Login to website for members content
Login:
Password:
 
Search website for content
Go to latest news channel
24/03/2014:
Email news service March 2014: Relief extended on US derivative rules
 Read More >>
28/02/2014:
Email news service: EU financial legislation hits delays
 Read More >>
20/02/2014:
Email News Service February 2014: EU resolution mechanism talks go to the wire
 Read More >>
25/09/2013:
Email News Service September 2013: Banks’ capital and liquidity improve under Basel III
 Read More >>
10/09/2013:
Email News Service September 2013: Internal model differences outweigh others; Peer review sees good UK progress
 Read More >>
06/09/2013:
Email News Service September 2013: G20 leaders seek to avoid conflicting financial rules
 Read More >>
02/09/2013:
Email News Service September 2013: FSB’s Carney warns on regulatory fragmentation
 Read More >>
27/08/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: US needs analytical approach to systemic risk
 Read More >>
12/08/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: Regulators propose non-bank resolution regime
 Read More >>
18/07/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: G20 names nine insurers as systemic risks; backstop capital planned
 Read More >>
09/07/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: US regulators plan tougher capital rules for big banks
 Read More >>
08/07/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: Reassessing Basel pillars could aid simplicity, say regulators
 Read More >>
05/07/2013:
Email News Service July/August 2013: Latest study again shows up wide bank capital variations
 Read More >>
23/04/2013:
Email News Service April 2013: EU-US banking spat increases fragmentation fears
 Read More >>
22/04/2013:
Email News Service April 2013: Stability Board warns G20 on fragmentation
 Read More >>
19/04/2013:
Email News service April 2013: G20 seen tasking Stability Board with Libor oversight
 Read More >>
26/02/2013:
Email News Service February 2013: Simpler risk measures not necessarily a solution, says Basel’s Byres
 Read More >>
18/02/2013:
Email News Service February 2013: Basel takes aim at bank VaR calculations; G20 monitoring impact of regulations on long-term finance
 Read More >>
25/01/2013:
Email news service January 2013: Basel III delays not critical, but accord may not have right balance on risk measurement, Ingves says
 Read More >>
06/01/2013:
Email News Service January 2013: Basel confirms easier bank liquidity rule
 Read More >>
04/01/2013:
Email News Service January 2013: Basel regulators seen easing bank liquidity rule this weekend
 Read More >>
08/11/2012:
Email news Service November 2012: Wall Street left to mend regulatory fences after backing loser
 Read More >>
21/12/2012:
Email News Service December 2012: Task force looking further into Basel III complexity
 Read More >>
26/11/2012:
Email News Service November 2013: BofE governor-to-be Carney to remain G20 financial stability chief
 Read More >>
01/11/2012:
Email News Service November 2012: Four big banks face top G20 capital charges
 Read More >>
19/11/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: Delay threatens G20 OTC reforms
 Read More >>
29/10/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: urge G20 action to keep Basel III on track
 Read More >>
19/10/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: EU banking supervision agreement raises big questions
 Read More >>
18/10/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: G20 insurer systemic risk plans raise concern
 Read More >>
11/10/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: Stability Board bolsters systemic rules for banks, insurers
 Read More >>
02/10/2012:
Email News Service October 2012: Ring fencing EU banks will be huge task
 Read More >>
20/09/2012:
Email News Service September 2012: Basel III test shows need for $485 billion more bank capital; European banks may face sliding scale of requirements
 Read More >>
14/09/2012:
Email news Service September 2012: Basel regulators look at reducing complexity
 Read More >>
12/09/2012:
Email News Service September 2012: Europe’s banking plan faces tough challenges
 Read More >>
09/08/2012:
Email news Service Jul/Aug 2012: US extends Basel III comment period
 Read More >>
07/08/2012:
Email News Service July/August 2012: EU’s Barnier says pensions not at risk with Solvency II; Industry knocks G20 systemic risk proposal
 Read More >>
16/07/2012:
Email News Service July/August 2012: Dismay at US delay on global accounting rules
 Read More >>
20/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: G20 agree strengthened role for Financial Stability Board
 Read More >>
18/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: G20 summit to contend with regulatory issues as well as eurozone crisis
 Read More >>
13/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: EU may see new bank supervision proposals by autumn; US regulators say Basel III not tough enough
 Read More >>
11/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: Basel III bank rules could be weaker in US, EU and Japan
 Read More >>
08/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: Regulators want to launch buyer/seller tagging next year
 Read More >>
07/06/2012:
Email News Service June 2012: EU bank plans seen as major priority for regulators
 Read More >>


Newsletter June 2010: Loan accounting scheme is too complicated

Plans for reforming the way loan losses are accounted for are too convoluted and costly. And they contribute to accounting split

Proposals for reforming international accounting rules so that bank loan losses are flagged up much earlier than at present remain too complex and would be very costly to implement, according to comments on the plans.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the body that sets the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) accepted in more than 100 countries outside the US, proposes shifting from the current much criticised incurred-loss approach to loan losses to an expected-loss model. This would mean banks providing for future losses on loans on the basis of what they expect in the way of defaults at any stage of the economic cycle. It’s a reform that’s backed by banking regulators in principle because the new approach would signal loan problems much sooner than does incurred loss, which allows banks to make provisions only after a loss on a loan has actually been incurred.

Nothing is ever simple with accounting changes, and this issue is no exception. The principle pitches the interests of regulators against those of investors and in detail the expected-loss approach worries accountants who fear it could aid managements seeking to manipulate earnings figures. And the IASB’s proposals on loan impairment differ from those of its US counterpart, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), thereby contributing to the split between the two standard-setters that’s threatening the Group of Twenty goal of achieving a single set of global accounting rules.

There’s a need for a single impairment model that reduces complexity and mitigates pro-cyclical effects – the tendency to reinforce the ups and downs of the economic cycle – and moving to a model based on expected loss rather than incurred losses is a step in the right direction, the Swedish Bankers’ Association said in comments on the IASB proposal.

But “we do not believe that the highly complex measurement model based on expected cash flows proposed by the IASB is the right way forward. We urge the IASB to find a less complex model that allows for both an open and a closed portfolio approach and that keeps the current definition of the effective interest rate intact,” the Swedish association said.

Two dozen comments

The association’s comments were among some two dozen so far received on the IASB’s proposals from banking and accounting organisations, regulators and firms. June 30 is the deadline for comment on the IASB’s November 2009 exposure draft, or consultation document, on the amortised cost measurement and impairment of financial instruments. The comments so far also echo many of those made in response to the IASB’s request last year for views on the feasibility of the expected-loss concept.

The impairment document is part of the second stage of the IASB’s three-phase replacement of the international IAS 39 rule on accounting for financial instruments, the bonds, loans, investments and derivatives that feature heavily on bank balance sheets. Spurred on by the G20, the IASB has already rolled out phase 1 covering the classification and measurement of the instruments and expects soon to issue an exposure draft on accounting for derivatives.

FASB meanwhile issued its single-package on financial instruments at the end of May for comment until September 30. On loan impairment, FASB proposes to accelerate loss recognition by removing the existing “probable” threshold for recognising impairments and recognising credit problems immediately a bank doesn’t expect to collect all amounts due on loan. This differs from the IASB’s “through-the-cycle” expected loss model and the two boards have set up an expert advisory panel to help them develop a common approach.

Kenneth Sharp, global leader, assurance services with accountants Grant Thornton International commented that the IASB’s expected loss approach has theoretical advantages. By incorporating expectations of default into measurement and income recognition throughout the life of a loan it better reflects the economics of lending.

“We are however concerned that the operational challenges of implementing the proposed approach may result in cost and complexity that exceeds its benefits. Moreover, we believe that these challenges could be disproportionately burdensome for many non-financial institutions,” Sharp said.

The Hong Kong Association of Banks believes that the expected cash flow model will result in increased subjectivity.

“As a result, the expected losses which will be recognised in the profit and loss account may be more volatile and procyclical than under the current incurred loss model,” the Hong Kong association said.

“In addition the readers of financial statements may find it very difficult to understand and interpret the numbers given the high degree of subjectivity and the combining of credit losses with interest. From a practical perspective, the proposed model is extremely complex and hence will be very difficult and costly to implement.”

The Madrid-based Instituto Iberoamericano de Mercados de Valores (IIMV), the umbrella organisation for Spanish and Latin American securities regulators, is worried that there won’t be an opportunity to comment on any outcomes emerging from the work of the expert advisory panel.

Comment letters are accessible on the IASB’s website: www.iasb.org.



(Volume:8 Issue: 6)

  Copyright 2014 Global Risk Regulator. All rights reserved. Contact Us     Legal    Privacy