During the fiscal crisis, the International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) , standard compositor for international accounting ordinance, has been under force per unit area to revise their criterion for the accounting of fiscal instruments. As a reaction, the IASB has published in July 2009 an exposure bill of exchange sketching their proposal to revise IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Categorization and Measurement originating an intense argument. This paper serves to analyze the IASB ‘s proposal with regard to the old IAS 39. First, it will give an oultine of the former IAS 39, so discourse the exposure bill of exchange, and so show the new IFRS 9. In the terminal a decision will be given summarizing and measuring the extent to which IFRS 9 has fulfilled the IASB ‘s announced purposes.
Table of Contentss
Table of Contentss I
List of Abbreviations II
1. Introduction III
1.1 Thesis Motivation III
1.2 Background III
1.3 Issues IV
2. The former IAS 39 V
2.1 Initial Inclusion into Financial Statements VI
2.2 Recognition VI
2.3 Subsequent Measurement VII
2.4 Reclassification IX
3. The IASB ‘s Proposal to revise IAS 39 Ten
3.1 Classification Approach Eleven
3.2 Measurement Approach Thirteen
4. The new IFRS 9 Sixteen
5. Decision Seventeen
Table of Figures XX
List of Abbreviations
ED Exposure Draft
FI Financial Instrument
FV Fair Value
FVO Fair Value Option
IAS International Accounting Standard
IASB International Accounting Standard Board
IFRS International Financial Reporting Standard
1.1 Thesis Motivation
As a effect of the fiscal crisis, international accounting criterions have been in the focal point of attending. Resulting from the belief, FV accounting with its pro-cyclic effects might hold further exacerbated the fiscal melt-down ( European Commission Director General, 2009 ) , caused the impairment of Bankss ‘ equity and catalysed a moving ridge of bankruptcies ( Khan, 2009 ) , the accounting community came up with suggestions for betterment. In this context IAS 39 which besides deals with the acknowledgment and measuring of fiscal instruments ( FIs ) is presently in the procedure of alteration ( IASB, 2009a ) . This paper will discourse issues of former IAS 39, give an lineation of the treatment that lead to IFRS 9, and eventually reflect on the new criterion.
The revised criterion ‘s announced purpose is to cut down the degree of complexness that is presently criticised by practicians and is meant to finally replace the old criterion as a new IFRS 9 ( IASB, 2009b ) . Hence, an unfastened treatment conducted in three stages has been initiated by the standard-setting International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) . Phase one trades with the acknowledgment and measuring of FIs, stage two screens issues of impairment methodological analysis and stage three discusses hedge accounting rules[ 1 ].
This paper will analyze the IAS 39 alteration of stage one, intending the categorization and measuring of FIs, because this portion has been met by the most terrible unfavorable judgment and has the most recent deductions for practicians. In peculiar, the extent to which IFRS 9 solves the jobs made apparent during the fiscal crisis shall be assessed.
The IASB has published an exposure bill of exchange ( ED ) in July 2009 – ED/2009/7, Fiscal Instruments: Categorization and Measurement ( IASB, 2009b ) – and has presented a concluding version in November 2009 to let for voluntary application in 2009 – IASB: IFRS 9 Financial Instruments ( IASB, 2009c ) . However, IFRS 9 has been refused to back by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Board ( EFRAG ) in conformity with the European Commission due to concerns raised over the “ right balance on just value ( FV ) accounting and possible impact on fiscal stableness ” ( EFRAG, 2009a ) . A several ED for stage two ( Impairment methodological analysis ) has been published in November 2009 – ED/2009/12, Fiscal Instruments: Amortised Cost and Impairment ( IASB, 2009j ) . An ED for stage three ( Hedge accounting ) will be published in December 2009. Since the publication of ED/2009/12 in June 2009, the IASB has met a figure of times to discourse statements and remarks received by the populace, and has so published a concluding criterion of stage one in the signifier of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments on 12 November 2009. A mandatory application of the full new criterion is aimed to come into consequence for fiscal statements from 2012 onwards. This paper will merely cover with the revised accounting criterions for the categorization and measuring of FIs as of the above-named grounds.
With the new criterion, the IASB purposes to cut down the complexness of IAS 39 and do it easier to understand because particularly during the fiscal crisis, voices have been raised naming for a less rigorous application of FV accounting for assets without quoted market monetary value ( Khan, 2009 ) . Hence, the new criterion should simplify accounting application and let for greater transparence about categorization and measurings of FIs to the users of fiscal statements.
In order to accomplish this, the IASB has identified two major Fieldss of IAS 39 to be revised that shall be assessed within the range of this paper, viz. : ( 1 ) measuring at FV, or ( 2 ) measuring at amortised cost. Within these two Fieldss, a figure of sub-topics were developed throughout the treatment period. These comprised elaborate categorization criterions for different FIs, viz. fiscal assets and fiscal liabilities. FIs that merely possess basic loan characteristics and are managed on contractual hard currency flow footings would be measured at amortised cost while all other FIs would be measured at their FV ( IASB, 2009b ) . As this method would fundamentally simplify measurement methods along the two attacks just value or amortised cost, all other bing classs such as loans and receivables, held-to-maturity ( HtM ) investings or available-for-sale ( AfS ) assets would be abolished. Hence the former multi-category attack would be replaced by a rigorous two-category solution.
In order to cover with current complex accounting demands imposed by the old IAS 39, the IASB farther decided to reexamine for trial purposes the undermentioned facets in a manner that would heighten simpleness and transparence ( IASB, 2009d ) . First, fiscal intercrossed contracts whose host contract is within the range of IAS 39 would be recognised as one individual unit. This means that the intercrossed contract would non be separated from any embedded derived function as was antecedently the instance. Therefore, the contract would be recognised at amortised cost if the embedded derivative holds basic loan characteristics. Such basic loan characteristics could be caps, floors or collar constructions that might alter involvement rates of the contract or alike. Second, investings in structured vehicles with waterfall characteristics[ 2 ]would be accounted for every bit outlined in application guidelines ( IFRS 9.B4.20 et seq. ) . Third, in instance a intercrossed contract does non measure up in footings of IAS 39, the contract would be accounted for at bing demands for embedded derived functions ( IFRS 9.4.8 ) . Fourthly, a FV option ( FVO ) would be kept leting entities to recognize FIs at FV – although they would technically-speaking necessitate a measuring at amortised cost – if a measuring at amortised cost would forestall or cut down measuring or acknowledgment incompatibility. This would eventually turn to what is normally known as accounting mismatch, intending the non-compliance of alteration in equity and income statement. Last, entities would be allowed to demo FV alterations for equity instruments in other comprehensive income ( OCI ) , excepting HfT instruments. Consequently, a 2nd damage proving would turn out redundant as the sums recognised in OCI were non to repeat in net income or loss at disposal or at any other point in clip. Furthermore, the new IAS 39 would necessitate entities to take a presentation manner at initial inclusion into the fiscal statements for a keeping ‘s full keeping clip. Dividend payments of such instruments would correspondingly besides be booked in OCI without recycling them through net income or loss.
The concluding version of stage one has been published 12 November 2009 but endorsement by the regulator has been refused so far ( EFRAG, 2009b ) . In the following this paper will give an overview over the major points of treatment and major alterations before measuring the new criterion in the terminal.
2. The former IAS 39
The former IAS 39 required all fiscal assets and liabilities including all derived functions and embedded derived functions to be recorded on the balance sheet[ 3 ]( IASB, 2009e ) . In the undermentioned paragraphs the – for this paper relevant – inclusion, acknowledgment and subsequent measuring of FIs under old IAS 39 shall be outlined.
For the intent of subsequent measuring, FIs were classified in one of the following four classs ( see IAS 39.45 in concurrence with IAS 39.9[ 4 ]) : loans and receivables, HtM investings, fiscal assets at just value through net income or loss, or AfS fiscal assets. On the liability side, there were no peculiarly assigned classs. Equally long as these liabilities were non recognised through net income or loss at their FV ( IAS 39.47 ) , they were purely recognised at amortised cost[ 5 ].
2.1 Initial Inclusion into Financial Statements
By and large, FIs need to be included into the one-year balance sheet when the coverage entity acted as a party to a contract on FIs ( IAS 39.14 ) which besides remains valid for the new IFRS 9. For the purchase under normal market conditions at that place used to be the option for the acknowledgment of FIs on trade day of the month or on colony day of the month. Correspondingly, the one time chosen method had to be applied systematically for every class of fiscal assets in the footings of IAS 39.9 ( see IAS 39.38 and.AG53-.AG56 ) which means a ulterior reclassification of the plus into another class was excluded. Figure 1 describes the different accounting directives for either trade day of the month or colony day of the month accounting[ 6 ].
Figure 1: Trade Date and Settlement Date Accounting
At first inclusion into the fiscal statement all FIs had to be recognised at their FV ( IAS 39.43 ) . A FV represents the sum at which contractual and independent counterparties can trade an plus or settle a liability ( IAS 39.9 ) . Hence, under normal conditions the FV ever corresponded to the current market monetary value. Should such market monetary value non be, values needed to be derived from minutess on comparable markets or calculated utilizing generally-accepted rating theoretical accounts[ 7 ]. At the point of acknowledgment the FV by and large represented the dealing monetary value[ 8 ]. Henceforth, straight accountable dealing cost needed non be considered every bit long as they did non concern FIs recognised through net income or loss at their settled clip value ( IAS 39.43 ) . Otherwise, should these instruments have an consequence on net income or loss, they would hold had to be capable to damage.
2.3 Subsequent Measurement
Figure 2: Measurement of Financial Assets under IAS 39
The acknowledgment of fiscal assets is depicted in Figure 2. It shall be outlined in the followers as it is necessary to grok when looking at IFRS 9.
The class for HtM investings contained non-derivative fiscal assets with fixed or determinable payments and a fixed adulthood for which a keeping purpose and ability existed ( IAS 39.9 ) . At initial inclusion, these could be optionally recognised at their FV or classified as AfS assets[ 9 ]. In instance of a disposal of one or more non-fundamental portion of a fiscal plus, this plus would non anymore classify as HtM investing ( referred to as the “ tainting regulation ”[ 10 ]) .
The class loans and receivables contained given and acquired loans and receivables ( IAS 39.9 ) and was restricted to FIs with fixed or determinable payments that were non listed on any active market[ 11 ]. Alternatively, fiscal assets carry throughing the standards of being listed on an active market could be designated or classified as AfS assets at initial inclusion into the fiscal statements at their FV[ 12 ].
The class fiscal assets recognized through net income or loss at amortised cost was subdivided into two classs ( IAS 39.9 ) : ( 1 ) Held-for-trading ( HfT ) fiscal assets, and ( 2 ) Financial assets that are qualified at initial inclusion at their FV ( Fair value option ( FVO ) ) , whereby equity instruments without a monetary value on an active market were non allowed to be designated to this class if their FV could non be faithfully measured. FIs were classified as HfT assets if they were either held with the intent of a resale in the close hereafter, if they were portion of a portfolio of unequivocally identified and jointly-managed FIs for which there were clear indicants of profit-taking in the past, or if they clearly classified as derivative securities. FIs could be designated utilizing the FVO if this allowed for more relevant information to be revealed due to the suspension or important decrease of valuation-attributable accounting mismatches otherwise originating through rating directives for assets and liabilities or through different inclusion of net income and loss[ 13 ]. They could besides be classified under the FVO if these instruments were managed at a FV footing and if their public presentation were measured on this footing. Should a contract contain one or more embedded derived functions, appellation of this contract under the FVO was possible unless the embedded derived function had merely small impact on hard currency flows of the implicit in contract or its separate accounting was non allowed[ 14 ]. For contracts without clearly discoverable FV of a fiscal derivative with duty to bifurcate, appellation of the full contract under the FVO was compulsory.
If desired, all fiscal assets could besides be allocated to the class AfS assets at one ‘s ain discretion ( with the exclusion of trading assets ) . However, in instance fiscal assets could non be recognised through any other class, acknowledgment through AfS assets was compulsory[ 15 ]. Correctionss of the affiliated FV of assets available for sale – independent of the nature of damage ( additions or losingss ) – by and large needed to be designated without consequence on net income or loss in reappraisal excess[ 16 ]. Should fiscal assets of this class be charged to disbursals, antecedently straight in equity accounted net incomes needed be reclassified into the income statement.
IAS 39 provided a figure of directives refering the reclassification of FIs into different classs that used to be defined within IAS 39.50-.54 and is depicted in Figure 3. If an entity chose non to dispose or deliver fiscal assets in the short term, reclassification of this plus into the class FIs at amortised cost ( merchandising ) was allowed given conformity with IAS 39.50B or.50D. Furthermore, a reclassification of AfS assets under certain conditions was allowed ( IAS 39.50E ) .
A reclassification of fiscal assets in loans and receivables after initial inclusion into the fiscal statements every bit good as reclassifications of fiscal liabilities were prohibited. Given there was no farther purpose of short-run disposal or salvation, fiscal assets recognised at FV through net income or loss were permitted to reclassification under one of the undermentioned conditions: ( 1 ) there were extraordinary events ( IAS 39.50B ) , or ( 2 ) the fiscal plus complied with the definition of loans and receivables at reclassification and the entity intended and was capable of keeping it for a foreseeable period ( IAS 39.50D )[ 17 ]. In the same regard, AfS fiscal assets could besides be classified under loans and receivables if they fulfilled the definition of loans and receivables at reclassification and the entity was able and had the purpose of keeping the plus for a foreseeable clip or until adulthood.
On the other manus, AfS fiscal assets could besides be reclassified as HtM fiscal investings every bit long as purpose and capableness to keep the plus until adulthood was given or the keeping period for categorization of HtM investings had expired[ 18 ]. The FV at the minute of reclassification represented amortised cost ( IAS 39.50F ) . Net income and loss held in reappraisal excess required distribution over staying clip to adulthood utilizing effectual involvement method with fixed-maturity fiscal assets and continuation in reappraisal excess until disposal of fiscal assets without fixed adulthood. HtM investings had to be reclassified as AfS assets and be measured at amortised cost if purpose or ability to keep the plus until adulthood changed ( IAS 39.51 ) . Disposals or reclassifications of FIs of important value in this class caused a reclassification of all HtM investings into AfS assets and to respective measuring at amortised cost ( IAS 39.52 in concurrence with IAS 39.9 ) . After a important reclassification in this class, a new reclassification into HtM investings was non allowed for the subsequent two concern old ages ( IAS 39.9 ) . Due to the figure of complex ordinance guidelines, reclassification in peculiar was in the Centre of critics who complained about the complexness of IAS 39.
Figure 3: Reclassification Requirements under IAS 39
3. The IASB ‘s Proposal to revise IAS 39
During the fiscal crisis, accounting criterions and peculiarly IAS 39 has been harshly criticised due to a figure of grounds. The IASB was under force per unit area from authoritiess[ 19 ]and international organic structures ( Group of Twenty ( G20 ) , 2009 ) as Bankss were in deep crisis and a figure of big establishments were bailed out with authorities money as they had to compose off on assets that were capable to FV accounting. Since the market for some instruments[ 20 ]failed to be, fiscal assets without quoted market monetary value had to be valued at nothing ( Classifying instruments as HfT – instead than as HtM or loans and receivables – urged fiscal establishments to recognize them at FV through net income or loss, which translated into important latent losingss due to the impairment of recognition and US existent estate markets ) . These pro-cyclic write-downs have burdened the budgets of many establishments and have aggravated the fiscal crisis ( Trussel & A ; Rose, 2009 ) .
Therefore, the IAS made short term accommodations to IAS 39, easing the reclassification into classs such as HtM. Furthermore, in order to turn to the issue of complexness in apprehension, application and reading, the IASB has made a figure of proposals to revise the criterion. In this regard, it has initiated treatments in an exposure bill of exchange ( IASB, 2009b ) and called for unfastened treatment on the issue.
In its ED/2009/7, the IASB pointed out the following issues to be revised: Categorization, accounting for embedded derived functions, FVO, reclassification, investings in equity without quoted market monetary value and whose value can non be faithfully measured, investings in equity instruments measured at FV through OCI, and effectual day of the month. In the followers, the major treatment points, and their consequences shall be outlined.
3.1 Classification Approach
IAS 39 was normally criticised due to its high complexness caused by the high figure of categorization classs for FIs with each prolonging its ain regulations for in- or exclusion of instruments into fiscal statements and demands for plus damage proving. Discussion documents and their responses indicated that it would be considered easier if FIs with high variable hard currency flows or instruments that were portion of trading operations were differentiated from those instruments that possessed a chief sum, were held for intents of aggregation or payment of contractual hard currency flows, and which are non meant to be disposed of to or settled with a 3rd counterparty ( IASB, 2009b ) . In add-on, it was argued that presenting such distinction the information quality of fiscal statements in regard to former IAS 39 could be enhanced ( IASB, 2009f ) . Hence, the IASB based categorization on two standards: on ( 1 ) how an entity manages its FIs ( i.e. its concern theoretical account ) , and on ( 2 ) the contractual footings of the instrument ( i.e. its hard currency flow features ) . This has been the consequence because harmonizing to general perceptual experience the general aim of an entity was to keep FI in order to serve contractual hard currency flows instead than to gain FV alterations by early disposal. Therefore it was argued, entities should non hold to recognize all FV alterations in their fiscal statement, depending on the concern theoretical account. By using a categorization based on an entity ‘s concern theoretical account and on contractual hard currency flow features, the IASB aimed to have the most enlightening presentation of FIs. Hence, instruments with enlightening current value would hold to be measured at FV and instruments with enlightening contractual hard currency flows would be measured at amortised cost harmonizing to the IFRS 9 ( IASB, 2009c ) . Although this attack has been widely accepted, some critics argued that a rigorous measuring at FV for all FIs would give a more realistic position on an entity ‘s realistic status ( Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, 2009 ) . Other critics supported a measuring for which amortised cost would merely be used one time the instrument ‘s FV can non be faithfully measured or proves infeasible[ 21 ]or when the FV would stand for the instrument ‘s default ( IASB, 2009f ) . In order to turn to these critics, the IASB modified its position in the new IFRS 9 whereby the categorization of fiscal liabilities was exempted and would be specified otherwise.
For the categorization of intercrossed contracts, the IASB suggested non to necessitate separation of embedded derived functions from their intercrossed fiscal host contracts any longer in order to accomplish a important decrease of complexness ( IASB, 2009c ) . However, this proposal has provoked a batch of high-level critics who instead back up an application of IAS 39 for the clip being ( EFRAG, 2009a ) . Oppositions fear that due to the features of contracts with embedded derived functions, more assets would hold to be measured at just value[ 22 ]which would ensue in companies being capable to increased ain recognition hazard[ 23 ]( EFRAG, 2009a ) . Hence, the IASB has reacted to these statements by proroguing alteration of liability accounting to a ulterior day of the month ( IASB, 2009g ) . Consequently, the new criterion merely includes measuring and categorization of fiscal assets[ 24 ]. In add-on, some critics argued that the proposed directive would be more hard to understand and retain of import information from the investors[ 25 ]( Conseil National de la Comptabilite , 2009 ) . By handling a intercrossed contract as a individual accounting group that would hold to be designated along the aforesaid standards, the IASB purposes to take antecedently complicated and arbitrary directives within the range of IAS 39. Critics have long found mistake in the rule-based guidelines within IAS 39 as this has lead to an arbitrary application that diluted information and comparing quality of fiscal statements ( Wadewitz, 2009 ) . In this regard, accounting for embedded derived functions would happen within a individual rating unit either at FV through net income or loss or at amortised cost ( IASB, 2009h ) .
Refering a alteration of the old FVO, the IASB has suggested the execution of an irrevokable option to dismiss fiscal assets at FV through net income or loss if this prevents or minimises the antecedently discussed accounting mismatch. At initial acknowledgment, the FVO may besides be applied for fiscal liabilities[ 26 ]( IASB, 2009e ) . Furthermore, the new criterion would besides let entities to mensurate fiscal plus at amortised cost should the entity have antecedently sold other assets measured at amortised cost before adulthood. This would extinguish the tainting regulation which forced entities to reclassify an plus at its FV through net income or loss that was antecedently classified as HtM in instance more than an undistinguished sum of the fiscal plus was sold prior to adulthood ( IASB, 2009b ) . Nevertheless an entity would be required to individually present additions or losingss from derecognition of fiscal assets or liabilities measured at amortised cost in OCI. A reclassification would in rule non be allowed in the new IFRS 9 ( IASB, 2009b ) . This has upset many critics, peculiarly from the fiscal industry. They fear that the riddance of recycling through net income or loss would non let them to demo impairment additions from FV alterations in net income or loss which would be prevented should recycling at derecognition be allowed ( European Banking Federation ( EBF ) , 2009 ) . Harmonizing to the IASB, recycling, nevertheless, remains prohibited as this would ask an damage method in the criterion, therefore increasing the criterions complexness. It would, however, be required should an entity alteration its concern theoretical account and aims in a manner that has important impact on the entity ‘s operation and is incontrovertible to external parties[ 27 ]( IASB, 2009c ) . Although a alteration of IAS 39 ‘s reclassification ordinances is sought after, many critics would prefer a reclassification directive that defines its attack along direction ‘s purpose for the FI ‘s usage ( GASB, 2009a ) . On the other manus, other voices have been raised, naming for a rigorous reclassification directive based on an entity ‘s concern theoretical account ( No writer, 2009 ) .
3.2 Measurement Approach
In general, a new criterion would necessitate all investings in equity instruments to be measured at FV with additions and losingss on damage to be recognised through net income or loss. However, there are some exclusions: an entity would non be allowed on initial acknowledgment to take to show all FV alterations from an investing in equity investing that is non held for trading to be recognised in OCI ( IASB, 2009d ) , whereby the one time chosen manner is irrevocably fixed for the investing ‘s life rhythm[ 28 ]. In contrast to the in the ED/2009/7 specified determination, in the new IFRS 9 dividends on such investings that were booked in OCI, would be recognised through net income or loss[ 29 ]( IASB, 2009c ) . Should there non be a quotation mark on any active market for an equity instrument or in instance that for a related derivate a value can non be faithfully measured, the instrument would still hold to be measured at FV[ 30 ]. However, the standard compositor acknowledges that amortised cost may expose an appropriate estimation of FV under limited conditions ( IASB, 2009f ) . Previously, fiscal assets were ab initio valued at FV including dealing cost ( IASB, 2009e ) . The directives in IAS 39 refering damages of fiscal assets and hedge accounting remain applicable ( IASB, 2009g ) as they will be dealt with at a ulterior phase ( IASB, 2009j ) .
The IASB has besides suggested that fiscal assets be merely measured along the two classs FV or amortised cost ( IASB, 2009b ) . This was chosen in order to guarantee a more enlightening and comparable presentation of fiscal assets for investors. Users of fiscal statements have frequently criticised the broad assortment in different measuring classs, reasoning it would perplex reading of presented consequences. Yet, in the new IFRS 9 many critics fear that due to the revised criterion a greater or smaller portion of fiscal assets would necessitate to be measured at FV than was antecedently required by IAS 39. However, if an entity should hold to use FV to more or fewer fiscal assets of a portfolio depends on the type of concern theoretical account and FI ( IASB, 2009c ) . Many experts fear that such accounting would ensue in a lower engagement in equity instruments but favour fixed income investings as these would, unlike equity instruments, by and large be recognised at amortised cost ( Gilgenberg, 2009 ) . Insurance companies[ 31 ]would henceforward hold to recognize more assets at amortised cost, as they can recognize FIs at amortised cost that were antecedently categorised in AfS[ 32 ]( Zapp, 2009 ) . Consequently, insurance companies can avoid damages on their equity retentions that are non HfT which would conserve their equity ratio. On the other manus, others claim, the revised criterion would back up a higher equity ratio in portfolios, peculiarly in those from insurance companies ( Borsen-Zeitung, 2009a ) . These contrary places highlight the great uncertainness and diverging sentiments attached to this topic. Therefore, critics and regulators have besides criticised that there would hold to be more clip for the alteration of the criterion in order to to the full grok possible impacts ( Borsen-Zeitung, 2009b ) . Overall it can be expected that the more hazard an entity attributes to its fiscal assets in footings of assets available for sale or held for trading intents, the more assets will probably be measured at FV ( i.e. an instrument ‘s hazard normally exalts with the nature of the instrument ; the more equity oriented, the more hazardous is the plus ( Post, Grundl, Schmidt, & A ; Dorfman, 2007 ) . Therefore, instruments with basic loan characteristics ( therefore less hazard ) would be measured at amortised cost ) . However, limitations that existed antecedently in IAS 39 for some HtM investings and available for gross revenues assets that did non let many fiscal assets to be measured at amortised cost[ 33 ]would be eliminated in the new criterion. On the other manus, the IASB proposed demands that if FIs show basic loan characteristics and if they are managed on a contractual output footing, they need to be measured at amortised cost ( see Classification attack ) . Amortised cost in this context should on the one manus provide users of fiscal statements with a more accurate position on the true value of the plus as this measuring reflects the awaited hard currency flows that will ensue from the FI in the hereafter. However, should an instrument be held with the purpose of roll uping hard currency flows through disposal and resulting damage additions, measuring at amortised cost does non truly reflect the assets value[ 34 ]as this would conceal information from fiscal statements ‘ users. Still the measuring conditions had been responded to with general understanding ( EFRAG, 2009a ) .
Despite this, the antecedently in the ED/2009/7 published version caused a moving ridge of critics, sketching that descriptions in the bill of exchange had non been sufficiently clear ( GASB, 2009a ) . Furthermore, contractual hard currency flow features of a fiscal plus service as of import factors for the finding of amortised cost as a dependable information supplier for foretelling likely hereafter hard currency flows[ 35 ]. Nonetheless, measuring at amortised cost might non feasible for instruments: without initial cost, with a broad scope of possible hard currency flow results, or without contractual hard currency flows[ 36 ]. Henceforth, the new criterion would place the acknowledgment under the concern theoretical account status prior to the appraisal of the contract type[ 37 ]which should be easier as nut entity merely needs to measure the contractual footings of the subset those assets that are managed under the contractual hard currency flow footing ( IASB, 2009f ) . Consequently, in the new IFRS 9, the concern theoretical account is described as the entity ‘s aim to keep fiscal assets for the aggregation of contractual hard currency flows instead than to sell them before contractual adulthood in order to gain FV alterations ( IFRS 9.B4.1 et seq. ) whereby an plus would possess contractual hard currency flow features if it yields a chief sum and involvement with the involvement including consideration for recognition hazard of the instrument and clip value of money.
4. The new IFRS 9
Although the IASB has published IFRS 9 – the criterion to replace IAS 39 ( Fiscal Instruments: Categorization and Measurement ) – on 12 November 2009, a figure of international regulative organic structures have denied credence of the criterion to their by and large accounting rules due to a figure of grounds ( Conseil National de la Comptabilite , 2009 ) . Still there are besides a figure of establishments who do either non take place ( Institut der Wirtschaftsprufer, 2009 ) , or actively advance the development of IFRS 9 into a piece of European legislative assembly which is prevalent in German regulative circles ( GASB, 2009b ) . In the followers, IFRS 9 shall be briefly outlined with respect to its predecessor directive IAS 39.
Overall IFRS 9 Classification and Measurement contains the following major alterations:
Categorization and measuring classs have been reduced to merely two
The tainting regulation has been abolished
Fiscal plus host contracts with embedded derived functions do non hold to be separated
Damage steps have been summarised under one individual method for all fiscal assets[ 38 ]
The aforesaid alterations apply for accounting of fiscal assets – excepting fiscal liabilities from IFRS 9 so far. The new criterion besides provides directives on the method of application for measuring at amortised cost ( IFRS 9.B4.1 et seq. ) . However, the IFRS 9 besides requires profound analysis of investings in contractually linked instruments that consequence concentrations of recognition hazard[ 39 ]( IFRS 9.B4.17 ) . In future ( Unless a FVO is chosen ) , fiscal assets that were acquired on a secondary market or nonprescription ( OTC ) need be measured at amortised cost, should the instrument be managed within an entity ‘s concern theoretical account with an aim to roll up contractual hard currency flows, and should the plus merely have contractual hard currency flows[ 40 ]( IFRS 9.B5.12 ) .
When exposing additions or losingss on equity instruments from alterations in FV, an entity can no longer present all damages in OCI but will prospectively be required to recognize dividends through net income or loss[ 41 ]. Reclassifications from amortised cost to FV accounting or frailty versa will merely be allowed if an entity should alter its concern theoretical account ( IFRS 9.4.9 ) . However, since an entity can hold different concern theoretical accounts for different portfolios, the new IFRS 9 could besides ease FIs recognised at amortised cost in a portfolio held to roll up contractual hard currency flows to prosecute in an infrequent trading activity ( IFRS 9.B4.3 ) . Some argue that this would be tailored to fiscal establishments that seek to avoid FV accounting for their places which would ensue in flightiness ( Gillard & A ; Kathri, 2009 ) . IFRS 9 besides does non include fiscal liabilities which harmonizing to the IASB will follow in the close hereafter ( IASB, 2009h ) . Figure 4 illustrates the finding procedure of fiscal assets under new IFRS 9.
Figure 4: Measurement of Fiscal Instruments under IFRS 9[ 42 ]
In the terminal, the inquiry needs to be addressed whether the IASB has achieved in making a new criterion that is simpler and more practical for fiscal statements ‘ users. As it was pointed out in the paper, the IASB has initiated an unprecedented unfastened treatment about the hereafter accounting rule for FIs.
The new criterion has managed to let for a simpler application as it has significantly reduced the figure of regulations. However, simplification comes at a cost for the users of fiscal statements. With the revised IAS 39, some countries such as embedded derivative accounting have been simplified well which has the consequence that antecedently detailed ordinance has been replaced by a really general criterion. This leads to a loss of elaborate and exception-friendly criterions in favor of a general criterion that is, nevertheless, easy to understand, use and construe. In this regard, the IASB has fulfilled its purpose to cut down complexness in accounting. On the other manus, by restricting categorization classs to merely two options from antecedently four, an entity ‘s concern theoretical account and the contractual footings of the instrument with the concern theoretical account holding been given primacy, the IASB has besides succeeded to accomplish simplification in FI categorization.
However, simplification has resulted in the loss of the class AfS which cause peculiar discontent with insurance companies and other investing houses. The focal point on direction purpose has however shown failings as this might be capable to arbitrariness once more as direction can declare different concern theoretical accounts for different portfolios and reclassify by altering the theoretical account when market development does non favor acknowledgment at FV. On the other manus, the keeping of the FVO provinces clear focal point on transparence to investors – another purpose of the IASB. In amount, this has hence besides helped to accomplish the IASB ‘s purpose.
Borsen-Zeitung. ( 5. November 2009a ) . “ IFRS 9 ware intestine fur die Versicherer ” . Borsen-Zeitung ( 213 ) , S. 5.
Borsen-Zeitung. ( 13. November 2009b ) . EU-Staaten ernten Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kehrtwende Applaus. Borsen-Zeitung ( 219 ) , S. 5.
Committee on Capital Markets Regulation. ( May 2009 ) . THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS. A Plan for Regulative Reform.
Conseil National de la Comptabilite . ( 10. November 2009 ) . Rhenium: EFRAG ‘s bill of exchange appraisal of IFRS 9 “ Fiscal Instruments ” . Response missive to the about concluding exposure bill of exchange from 2 November. Paris: Ministere de l’Economie de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi.
EFRAG. ( 12. November 2009b ) . European Financial Reporting Advisory Group ; Press Release IFRS 9 indorsement advice postponed. Abgerufen am 12. November 2009 von EFRAG: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.efrag.org/news/detail.asp? id=468
EFRAG. ( 21. September 2009a ) . European Financial Reporting Advisory Group ; RE: Exposure Draft Financial Instruments: Categorization and Measurement. Letter to the IASB in response to the release of IFRS 9.
European Banking Federation ( EBF ) . ( 27. August 2009 ) . EBF preliminary positions on the IASB ED IAS 39 “ Fiscal Instruments: Categorization and Measurement ” . Brussels.
European Commission Director General. ( 4. November 2009 ) . Capable: Exposure Draft Financial Instruments ( IAS 39 alteration – Phase 1 ) . “ Classification and Measurement ” – Remarks on Near Final Draft. Brussels: European Commission Internal Markets and Service DG.
GASB. ( 11. November 2009b ) . German Accounting Standards Board ; Invitation to notice on EFRAG ‘s bill of exchange indorsement advice and effects study. Letter to the EFRAG about the refusal to back IFRS 9. German capital: German Accounting Standards Board e.V.
GASB. ( 14. September 2009a ) . German Accounting Standards Board ; Response to Exposure Draft ED/2009/7 Financial Instruments: Categorization and Measurement. Letter reacting to the publication of ED/2009/7. Berlin: Accounting Standards Committee of Germany e.V.
Gilgenberg, B. ( 10. October 2009 ) . Bilanzregeln beeinflussen unternehmerisches Handeln. Borsen-Zeitung ( 164 ) , S. 4.
Gillard, G. , & A ; Kathri, G. R. ( 2009 ) . IAS 39 Good Riddance? Accountancy Ireland, 41 ( 5 ) , 28-30.
Group of Twenty ( G20 ) . ( 2. April 2009 ) . The Global Plan for Recovery and Reform. Final Communique of London G20 acme. London.
IASB. ( July 2009d ) . Footing for Conclusions on Exposure Draft Financial Instruments: Categorization and Measurement. Basis for Conclusion ED/2009/7. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( November 2009h ) . Footing for Conclusions on IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. Basis for Conclusion International Financial Reporting Standard. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( November 2009j ) . Exposure Draft Financial Instruments: Amortised Cost and Impairment. ED/2009/12. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( July 2009b ) . Exposure Draft Financial Instruments: Categorization and Measurement. ED/2009/7. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( January 2009e ) . IAS 39 Fiscal Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. London: International Accounting Standards Commitee.
IASB. ( November 2009f ) . IFRS 9 Feedback Statement. Abgerufen am 12. November 2009 von IASB: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/B14E20DF-FD9F-494E-9189-792D1281E7D6/0/FeedbackStatement2009new.pdf
IASB. ( November 2009c ) . IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. International Financial Reporting Standard. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( November 2009g ) . Response to the European Commission ‘s missive 4 Nov.2009. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
IASB. ( November 2009a ) . Response to the Financial Crisis. Abgerufen am 12. November 2009 von International Accounting Standards Board: hypertext transfer protocol: //iasb.co.uk/
IASB. ( July 2009i ) . Snapshot Fiscal Instruments: Categorization and Measurement. Exposure Draft. London: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation ( IASCF ) .
Institut der Wirtschaftsprufer. ( 18. November 2009 ) . Endorsement von IFRS 9 und Zukunft der internationalen Rechnungs-legung fur kapitalmarktorientierte Unternehmen. Letter to the German Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Scharrenberger. Dusseldorf: Institut der Wirtschaftsprufer in Deutschland e.V.
Khan, U. ( 27. August 2009 ) . Does Fair Value Accounting Contribute to Systemic Risk in the Banking Industry? Working paper series. New York: Columbia Univesity – Accounting, Business Law & A ; Taxation.
No writer. ( 2009 ) . Concerns raised over IAS 39 Financial Instrument alterations. Accountancy, 144 ( 1394 ) , 7.
Post, T. , Grundl, H. , Schmidt, L. , & A ; Dorfman, M. S. ( 2007 ) . Deductions of IFRS for the European Insurance Industry-Insights From Capital Market Theory. Risk Management & A ; Insurance Review, 10 ( 2 ) , 247-265.
Trussel, J. M. , & A ; Rose, L. C. ( 1. June 2009 ) . Fair Value Accounting and the Current Financial Crisis. The CPA Journal.
Wadewitz, S. ( 4. November 2009 ) . “ Den Bedenken Rechnung getragen ” . Borsen-Zeitung ( 212 ) , S. 4.
Zapp, P. ( 19. September 2009 ) . Die unendliche Geschichte diethylstilbestrols IAS 39 wird fortgeschrieben. Borsen-Zeitung ( 180 ) , S. 4.
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Trade Date and Settlement Date Accounting VI
Figure 2: Measurement of Financial Assets under IAS 39 VII
Figure 3: Reclassification Requirements under IAS 39 Ten
Figure 4: Measurement of Fiscal Instruments under IFRS 9 Seventeen