decisions
made since publishing the ED.
l    The IASB considered the overall disclosure requirements in light of feedback received from
stakeholders.
© 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
DECISIONS ON TRANSITION, PRESENTATION AND
DISCLOSURE AND DIFFERING EFFECTIVE DATES
What happened in October 2015?
The story so far …
At its cO tober meeting, the IA BS agreed on a comment period
hT e current phase o f the insurance proej ct aw s launched o f 06 days of r the epx osure dratf to amend IFR S 4 Insurance
in May 200,7 hw en the IA BS published a discussion Contracts and decided that r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR S ow uld be
paper PD( ,) Preliminary Views on Insurance Contracts. prohibited rf om applying the deef rral and overlay approaches.
More recently, the IA BS ree- px osed its revised insurance
hT e IA BS had previously discussed these approaches as
contracts proposals of r public comment by publishing the
temporary measures to address the accounting conseuq ences
epx osure dratf 2/DE 01 7/3 Insurance Contracts t( he )DE in
o f applying IFR S 9 beof re the of rthcoming insurance contracts
uJ ne 201.3
standard. hT e sta f f epx ect the epx osure dratf to amend IFR S 4
iS nce aJ nuary 201,4 the oB ard has been redeliberating to be issued in eD cember 2015 and any n� alised amendments
issues raised through the .DE It initially of cused on the to be issued during 3Q 201.6
model of r nonp- articipating contracts and has no w turned
its of cus to modic� ations of r participating contracts. Also this month, the oB ard decided that the scope applied
hw en designating n� ancial assets as relating to insurance
Interaction with other standards activities of r the overlay approach 3 ow uld also apply hw en
hT roughout its redeliberations, the oB ard has considered assessing hw ich n� ancial assets ow uld be subej ct to
hw ether the accounting of r insurance contracts ow uld transition reliesf on transition to the of rthcoming insurance
be consistent iw th other eix sting or uf ture standards, contracts standard.
including the ne w revenue recognition standard – IFR1�S 5
Revenue from Contracts with Customers1. Much o f the nO initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts
guidance contained in the DE aw s designed to align iw th standard, the oB ard decided that:
the IAs’BS and the FAs’BS oj int standard on revenue • an entity ow uld be reuq ired to restate comparative
recognition.
inof rmation of r insurance contracts ; and
hT e oB ard has also considered many o f the decisions
made in the ne w n� ancial instruments standard, IFR9 �S 2 • an entity that has previously applied IFR S 9 ow uld be
permitted b( ut not reuq ired ) to restate comparative
– including the aw y in hw ich IFR S 9 might interact iw th
the n� al insurance contracts standard – because IFR 9 �S inof rmation about n� ancial assets relating to insurance
iw ll cover a large maoj rity o f an insurers’ investments. activities only i:f
Additionally, the oB ard has eax mined ho w best to address
– it is possible iw thout the use o f hindsight ; and
the conseuq ences o f the dief f ring eef f ctive dates o f
IFR 9 �S and the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard. – the entity chooses to apply the transition reliesf in the
of rthcoming insurance contracts standard.
1 2
uD ring its uJ ne 2015 meeting, the oB ard had agreed to modiyf
Contents the general measurement model of r participating contracts
t( he v‘ ariable ef e approach.)’ It introduced the variable ef e
approach to address some staek holder concerns over the
approach of r participating contracts proposed in the .DE
hT e oB ard thereof re decided this month not to pursue the
mirroring approach proposed in the .DE
hT e IA BS also considered presentation and disclosure
reuq irements of r insurance contracts. It revisited various
decisions that it has made since publishing the ,DE and
considered ho w eef f ctive they ow uld be in responding
to ef edbac k received rf om preparers and users o f
n� ancials� tatements.
hT e IA BS has no w completed most o f its redeliberations.
hT e remainder, hw ich include evaluating the dief f rences
betew en the general model and the variable ef e approach
of r participating contracts, iw ll be discussed at a later
meeting. An eef f ctive date iw ll not be discussed until all other
1. eS e our Issues IneD- pth : Revenue rf om oC ntracts iw th uC stomers
redeliberations have been completed.
eS( ptember 201.)4 In uJ ly 2015, the IA BS published targeted
amendments to the ne w standard. For more detail, read our eN w on
the oH rioz n.
2. eS e our First Impressions : Financial instruments –hT e complete .3 For more inof rmation, see Issue 84 o f our IFRS Newsletter:
standard eS( ptember 201.)4 Insurance.
2 © 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
ADDRESSING THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERING
EFFECTIVE DATES
The IASB agreed What’s the issue?
on a comment
At its eS ptember 2015 meeting, the IA BS completed its deliberations on the proposed measures
period of 60 days to address the temporary accounting conseuq ences that might arise rf om applying IFR S 9 beof re
for the exposure the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard becomes eef f ctive. It agreed that the proper due
process has been completed and that it can begin to ballot the epx osure dratf to amend IFR S .4
draft to amend
hT e pacak ge o f temporary measures, i f it is conr� med, ow uld amend IFR S 4 to :
IFRS 4.
• permit a reporting entity hw ose activities are predominantly insurance a temporary eex mption
rf om applying IFR S 9 until 1 aJ nuary 2021 t( he d‘ eef rral approach ;)’ and
• give entities issuing insurance contracts that implement IFR S 9 the option to remove rf om prot�
or loss some o f the accounting mismatches and temporary volatility that could occur beof re the
of rthcoming insurance contracts standard is implemented t( he o‘ verlay approach.)’
Further, i f these changes are conr� med, both approaches ow uld be relevant of r r� stt- ime adopters
in periods atf er IFR S 9 becomes eef f ctive, and the overlay approach ow uld also be relevant of r
r� stt- ime adopters that early apply IFR S .9 oC nseuq ently, the oB ard needed to consider hw ether
entities that are preparing their r� st IFR S n� ancial statements should be permitted to apply these
tow approaches.
Applicability of the approaches to frst-time adopters of IFRS
hT e sta f f argued that ef w r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR S ew re liek ly to apply the overlay and deef rral
approaches, even i f they ew re permitted to. hT is is because applying these approaches may be
more costly than applying IFR S 9 in uf ll, because r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR S are unliek ly to have
applied reuq irements that are similar or identical to IA S 93 Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement beof re preparing their r� st set o f IFR S n� ancial statements and the application o f
either o f these approaches ow uld reuq ire an entity to provide inof rmation that ow uld result rf om
applying IA S ,93 in uf ll or in part.
hT e sta f f considered hw ether the deef rral and overlay approaches ow uld be relevant of r r� stt- ime
adopters o f IFR,S noting that they ew re intended to address temporary accounting conseuq ences
that could arise hw en an entity maek s the transition rf om IA S 93 to IFR S .9 hT is ow uld not be a
concern of r r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR,S hw ich ow uld be maik ng the transition rf om their previous
local n� ancial reporting reuq irements to IFR S .9
hT e sta f f also believed that prohibiting the deef rral and overlay approaches of r r� stt- ime adopters
ow uld be consistent iw th IFR S 1 First-Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting
Standards, hw ich reuq ires r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR S to apply the current versions o f IFR S to
enhance comparability iw thin an entity over time.
What did the staff recommend?
hT e sta f f recommended that the IA:BS
• allo w of r a comment period o f 06 days of r the epx osure dratf to amend IFR S ;4 and
• prohibit r� stt- ime adopters o f IFR S rf om applying the deef rral and overlay approaches.
What did the IASB discuss?
hT e sta f f inof rmed the oB ard that the uD e Process vO ersight oC mmittee had approved a comment
period o f no less than 06 days.
© 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. 3
What did the IASB decide?
hT e IA BS agreed iw th the sta f f recommendation.
KPMG insight
Comment period
A comment period o f 06 days ow uld epx edite the n� alisation o f any amendments to IFR S .4
Although the implementation period ow uld be compressed, the overlay and deef rral
approaches ow uld not need a typical implementation period because the overlay approach
builds on inof rmation that is already reported by entities in accordance iw th IA S 93 and
the deef rral approach results in a temporary eex mption rf om IFR S ,9 iw th the ecx eption o f
limitedd� isclosures.
First-time adopters
hT is decision ow uld not aef f ct a r� stt- ime adopter o f IFR S that prepares its r� st IFR S n� ancial
statements using IA S 93 of r reporting periods that end beof re 1 aJ nuary 201.8 In other ow rds,
a r� stt- ime adopter o f IFR S that prepares its r� st IFR S n� ancial statements under IA 93 �S
ow uld be alloew d to use the deef rral and overlay approaches hw en it prepares n� ancial
statements in subseuq ent periods.
Firstt- ime adopters o f IFR S that intend to adopt IFR S 9 in their r� st IFR S n� ancial statements
beof re implementing the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard ow uld consider hw ether
any accounting mismatches iw ll arise rf om the dief f ring eef f ctive dates o f the tow standards,
given that they ow uld be prohibited rf om using the deef rral and overlay approaches. In place o f
these approaches, these entities could consider using accounting policies that are consistent
iw th the reuq irements o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard or early adopting
the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, once it is available. hT e transition reliesf
available on adopting the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard ow uld also be available to
thesee� ntities.
4 © 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF
FINANCIAL ASSETS ON TRANSITION
A ‘designation Scope for reassessment of the business model
approach’ would
What’s the issue?
be applied to
reassess the At its aJ nuary 2015 meeting, the oB ard decided to conr� m the transition relie f proposed in the ,DE
hw ich ow uld mean that, on initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, an
business model
entity that has previously applied IFR S 9 ow uld be:
for managing
• permitted to designate n� ancial assets under the af ir value option F( )O V as measured at af ir
fnancial assets
value through prot� or loss F( PTV L ) to eliminate or signic� antly reduce accounting mismatches;
on transition.
• reuq ired to revoek previous F O V designations i f the accounting mismatch that led to the
previous designation no longer eix sts ; and
• permitted to designate an investment in an euq ity instrument as measured at af ir value through
other comprehensive income F( ICO V ) and to revoek previous designations.
hT e oB ard decided to consider providing uf rther transition relie f to permit or reuq ire an entity to
reassess the business model of r n� ancial assets designated as relating to insurance activities, at
the date o f initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard. hT is ow uld be based
on the conditions that eix st at that date.
In maik ng these decisions, the IA BS noted that it ow uld need to consider the of lloiw ng:
• the n� ancial assets to hw ich the uf rther transition relie f should apply ; and
• i f the classic� ation ando/ r measurement o f n� ancial assets changes as a result o f applying the
uf rther transition relie:f
– hw ether the c hange should be applied prospectively or retrospectively, and ho w any
resulting gains or losses should be treated ; and
– hw at inf ormation should be disclosed.
What did the staff recommend?
Topic Staff recommendations and considerations
Financial assets What did the staff recommend?
designated
oC nsistent iw th the approach to identiyf ing n� ancial assets that relate to
as relating
insurance activities under the overlay approach, the sta f f recommended that
to insurance
the reassessment o f the business model of r managing n� ancial assets on
activities
transition to the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard apply to n� ancial
to which
assets that an entity designates as related to insurance activities.
the further
transition relief
should apply
© 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. 5
Topic Staff recommendations and considerations
Financial assets What else did the staff consider?
designated
hT e sta f f believed that introducing another approach of r identiyf ing
as relating
n� ancial assets that relate to insurance activities ow uld increase the
to insurance
compleix ty o f n� ancial reporting of r preparers and users.
activities
to which oC nsistent iw th the designation under the overlay approach, the
the further designation o f n� ancial assets of r the purposes o f the reassessment o f
transition relief the business model ow uld apply to both :
should apply
• n� ancial assets that the entity holds to uf nd the settlement o f liabilities
(continued)
arising rf om epx ected levels o f insurance claims and epx enses ; and
• additional o( r surplus ) assets that an entity needs to hold in case
insured events are more rf euq ent or more severe, or reuq ire settlement
sooner than epx ected.
Using an approach consistent iw th the designation under the overlay
approach ow uld ecx lude n� ancial assets that are clearly held in respect o f
activities other than issuing contracts in the scope o f IFR S .4
Optional or What did the staff recommend?
mandatory
Reassessing the business model of r managing n� ancial assets on
reassessment
transition to the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard ow uld be
of the business
permitted rather than reuq ired.
model
What else did the staff consider?
hT e sta f f noted that the obej ctive o f providing relie f of r the reassessment
o f the business model is to address the af ct that, of r some entities, the
assessment o f the business model based on af cts and circumstances that
eix st hw en the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard is initially applied
could be dief f rent rf om the assessment based on af cts and circumstances
that eix sted hw en IFR S 9 aw s initially applied. oH ew ver, that ow uld not be
the case of r all entities that issue insurance contracts. hT e sta f f thereof re
thought that entities that do not af ce such an issue should not be of rced to
reassess the business model.
Application of What did the staff recommend?
the reliefs for
nO transition to the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, the
classifcation
reassessment o f the business model of r managing n� ancial assets and
and
designation and ded- esignation o f n� ancial assets under the F O V and the
measurement
other comprehensive income ICO( ) presentation election of r investments
in euq ity instruments should be based on the af cts and circumstances that
eix st on initial application o f that standard – i.e. the beginning o f the latest
period presented.
hT e resulting classic� ations ow uld be applied retrospectively – i.e. as i f
the n� ancial assets had alaw ys been so classie� d – and the cumulative
eef f ct o f any changes in classic� ation and measurement o f n� ancial assets
as a result o f applying those transition reliesf ow uld be recognised in the
opening balance o f retained earnings or accumulated ICO .
6 © 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Topic Staff recommendations and considerations
Application of What else did the staff consider?
the reliefs for
hT e sta f f noted that this treatment ow uld be consistent iw th the transition
classifcation
reuq irements in IFR S 9 and that it ow uld be dic� f ult of r an entity to
and
assess the business model of r managing n� ancial assets based on
measurement
af cts and circumstances that eix sted in the past, particularly iw thout
(continued)
the use o f hindsight. hT e sta f f also believed that it ow uld be more
appropriate to reassess the business model on the basis o f the current
af cts and circumstances so that an entity can more accurately ree� ct its
business model of r managing n� ancial assets hw en it initially applies the
of rthcoming insurance contracts standard.
Disclosure What did the staff recommend?
requirements
hT e entity should disclose its policy of r designating n� ancial assets to
hw ich the transition relie f is applied.
For any changes in classic� ation and measurement o f n� ancial assets as
a result o f applying the transition provisions in the of rthcoming insurance
contracts standard, an entity ow uld be reuq ired to disclose, by class o f
n� ancial assets :
• the measurement category and carrying amount immediately beof re
initial application ;
• the ne w measurement category and carrying amount determined as a
result o f applying the transition provisions ;
• the amount o f any n� ancial assets in the statement o f n� ancial position
that ew re previously designated under the F O V but are no longer so
designated, distinguishing betew en those that the entity aw s reuq ired
to ded- esignate and those that it elected to ded- esignate ; and
• uq alitative inof rmation that ow uld enable users o f the n� ancial
statements to understand ho w the entity has applied the transition
provisions to those n� ancial assets hw ose classic� ation has changed as
a result o f initial application, including :
– the reasons of r any designation or ded- esignation o f n� ancial assets
under the F ;O V and
– an epx lanation o f hw y the entity came to a dief f rent conclusion in
reassessing its business model.
What else did the staff consider?
hT e sta f f noted that the IA BS has already developed and issued disclosure
reuq irements of r changes in the classic� ation and measurement o f
n� ancial assets as a result o f applying dief f rent versions o f IFR S 9 – e.g.
i f an entity initially applies IFR S 9 2( 00 )9 and subseuq ently applies IFR 9 �S
2( 01.)4 hT e sta f f thought that these disclosure reuq irements ow uld provide
useuf l inof rmation of r changes in the classic� ation and measurement
o f n� ancial assets on transition to the of rthcoming insurance contracts
standard.
© 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. 7
What did the IASB discuss?
Topic What did the IASB discuss?
Optional or hT e oB ard discussed the obej ctive o f reassessing the business model on
mandatory initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, and
reassessment noted that:
of the business
• the obej ctive is dief f rent rf om the obej ctive o f reclassic� ation under
model
IFR S ;9
• the reassessment is based on the af cts and circumstances that eix st
at the date o f the initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance
contractss� tandard;
• the reassessment is similar to initially applying IFR S 9 again ; and
• the intention is to provide a onet- ime transition relie.f
Disclosure nO e oB ard member believed that uq alitative inof rmation ow uld not be
requirements useuf l because it ow uld reef r simply to reclassiyf ing because the ne w
standard alloew d it. oH ew ver, other members agreed iw th the sta f f
that the uq alitative disclosures ow uld be relevant, because they ow uld
disclose the changes in af cts and circumstances that led to changes in
the business model assessment. hT ese disclosures ow uld help to provide
assurance that the transition relie f aw s used only hw en appropriate.
What did the IASB decide?
hT e IA BS agreed iw th the sta f f recommendation.
The Board Restatement of comparative information on initial application
confrmed the
What’s the issue?
restatement of
At present, entities that issue insurance contracts in the scope o f IFR S 4 account of r n� ancial
comparative
assets under IA S .93 In the uf ture, these entities iw ll have to account of r:
information
• n� ancial assets under IFR S ;9 and
for insurance
contracts and • insurance contracts under the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard.
that it would not hT e oB ard has reached dief f rent conclusions on the restatement o f priorp- eriod comparative
be mandatory for inof rmation under IFR S 9 and in its redeliberations on the of rthcoming insurance contracts
standard.
transition reliefs
for fnancial hT e dief f rent transition approaches are as of llosw :
assets. • IFR S 9 contains certain eex mptions rf om uf ll retrospective application of r the classic� ation
and measurement reuq irements, including impairment. I f an entity does not restate prior
periods, then it ow uld recognise any dief f rence betew en the previous carrying amount and the
carrying amount at the beginning o f the annual reporting period that includes the date o f initial
application in the opening balance o f euq ity. nE tities ow uld be alloew d to restate comparatives
i f this is possible iw thout the use o f hindsight ; and
• the DE ow uld reuq ire an entity to apply the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard
retrospectively to measure eix sting insurance contracts at the beginning o f the earliest period
presented using the of lloiw ng approaches:
8 © 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
– retrospective application, unless this is impracticable as den� ed in IA S 8 Accounting Policies,
Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors;
– a simplie� d approach, i f uf ll retrospective application is impracticable ; or
– a af ir value approach to retrospective application, in cases hw ere both uf ll retrospective
application and the simplie� d approach are impracticable.
hT e IA BS considered tow situations based on the dief f ring transition approaches:
• an entity initially applies IFR S 9 at the same time as it initially applies the of rthcoming insurance
contracts standard ; and
• an entity applies IFR S 9 beof re it initially applies the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard.
hT e sta f f considered that:
• any recommended approaches should be consistent iw th the transition principles o f IFR S 9 and
the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard ; and
• the presentation o f comparable inof rmation about insurance contracts on the af ce o f the
n� ancial statements is important of r assessing the results o f the ne w model, even i f the
euq ivalent inof rmation of r n� ancial assets is not reuq ired due to IFR S 9 transition reliesf .
For entities that apply IFR S 9 beof re the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, the sta f f
thought that, hw en setting the provisions of r restatements o f comparative inof rmation about
n� ancial assets, any decision should aim to arrive at transition reuq irements that are consistent
iw th a( nd do not create a disadvantage compared iw th:)
• those provided in IFR S 9 of r the initial application o f that standard ; and
• those that ow uld apply to entities that apply IFR S 9 and the of rthcoming insurance contracts
standard at the same time.
What did the staff recommend?
hT e sta f f recommended that on initial application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard:
• an entity be reuq ired to restate comparative inof rmation about insurance contracts r( egardless
o f hw en it initially applies IFR S ;)9 and
• i f an entity has applied IFR S 9 beof re the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard, it be
permitted to restate comparative inof rmation about n� ancial assets on adoption o f the latter
only i f this is possible iw thout hindsight and i f the entity chooses to apply the of lloiw ng
transition reliesf in the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard:
– to designate or ded- esignate n� ancial assets under the F O V or ICO presentation election of r
investments in euq ity instruments ; and
– to reassess the business model of r managing n� ancial assets.
What did the IASB discuss?
hT e oB ard noted that it ow uld be possible of r an entity to restate its n� ancial assets on initial
application o f the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard iw thout the use o f hindsight, i f it plans
accordingly and begins to trac k the appropriate data hw en it applies IFR S .9 nO e oB ard member
believed that the use o f hindsight could be less o f a barrier in practice, given that entities are aaw re
o f the ne w standards on the horioz n and ow uld be able to plan accordingly.
What did the IASB decide?
hT e oB ard agreed iw th the sta f f recommendations.
© 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. 9
KPMG insight
Insurers iw ll af ce a maoj r challenge in implementing IFR S 9 alongside the of rthcoming
insurance contracts standard.o T support them during this transition, the IA BS has developed
specic� transition reliesf of r insurance activities. hT is months’ decision to speciyf the same
scope of r reassessing the business model of r managing n� ancial assets on adoption o f the
of rthcoming insurance contracts standard as of r applying the overlay approach should reduce
operational costs and compleix ties of r an entity that chooses to apply IFR S 9 iw th the overlay
approach beof re it initially applies the of rthcoming insurance contracts� tandard.
hT e oB ard seems to be of cused on maintaining the obej ctive o f retrospective application o f
the of rthcoming insurance contracts standard. Modiyf ing this obej ctive might cause insurers
more compleix ty hw ile maik ng the transition and ow uld create uf rther comparability issues.
It is unclear hw ether entities that apply the overlay approach ow uld be reuq ired to restate
comparative inof rmation to reverse out overlay aduj stments on initial application o f the
of rthcoming insurance contracts standard b( ecause the overlay approach ow uld o� w rf om
amendments to IFR S )4 or hw ether this ow uld be permitted b( ecause the overlay approach
relates to accounting of r n� ancial assets ) or prohibited b( ecause this aw s not mentioned as an
option in eS ptembers’ discussion.)
10 © 2015 KPMG IFRG Limited, a UK company, limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.