DOCSLIB.ORG

Offsetting Under US GAAP and IFRS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Offsetting Under US GAAP and IFRS Netting and Offsetting: Reporting derivatives under U.S. GAAP and under IFRS May 2012 The paper is intended to give the reader an insight into the different offsetting requirements under IFRS and U.S. GAAP and their impact on the new Basel III Leverage Ratio. ISDA believes that net presentation, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, provides the most faithful representation of an entity’s financial position, solvency, and its exposure to credit and liquidity risk. Individual derivative transactions that are subject to enforceable master netting agreements should be eligible for netting in the balance sheet on the basis that such financial statement presentation is most faithfully representative of an entity’s resources and claims and provides the most useful information for investment decisions. For further information, contact: Antonio Corbi [email protected] ©2012 International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 2 Authorship: The author of this paper is Antonio Corbi, B.Sc. (Econ), M.Sc. (Econ), FCCA, MCSI, ISDA’s Assistant Director, Tax and Accounting. He would like to thank the following for their contributions: Tom Wise and Dan Palomaki, co-chairs of ISDA’s European and North America accounting policy committees; Peter Sime, ISDA’s Head of Risk and Research; and Matthew Cary Esposito, member of ISDA’s North America accounting policy committee. Abbreviations: CCP Central Counterparty CDS Credit Default Swap BCBS Basel Committee on Banking Supervision BoE Bank of England FASB Financial Accounting Standards Board FPC Financial Policy Committee FSB Financial Stability Board FX Foreign Exchange G20 The Group of Twenty1 GNFV Gross Negative Fair Value GPFV Gross Positive Fair Value IASB International Accounting Standards Board IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards MNA Master Netting Agreement NCCE Net Current Credit Exposure OCC United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTC Over-the-Counter Repo Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase transactions The Boards The Board of the IASB and the Board of the FASB U.S. GAAP U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles VaR Value at Risk 1 The G20 is the international economic forum, which includes 19 country members and the European Union, that represents around 90 per cent of global GDP, 80 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the world’s population. Netting and Offsetting: Reporting derivatives under U.S. GAAP and under IFRS May 2012 3 Table of Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 4 Background ............................................................................................................................... 6 1) Reporting ‘net’ vs. ‘gross’ .................................................................................................. 8 2) Fundamental concepts: netting, offsetting and set-off .................................................. 9 2.1) Set-off ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.2) Netting ............................................................................................................................. 10 2.3) Offsetting ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.4) A risk management tool ................................................................................................. 13 2.5) Existing offsetting models ............................................................................................. 13 3) Why are derivatives different? ........................................................................................ 14 4) How derivatives are managed .......................................................................................... 15 4.1) Main characteristics ....................................................................................................... 15 4.2) Portfolio management .................................................................................................... 17 4.3) Cash flows ...................................................................................................................... 17 5) The efficacy of netting and collateral as risk mitigation techniques.......................... 19 5.1) Systemic Risk ................................................................................................................. 19 5.2) Volatility ......................................................................................................................... 20 5.3) Liquidity and collateral .................................................................................................. 21 6) Two different accounting models ................................................................................... 22 6.1) Scope ............................................................................................................................... 22 6.2) The IFRS offsetting model ............................................................................................ 23 6.3) The U.S. GAAP offsetting model ................................................................................. 25 6.4) Differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP ................................................................. 26 6.5) Specific application guidance ........................................................................................ 28 6.6) Advantages and disadvantages ...................................................................................... 29 7) Common offsetting disclosures ....................................................................................... 30 7.1) Scope ............................................................................................................................... 31 7.2) Disclosures ...................................................................................................................... 31 8) Un-weighted leverage ratio .............................................................................................. 32 ANNEX .................................................................................................................................... 34 Netting and Offsetting: Reporting derivatives under U.S. GAAP and under IFRS May 2012 4 Executive summary Historically, the Europe-based International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has permitted significantly less balance sheet offsetting than the U.S.-based Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). This paper sets out the key differences between these approaches and explains the reasoning that leads to the current position. The terms of netting, offsetting and set-off are often used to express the same notion but they are very different concepts. A better understanding of the terminology and the way in which derivatives are traded, managed and settled provides an understanding of why U.S. GAAP accounting standard setters have consistently agreed to reporting derivatives net rather than gross on the balance sheet and why this differs from reporting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The paper covers the following topics: • Why is netting/offsetting an issue? • Differences between securities, loans, receivables and derivatives • Portfolio management • The Interest Rate Swap and Credit Default Swap markets • The efficacy of netting and collateral as risk mitigation techniques • The offsetting rules under U.S. GAAP and IFRS • Criteria for derivatives and repo markets • New offsetting disclosures • The new Basel III Leverage Ratio The paper is intended to give the reader an insight into the different offsetting requirements under IFRS and U.S. GAAP and their impact on liquidity, collateral and the new Basel III Leverage Ratio. The paper articulates the reasons ISDA favours reporting derivatives ‘net’ instead of ‘gross’ on the face of the balance sheet. ISDA believes that net presentation, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, provides the most faithful representation of an entity’s financial position, solvency, and its exposure to credit and liquidity risk. Individual derivative transactions that are subject to enforceable master netting agreements should be eligible for netting in the balance sheet on the basis that such financial statement presentation is most faithfully representative of an entity’s resources and claims and provides the most useful information for investment decisions. The basis for our view is that, upon termination of transactions subject to a master netting arrangement, the individual derivative receivables do not represent resources to which general creditors have rights and individual derivative payables do not represent claims that are pari- passu to the claims of general creditors. Upon termination of a contract by the nondefaulting party, derivative asset “resources” are unavailable to satisfy other claims; further, the net termination amount (including the collateral amounts) under the Close Out Netting provisions Netting and Offsetting: Reporting derivatives under U.S. GAAP and under IFRS May 2012 5 of the ISDA Master Agreement is not subject to stay under bankruptcy laws which govern the most significant capital markets, unlike other claims. Accordingly, we believe that the current U.S. GAAP principles are superior. The paper is recommended for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the practical application of the offsetting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Conflict of Laws Approach Annelise Riles* American International Group
    Managing Regulatory Arbitrage: A Conflict of Laws Approach Annelise Riles* American International Group (AIG). The very name of this multinational insurance company screams out its U.S. connections.1 Yet in 2008, when London traders, within an office of a subsidiary of AIG,2 engaged in trading activities that ultimately drove the parent company to the brink of failure,2 the trading conduct in question was largely beyond the reach of U.S. insurance and finance regulators,3 leaving American taxpayers on the hook for $182 billion.4 * This article was first conceived while I served as a visiting scholar from abroad at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, and I thank my hosts there for their many helpful suggestions. For discussions and comments and that substantially improved the piece, I thank Adeno Addis, Minoru Aosaki, Hannah Buxbaum, Michael Campbell, Martin Davies, Masato Dogauchi, Adam Feibelman, Anna Gelpern, Odette Lineau, Ralf Michaels, Hirokazu Miyazaki, Martha Poon, Shu-Yi Oei, and audiences at the Duke Law School (November 2012), the Cornell International Law Journal symposium (March, 2013), the Tulane Law School (January 2014), and the New York University Law School (February 2014). I thank Diana Biller for her research assistance. 1 AIG is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York. DEL. INS. DEP’T, REPORT ON EXAMINATION OF AIG INSURANCE COMPANY 7 (2006), available at http://delawareinsurance.gov/departments/berg/ExamReports/AIGLIFE2006web.pdf; Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., State of Delaware Secretary of State (July 13, 2011), available at http://www.aig.com/Chartis/internet/US/en/CertificateofIncorporation_tcm3171-440365.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised and Restated Memorandum of Law for the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc
    REVISED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SWAPS AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. Validity and Enforceability under Korean Law of Collateral Arrangements under the ISDA Credit Support Documents September 19, 2016 VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY UNDER KOREAN LAW OF COLLATERAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE ISDA CREDIT SUPPORT DOCUMENTS This revised and restated memorandum of law discusses the validity and enforceability under the laws of the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) of margin or collateral arrangements entered into in connection with a master agreement (a “Master Agreement”)1 published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) under one of the following standard form documents published by ISDA: 1. the 1994 ISDA Credit Support Annex governed by New York law (the “1994 NY Annex”); 2. the 1995 ISDA Credit Support Deed governed by English law (the “1995 Deed” and, together with the NY Annex, the “Security Documents”); 3. the 1995 ISDA Credit Support Annex governed by English law (the “1995 Transfer Annex”); and 4. the ISDA Credit Support Annex governed by Korean law (the “Korean Annex” and, together with the Security Documents and the Transfer Annex, the “Credit Support Documents”). In this memorandum: (a) in relation to the Security Documents and the Korean Annex, the term “Security Collateral Provider” shall refer to the Pledgor (under the 1994 NY Annex), the Chargor (under the 1995 Deed) or the Collateral Provider (under the Korean Annex where Pledging Collateral is delivered), as context requires; and (b) “Collateral Provider” means the Security Collateral Provider under a Security Document or the Korean Annex or the Transferor under a Transfer Annex or the Korean Annex (where Lending Collateral is transferred), according to context, in relation to which “Collateral Taker” means the Secured Party or the Transferee, as the case may be.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Derivatives in the Financial Crisis
    The Role of Derivatives in the Financial Crisis Testimony of Michael Greenberger Law School Professor University of Maryland School of Law Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Hearing Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 538 Washington DC Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 9am EDT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 The History of Derivatives and Derivatives Market Regulation .......................................... 1 The Early Derivatives Market .......................................................................................... 1 The Origins and Purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act ........................................... 1 The Nature of Futures Contracts ..................................................................................... 2 The Contours of the Exchange Trading Requirement...................................................... 2 The Development and Characteristics of Swaps ............................................................. 3 Swaps and the CEA‟s Exchange Trading Requirement ................................................... 4 The Standardization of Swaps Through the ISDA Master Agreement ............................. 5 The CFTC‟s May 1998 Concept Release ......................................................................... 5 Pre-1998
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT ISDA 2002 MASTER AGREEMENT (FRENCH LAW) Haut Comité Juridique De La Place Financière De Paris
    REPORT ISDA 2002 MASTER AGREEMENT (FRENCH LAW) Haut Comité Juridique de la Place Financière de Paris 5 November 2020 9 rue de Valois 75001 Paris - Tél.: 33 (0)1 42 92 20 00 - [email protected] - www.hcjp.fr TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................4 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................10 I. Legal environment of the French Law Master Agreement .........................................................15 1.1 - General law ...................................................................................................................................15 1.1.1 - Advantages of civil law; a codified and readable law ....................................................15 1.1.2 - Qualities of French contract law: contractual freedom and security ..........................16 1.2 - Special banking and financial law ..............................................................................................17 II. Qualifications frequently expressed against the use of French Law in financial transactions ..........................................................................................................................................21 2.1 - Implementing the French
    [Show full text]
  • The Post-Crisis Corporate CDS Market Nina Boyarchenko, Anna M
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW The Long and Short EPR of It: The Post-Crisis Corporate CDS Market Nina Boyarchenko, Anna M. Costello, and Or Shachar Volume 26, Number 3 June 2020 The Long and Short of It: The Post-Crisis Corporate CDS Market Nina Boyarchenko, Anna M. Costello, and Or Shachar OVERVIEW he credit default swap (CDS) market, which became • Regulatory changes altered Tnotorious in the wake of the 2007–09 financial crisis, is the structure of the credit the third biggest over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market default swap (CDS) market in the world, with $8 trillion notional value outstanding as following the 2007-09 financial of June 2018 (BIS 2018). Because of the importance of this crisis, with regulatory-imposed reporting requirements market to the world financial system, sweeping regulatory increasing visibility into this changes—meant to address fragilities uncovered during the once opaque market. crisis—were implemented globally in the years following the • The authors use the resulting crisis. These new regulations changed the market’s structure granular supervisory data to and also, through extensive data collection requirements, examine the CDS market and allowed greater visibility into the previously opaque present stylized facts on its bilateral OTC market. In this article, we exploit granular post-crisis evolution across supervisory data to study the properties of exposures types of contracts, counter- parties, and risk exposures. taken through the CDS market to corporate reference They also study institutions’ entities in the United States and Europe, including which choices on whether to partici- institutions use these contracts, what kinds of exposures pate in the four most common they take, when they take them, and what factors influence CDS products.
    [Show full text]