Description: Article discusses the measurement objectives being considered by the FASB and IASB joint project to produce a new accounting standard for insurance contracts.

Description: Article discussing upcoming developments regarding GAAP: 1.replacement of existing US GAAP with IFRS, 2. accounting for insurance contracts, 3. revenue recognition, and 4. revising the accounting for financial instruments

Description: Feature article discussing the IASB’s and FASB’s introduction of the use of other comprehensive income (OCI) to report certain changes in the value of insurance contracts.

Description: FASB decisions made regarding potential changes to US GAAP accounting that differ from corresponding IASB decisions, causing the potential accounting changes.

Description: Discussion of recent FASB tentative decisions on disclosure and transition for their long-duration insurance contracts accounting project.

Description: Calculating the risk adjustment confidence level disclosure required by IFRS 17 if the risk adjustment itself is calculated using a cost of capital approach

Description: Discusses a joint project between the FASB and IASB to update the accounting standards for financial instruments.

Description: Feature article discussing the volatility of reserves due to FASB changes.

Description: Feature article discussing the latest decision by the FASB and IASB in their joint insurance contracts project.

Description: The NAIC is working with state insurance departments to replace the existing rules-based valuation laws with principle-based valuation laws. On the GAAP front, both the International Accounting Standards Board, which sets GAAP accounting guidance for many countries outside the United States, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which promulgates GAAP guidance in the United States, are moving toward a “current estimate” standard of valuation, which often results in a fair value or similar measurement basis. This article reviews the IASB’s discussion paper on insurance valuation and the American Academy of Actuaries’ response to it.