1. Profile photo of Alex says

    Hi Mike,

    The removal of the Realised Gains/Losses A/C on the SOFP seems to be a simpler way of dealing with variances. Am I oversimplfying by assuming that everything now just goes to the IS now? Will dig out my text book to have a read but I seem to remember his being the case i.e. settling the gains/losses in the year in which they occur.

  2. avatar says

    Hi, Mike

    Just to confirm since the last posted comment before June 14 exam.

    Under restrictions, we only need to compare our Net Value Of Defined Benefit Assets either with its PV of refunds or reductions (two items)?

  3. avatar says

    Hello Mr Little,

    It is very difficult to undertand the topic as the lectures do not match the course notes. I have seen people commenting about the corridor approach but I don’t know what it means as I am only using the course notes and lectures to study for this paper. I don’t have a text book which would perhaps give more detail.

    Many Thanks

  4. avatar says

    Very goooooood lecture!!!!
    It helped me to understand in depth the topic!!
    Just update the corridor approach and match the notes with the lectures because there were some differences (as other listeners have already said) and would be perfect!!!
    Thanx opentution!!!!

  5. avatar says

    Thanks for the lecture. I was one of those students who were afraid of this topic but thanks to the tutor who made it a piece of cake for me. I’ve not only solved all practice questions but also looking forward to tackle one of these questions in exam. Once again a BIGGG THANKYOU for this lecture.

      • avatar says

        @MikeLittle, Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate the all the hardwork done at opentuition.

        Although I don’t see where it is mentioned on pg 77 of the notes to decrease the FV of PA can it be made clearer in future revisions?

  6. avatar says

    I think it is because it is an UNRECOGNISED gain, it cannnot decrease the fair value of the obligation as it has not been recognised, therefore, it must be added (12+4). Likewise in the first example, the unrecognised loss is added to the fair value of plan assets (130+4).

  7. Profile photo of Zohaib Hafeez says

    how can it be like this:
    PV of FO 60
    FV of PA (48)
    unrecognised loss 12
    unrecognised gain 4
    i think it should be 8 because of loss minus gain.. how can a loss and gain add up…. it’s always net off with each other
    Correct me if I m wrong ASAP

    • avatar says

      Hey u,12 is amount of Net defined benefit scheme liability- which is on CSFP. Then the amount of UNGLY 4m loss will be an added liability in that amount on CSFP. The amount of again or loss u r thinking is recorded on P&L. That’s my opinion, try to explain. Let’s discuss more,thks!

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        It’s pointless raising this as an issue – unrecognised gains and losses no longer exist with effect from the revision to IAS 19.

        Gains and losses arising on actuarial valuations are now called remeasurements and are credited or charged to this year’s Statement of Income

Leave a Reply