Measurement of Assets: (IASB, 2013, para. 6.73-6.96)
The IASB's preliminary views have implications for the subsequent measurement of assets. Cost-based measurement is more relevant for assets that contribute indirectly to future cash flows or have insignificant variability in contractual cash flows and are held for collection. The current exit price is more relevant for assets that contribute directly to future cash flows. If an entity charges for the use of assets, the relevance of a particular measure of those assets will depend on the significance of the individual asset to the entity. FRC agreed with the preliminary views of IASB and supports that for assets that are held for collection should be measurement at entry prices, because they are inputs to the entity's business model (IASB, 2013, para. 9.23-9.34). Also EFRAC supports the classification of assets into four categories and believes that it is reasonable because the way in which cash flows are generated differ significantly depending on their categories and suggest to IASB that should propose guiding principles.
Measurement of Liabilities: (IASB, 2013, para. 6.97-6.109)
The IASB's preliminary views have implications for the subsequent measurement of liabilities. Cash-flow-based measurement are likely to be the only viable measurement for liabilities without stated terms. Cost-based measurement will provide the most relevant information for liabilities that will settled according to their terms and contractual obligations for services. Current market prices are more relevant for liabilities that will be transferred.
Most members of the responders agree with the IASB's preliminary views and they have some important suggestions for this part. (Deloitte, 2014; EFFA, 2014; EFRAG, 2014; FRC, 2014; ESMA, 2014). In general, Deloitte believes that CF should include criteria on determining an appropriate discount rate, whether this should be entity-specific or market rate. Also, EFFA suggest to IASB that the phrase 'stated terms'...