International Financial Reporting Standards
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (other than financial institutions) Joint IFRS Foundation and INCP IFRS Conference, Cartagena November 2015
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS Foundation.
IFRS 9 - Financial Instruments • Final version of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments published in July 2014 replaces previous versions of IFRS 9 brings together the classification and measurement, impairment and hedge accounting phases of the IASB’s project to replace IAS 39
• Mandatory effective date - 1 January 2018 with early application permitted • EU Endorsement Status - EFRAG has issued a draft endorsement advice letter which: concludes that the preliminary assessment is that IFRS 9 satisfies the criteria for endorsement for use in the EU advises that the IASB should defer the effective date of IFRS 9 for insurance businesses
Question 1 Regarding the 1 January 2018 effective date:
A. We plan to early adopt B. We will need the time between now and 2018 to be ready C. 2018 will be near impossible to achieve; other critical activities will need to be delayed D. Don’t know
Question 2
4
To date, how extensive has engagement with your auditors (client) been on implementing IFRS 9?
A. Extensive; working closely together B. Modest; some discussions but we still have time or consider that we can handle it ourselves C. None so far; we have not really started D. None so far and none expected; IFRS 9 doesn’t present issues or challenges for us
IFRS 9 - Financial Instruments Classification and measurement • A logical, single classification approach for financial assets driven by cash flow characteristics and business model • Improvements to “own credit” for financial liabilities
Impairment • A much needed and strongly supported forwardlooking ‘expected loss’ model
Hedge accounting • An improved and widely welcomed model that better aligns accounting with risk management
Question 3 Operationally, which sections of IFRS 9 are most important to your company or clients?
A. B. C. D.
Classification and Measurement Impairment Hedging All are about equally important
International Financial Reporting Standards
Classification and measurement
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS Foundation
Classification & Measurement – a superior approach • Logical and principle-based, single classification approach driven by cash flow characteristics and business model within which the financial assets are being managed eliminates complex bifurcation requirements
• Improved reclassification rules consistent with how the assets are being managed financial assets reclassified between measurement categories only when the business model for managing them changes
• Solution to ‘own credit’ concerns for financial liabilities P&L volatility will no longer result from changes in own credit, while information on own credit will still be available for users
• Elimination of IAS 39 tainting rules
The IFRS 9 classification model for assets Business model = hold to collect
Business model = hold to collect and sell
Other business models
Cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest (SPPI)
Amortised cost
FV on balance sheet and AC in P&L*
FVPL
Other types of cash flows
FVPL
FVPL
FVPL
FVOCI
*Excludes equity investments. Can elect to present FV changes in OCI.
Business model test • Factual assessment based on how assets are managed: Not based on intent for individual asset Typically observable through activities that the entity undertakes Anchor is how cash flows are realised
• Reclassify only if business model changes Hold to collect (amortised cost) Generate value by collecting contractual cash flows Consider past sales information and future expectations Some sales may be consistent if infrequent or insignificant
Hold to collect and sell (FVOCI) Generate value by collecting contractual cash flows AND selling Involves greater frequency and volume of sales eg liquidity needs, interest yield management, asset/liability management
Question 4 Regarding use of a “business model” approach for Classification and Measurement:
A. Makes perfect sense; accounting should be aligned with management’s interests and actions B. Adds too much complexity versus IAS 39 C. Disagree with both IFRS 9 and IAS 39; all financial assets should be at FVTPL D. Don’t know; no opinion
Solely Payments of Principal and Interest (‘SPPI’) characteristics • Contractual cash flows consistent with a basic lending arrangement (simple instruments) • Principal is the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition • Interest is consideration for: time value of money and credit risk; basic lending risks(eg liquidity risks); other associated costs(eg administrative costs); and a profit margin
A modified time value of money element is permitted as long as the effect of the modification on the cash flows is not significant.
Question 5 It is possible, in a company, that the exact same financial asset could be accounted for in 3 different ways. Does this make sense? A. Yes; accounting should follow the business model B. No; identical assets should always be accounted for in the same way C. With adequate disclosures, it doesn’t matter D. Don’t know; no opinion
Alternative Classifications
14
Financial Assets - Fair Value Option • Available in cases of “accounting mismatch” Equity investments – FVOCI alternative • Available for investments in equity instruments which are not held for trading • Features: instrument by instrument dividends recognised in P&L no recycling no impairment
Financial liabilities – ‘own credit’ designated under the fair value option (FVO)
Financial statements – IFRS 9 Balance sheet Financial liabilities – FVO
Full FV
P&L Gain or loss
all FV ∆ except own credit OCI
Gain or loss
FV ∆ due to ‘own credit’*
* Not recycled
• Otherwise, P&L gain when ‘own credit’ deteriorates, loss when it improves • Required by IFRS 9 for liabilities under the FVO • IFRS 9 allows the ‘own credit’ requirements to be early applied in isolation
Treatment of financial liabilities is carried forward from IAS 39 essentially unchanged
International Financial Reporting Standards
Impairment
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS Foundation
Benefits of the expected loss model Forward-looking model that is responsive to changes in credit risk and responds to the calls of the G20 and others • Broader range of information required to be considered Ensures more timely recognition of expected credit losses Elimination of IAS 39 threshold
Builds on existing systems to balance costs and benefits Approximates 2009 ED in more operational manner
• Single model reduces complexity of multiple approaches • Enhanced disclosures: Illustrate how an entity has applied the requirements Show assets which have significantly increased in credit risk
Overview of general model Change in credit quality since initial recognition Expected credit losses recognised 12-month expected credit losses
Lifetime expected credit losses
Lifetime expected credit losses
Interest revenue Gross basis
Gross basis
Stage 1 Performing
Stage 2 Underperforming
Net basis Stage 3 Non-performing
12 month expected credit losses When to recognise 12-month expected credit losses? • Performing assets, ie • No significant increase in credit risk has been determined • Low credit risk simplification can be used to make this determination (for example ‘investment grade’)
12 month expected credit losses are portion of the lifetime expected credit losses – they are not the expected cash shortfalls over the next 12 months
Lifetime expected credit losses When to recognise lifetime expected credit losses? • Underperforming assets, ie: A significant increase in credit risk has been determined 30 Days Past Due rebuttable presumption • Non performing assets, ie: Asset is credit impaired 90 Days Past Due rebuttable presumption
Question 6 Regarding the recognition of impairment losses, do you prefer: A. The expected loss emergence model required by IFRS 9 B. The FASB’s “full Day 1” expected loss emergence model C. Neither – the IASB should have retained the existing incurred loss model D. Some other method
Determining whether credit risk has increased significantly • Change in credit risk over the life of the instrument (ie risk of a default occurring) Compared to credit risk at initial recognition Relative rather than absolute assessment Need to determine what is meant by “default” • Maturity matters • Not changes in expected credit losses • Can be done on an individual or collective basis • Does not require a mechanical assessment but need to use reasonable and supportable information
Determining whether credit risk has increased significantly – operational simplifications • High quality financial instruments (‘low credit risk’) choice to assume no significant increase in credit risk – therefore continue to recognise 12 month expected credit loss
• 30 days past due rebuttable presumption that credit risk has increased significantly – therefore recognise lifetime expected credit loss
• Trade receivables (that contain a significant financing component) and lease receivables accounting policy choice to recognise lifetime expected credit loss
• Trade receivables (that do not contain a significant financing component) requirement to recognise lifetime expected credit loss
Measuring expected credit losses Expected credit losses need to reflect: • Probability weighted outcome must consider possibility that default will/will not occur
• Time value of money discount at effective interest rate or an approximation thereof
• Reasonable and supportable information available without undue cost or effort at the reporting date about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions
Particular measurement methods are not prescribed
Reasonable and supportable information • Borrower specific factors: • changes in operating results of borrower, technological advances that affect future operations, changes in collateral supporting obligation
• Macro-economic factors: • house price indexes, GDP, household debt ratios
• The data sources could be: • Internal data - credit loss experience and ratings • External data - ratings, statistics or reports
Historical information can be used as a base but must be updated to reflect current conditions and future forecasts
© IFRS Foundation. 30 Cannon Street | London EC4M
Disclosures
Reconciliation of allowance accounts showing key drivers for change
Inputs, assumptions and techniques used to estimate expected credit losses (and changes in techniques)
Explanation of gross carrying amounts showing key drivers for change
Inputs, assumptions and techniques used to determine ‘significant increase in credit risk’ and ‘default’
Quantitative
Gross carrying amount per credit risk grade or delinquency
Write-offs, recoveries, modifications
Qualitative
Inputs, assumptions and techniques used to determine ‘credit impaired’
Write off policies, modification policies, collateral
Transition Resource Group for Impairment of Financial Instruments (‘ITG’) • •
The ITG was established to provide support for the IASB’s stakeholders who are implementing the new expected credit loss requirements: Forum for questions regarding implementation
•
Make the IASB aware of implementation issues – any actions required would follow normal due process
•
Educational role
•
Limited life during the transition period
•
Will not publish any guidance
•
Three meetings to date; one introductory conference call in December 2014 and two face to face meetings in April and September 2015.
•
One issue relating to revolving credit facilities has been raised with the IASB:
•
•
The staff dis not propose any further action in relation to this issue
•
The IASB noted the issue but observed that the requirements of IFRS 9 were clear
Next ITG meeting - 11th December 2015
© IFRS Foundation. 30 Cannon Street | London EC4M
International Financial Reporting Standards
Convergence
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS Foundation
Š 2013 IFRS Foundation. 30 Cannon Street | London EC4M 6XH | UK. www.ifrs.org
Convergence with the FASB • An important consideration throughout the project • Lack of convergence - disappointing for all of us • Ultimately, the IASB decided that it was most important to improve IFRS on a timely basis. • IFRS 9 is a complete package which includes: a logical, single classification approach for financial assets including improvements to own credit a single and more forward looking impairment model for financial instruments and a hedge accounting model that aligns risk management more closely with accounting.
Convergence with the FASB • Current Status* of the FASB Financial Instruments related projects: Project
Current Stage
Estimated Completion
Classification and Measurement
Final Standard
Q4 2015
Hedge Accounting
Exposure Draft
Q1 2016
Impairment
Final Standard
Q1 2016
* Per FASB website as at 10th November 2015
Question 7 Regarding convergence on Financial Instruments as a whole:
A. Convergence is/ was critical. IFRS 9 should not have been finalised at this time B. Convergence, while desirable, is not critical. The IASB was correct to finalise IFRS 9 when it did. C. For financial instruments, convergence is not important and did not need to be a joint project D. Some other answer
Question 8
32
Having listened to us, which of the below describes what you think about IFRS 9?
A. B. C. D.
It’s more difficult It’s easier than I thought You’ve confirmed my assessment of IFRS 9 I wish we had stayed with IAS 39
International Financial Reporting Standards
Hedge accounting
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the IASB or IFRS Foundation Š 2013 IFRS Foundation. 30 Cannon Street | London EC4M 6XH | UK. www.ifrs.org
Accounting and risk management
34
Feedback on IAS 39: Recognition and Measurement • Lack of an overarching principle; complex and rule-based • Inability for preparers to reflect hedges in financial statements • Hard for users to understand risk management practices
• • • •
Solutions in IFRS 9: Financial Instruments Major overhaul of hedge accounting Align accounting treatment with risk management activity Enable preparers to better reflect hedging in financial statements Provide disclosures to help users understand risk management and its impact on the financial statements
Hedge Accounting - major improvements
35
• Designate risk components of non-financial instruments • Ability to hedge aggregated exposures (combinations of derivatives and non-derivatives) • Introduction of ‘costs of hedging’ to improve the transparency around some hedging instruments • A principle-based hedge effectiveness assessment to achieve hedge accounting • Disclosures that meet the objectives of understanding the hedged risks; how those are managed; and effect of hedging A new approach to how accounting interacts with risk management
Designating Risk Components Example – hedging a component of a non financial item Measuring the success of hedging jet fuel contracts with crude oil futures
Portion unreflective of hedge
Crude oil hedging instrument
IAS 39
Jet fuel price Gas oil price
IFRS 9
Crude oil price
Hedging Aggregated Exposures
37
Example: hedging commodity price & FX risk Commodity supplier
Commodity futures contract
FX forward contract
US$
Commodity US$ US$
US$ â‚Ź
Aggregated exposure Manufacturer
Not an eligible hedged item under IAS 39
Costs of hedging
38
Costs of hedging
Time value of options
Forward element of forward contract
Foreign currency basis spreads
New accounting approach should result in less volatility in P&L and aid the alignment of accounting and risk management
Hedge effectiveness
39
Hedge effectiveness Hedge effectiveness test 1. Economic relationship 2. Effect of credit risk 3. Hedge ratio
Measuring and recognising hedge ineffectiveness
Assessment of hedge effectiveness is now more closely aligned with risk management
Disclosures
40
Hedge accounting disclosures
Risk management strategy
Amount, timing and uncertainty of future cash flows
Effects of hedge accounting on the primary financial statements
Specific disclosures for dynamic strategies and credit risk hedging
Questions and comments