In 2017 my
Website was migrated to the clouds and reduced in size.
Hence some links below are broken.
Contact me at
rjensen@trinity.edu if you really need to file that is missing.
Canada Migrated from Canadian
Standards to IFRS standards
Therefor, this document is only for historical study of former Canadian
Standards
Differences Between U.S.
FAS 133 and International IAS 39/IFRS 9 Hedge Accounting Standards
Including Comments on Canadian
Hedge Accounting in Relation to FAS 133 and IAS 39
Bob Jensen at Trinity
University
Sometime around 2010, Canada will cease to have a unique set of
accounting principles which have generally been very close to U.S. GAAP.
Canada will move to international IASB standards now used in Europe and many
other parts of the world. The U.S. is working closely with the IASB toward
the same goal, but in countries like the U.S. and China, the progress will be
much slower until the IASB standards tighten up on various types of contracting.
See
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060111.RGAAP11/BNPri
Differences
(Comparisons) between FAS
133 and IAS 39/IFRS 9 ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/canada.htm
2011 Update
"IFRS and US GAAP: Similarities and Differences" according to PwC
(2011 Edition)
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/issues/ifrs-reporting/publications/ifrs-and-us-gaap-similarities-and-differences.jhtml
Note the Download button!
Note that warnings are given throughout the document that the similarities and
differences mentioned in the booklet are not comprehensive of all similarities
and differences. The document is, however, a valuable addition to students of
FASB versus IASB standard differences and similarities.
It's not easy keeping track of what's changing and
how, but this publication can help. Changes for 2011 include:
- Revised introduction reflecting the current
status, likely next steps, and what companies should be doing now
(see page 2);
- Updated convergence timeline, including
current proposed timing of exposure drafts, deliberations, comment
periods, and final standards
(see page 7);
- More current analysis of the differences
between IFRS and US GAAP -- including an assessment of the impact
embodied within the differences
(starting on page 17); and
- Details incorporating authoritative standards
and interpretive guidance issued through July 31, 2011
(throughout).
This continues to be one of PwC's most-read
publications, and we are confident the 2011 edition will further your
understanding of these issues and potential next steps.
For further exploration of the similarities and
differences between IFRS and US GAAP, please also visit our
IFRS Video Learning Center.
To request a hard copy of this publication, please contact your PwC
engagement team or
contact us.
Jensen Comment
My favorite comparison topics (Derivatives and Hedging) begin on Page 158
The booklet does a good job listing differences but, in my opinion, overly
downplays the importance of these differences. It may well be that IFRS is more
restrictive in some areas and less restrictive in other areas to a fault. This
is one topical area where IFRS becomes much too subjective such that comparisons
of derivatives and hedging activities under IFRS can defeat the main purpose of
"standards." The main purpose of an "accounting standard" is to lead to greater
comparability of inter-company financial statements. Boo on IFRS in this topical
area, especially when it comes to testing hedge effectiveness!
One key quotation is on Page 165
IFRS does not specifically discuss the methodology
of applying a critical-terms match in the level of detail included within
U.S. GAAP.
Then it goes yatta, yatta, yatta.
Jensen Comment
This is so typical of when IFRS fails to present the "same level of detail" and
more importantly fails to provide "implementation guidance" comparable with the
FASB's DIG implementation topics and illustrations.
I have a
huge beef with the lack of illustrations in IFRS versus the many illustrations
in U.S. GAAP.
I have a
huge beef with the lack of illustrations in IFRS versus the many illustrations
in U.S. GAAP.
I have a huge beef with the lack of illustrations in
IFRS versus the many illustrations in U.S. GAAP.
Bob Jensen's threads on accounting standards setting controversies ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Theory01.htm#MethodsForSetting
2010 IASB Exposure Draft
"IASB publishes exposure draft on hedge accounting," IAS Plus,
December 9, 2010 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
The International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB) has published for public comment an exposure draft on the
accounting for hedging activities. The exposure draft proposes requirements
designed to enable companies to better reflect their risk management
activities in their financial statements, and, in turn, help investors to
understand the effect of those activities on future cash flows.
The proposed model is principle-based,
and is designed to more closely align hedge accounting with risk management
activities undertaken by companies when hedging their financial and
non-financial risk exposures.
Summary of the ED proposals
- A new hedge accounting model which
combines a management view that aims to use information produced
internally for risk management purposes and an accounting view
that seeks to address risk management issue of the timing of
recognition of gains and losses
- Look only at whether a risk component
can be identified and measured, as opposed to determining what
can be hedged by type of item (financial or non-financial)
- Base qualification for hedge
accounting on how entities design hedges for risk management
purposes and permit hedging relationships to be adjusted without
necessarily stopping and potentially restarting hedge accounting
- Treat the time value premium of a
purchased option as a cost of hedging, which will be presented
in other comprehensive income (OCI)
- Extending the use of hedge accounting
to net positions (to improve the link to risk management)
- A comprehensive set of new disclosures
that focus on the risks being hedged, how those risks are being
managed and the effect of hedging those risks upon the primary
financial statements
|
The exposure draft forms part of the
IASB’s
overall project to replace IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement, and when its proposals are
confirmed they will be incorporated into
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The exposure
draft does not include consideration of portfolio macro hedge accounting
which the IASB will continue to discuss.
The exposure draft ED/2010/13 Hedge
Accounting is open for comment until 9 March 2011. The IASB intends to
finalise and issue the proposals during the first half of 2011.
Click for:
Jensen Comment
Because preparers and auditors complained over the years about the complexity of
IAS 39, the IASB in this ED mistakenly assumes that doing away with bright lines
in favor of ambiguity reduces complexity. But replacing bright lines with
ambiguity in and of itself creates more rather than less complexity. It is
analogous to replacing a bright line speed sign reading "20 mph maximum" with
"Drive Safely in this School Zone."
For example the ED replaces the bright line 80-125 rule for effectiveness
limits of in offset testing of effectiveness with ambiguity about when a hedge
of a hedged item should be deemed effective. Similarly, IAS 39 was relatively
clear about when portfolios of hedged items could be hedged as a portfolio. The
ED creates a very ambiguous term "Group Hedging" that is both ambiguous and
takes international hedge accounting further and further away from the U.S. FAS
133 standard that allows portfolio or group hedging in under vastly more
limiting and clear cut rules.
Effectiveness testing of purchased options used as hedging instruments is
pretty clear cut under FAS 133 and IAS 39. The new IASB ED complicates
accounting for the time values of options used for hedging purposes. It
introduces the concept of "aligned time value" which will really confuse most
auditors and financial analysts.
The net result will be that two different companies are likely to treat many
hedging contracts differently when applying hedge accounting under the revised
IFRS 9 into which FAS 39 is to be phased into IFRS 9. By introducing greater
ambiguity the price will be that comparability between financial statements of
different companies will be destroyed or highly uncertain.
I repeat that replacing bright lines with ambiguity may actually increase
complexity rather than reduce complexity. The complexity of hedge accounting
essentially arises from the immense complexity and variations of hedge
accounting contracts. IAS 39 was rooted in FAS 133 which I viewed as a good
standard, as amended, that provided more consisted accounting for
derivative financial instruments and hedging activities. The new IAS 39 ED is a
move in the wrong direction from FAS 133.
Greater ambiguity is not the solution to dealing with complexity. Ambiguity
does eliminate the main problems accountants have with derivatives when the main
problems are not really understanding derivatives rather than writing ambiguous
accounting standards for complex derivatives contracts.
January 2010 IFRS Update from Ernst & Young ---
http://commons.aaahq.org/files/7d1fad745e/January_2010_IFRS_outlook.pdf
January 2010 Comparison of US GAAP versus IFRS from Ernst & Young
http://commons.aaahq.org/files/2ddee9578c/IFRS_Basics_Novemberr2009_BB1856.pdf
Bob Jensen's threads on free IFRS learning resources (including real-world
cases) ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory01.htm#IFRSlearning
Differences between FAS 133 and IAS 39
---
http://www.iasplus.com/country/compare.htm
Comparisons
of IFRS with Domestic Standards of Many Nations
http://www.iasplus.com/country/compare.htm
Good News and Bad News: Update on IAS 39 Revisions
I call your attention to the IAS Plus summary of the
Notes from the IASB Special Board Meeting
October 6, 2009 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
The IASB met for a special meeting relating to the IAS 39 replacement
project. Several Board members including the Chairman, FASB members, and
FASB staff joined the meeting via video link.
Many of these items are especially interesting when teaching IFRS, when
teaching contemporary issues in accountancy, and when teaching about accounting
for derivative financial instruments and hedge accounting (although recent
amendments of IAS 39 have taken this famous/infamous and very complicated standard beyond the scope
of the original IAS 39 and the current FAS 133 in the U.S.)
There are various items taken up in the October 6 IASB meeting not discussed
below. Hence if you're interested in the entire meeting go to the IASB Special Board Meeting
summary:
October 6, 2009 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
One significant difference that will arise between IAS 39 and FAS 133 lies in
the IAS decision to end the requirement of bifurcation of host contracts (such
as mortgage loans) from embedded derivatives (such as the embedded option to pay
the loan off before maturity) when the underlying (such as a LIBOR interest
rate) of the host contract is not "clearly and closely related" to the
underlying of the embedded derivative.
Accounting for embedded derivatives
The Board was presented with the alternative to
eliminate bifurcation of embedded derivatives. Several Board members were
concerned that this decision together with the frozen spread approach
adopted for measurement of financial liabilities would lead to hybrid
instruments with a financial liability as a host not to be valued at fair
value. By implication this means that the derivative part of the hybrid
instruments would be valued at the frozen spread approach and not fair
value. The staff defended this position by arguing that the credit
adjustment to the derivative portion of the hybrid contract would not be
significant. One Board member was particularly concerned about the effect of
this decision on convergence – a point reinforced by a FASB member who
expressed his view that such IASB decision would make convergence in this
area next to impossible.
Nonetheless, the Board narrowly approved the
elimination of bifurcation of financial liabilities as well as financial
assets.
The above decision will lead to fewer derivative financial instruments being
booked under FAS 39 relative to what would be booked under FAS 133. It seems to
me to be politically incorrect to bring about such changes at a time when the
SEC is still wavering to eliminate U.S. GAAP in favor of IASB standards.
What the IASB seems to have ignored is the valuation problems created by
unique (customized) instruments that are not traded in the markets. Suppose
Security AB with a "closely related" embedded Option B is Bond A that is
actively traded with the embedded embedded Option B for paying off the debt
before maturity. Early payoff embedded options are extremely common in bonds
that are actively traded in the securities markets. Usually the embedded options
for early payoff are deemed clearly and closely related under IAS 39 rules such
that the embedded Option B previously did not have to be bifurcated and
accounted for separately as a derivative financial instrument. Market values of
Security AB impound both the value of the security and its embedded
(non-bifurcated) option. Until the IASB changed its position on October 6,
however, embedded options that were not clearly and closely related had to be
bifurcated and accounted for separately.
For example, suppose Security ABXY is Security AB plus embedded Options X and
Y that are not "clearly and closely related" in terms of underlyings.
Further assume Options X and Y can be valued in their own options markets. In
other words there are deep and active markets for valuing Security AB, Option X,
and Option Y. There is no deep and active market for the customized Security
ABXY. Security ABXY is a unique, customized security that is not traded in an
active and deep market.
It is highly unlikely that the total value of Security ABXY is the additive
sum of the values of Security AB plus the value of Option X plus the value of
Option Y. These components of Security ABXY are likely to interact such that
valuation of Security ABXY becomes exceedingly difficult if the embedded Options
X and Y are not bifurcated. In terms of FAS 157, it is no longer possible to
apply the sought-after Level 1 valuation for Security ABXY, even though Level 1
can be applied if the embedded Option X and Options Y were bifurcated.
Alas, throughout history accountants have been very good at naively adding up
components of value that are not truly additive. For example, throughout the
history of accounting firms have added up balance sheet asset values and
reported the sum as the total value of Total Assets when the assets have
interactions (covariances) that are totally ignored in the summation process.
Only when buyers and sellers negotiate for the purchase/sale of the entire
bundle (in mergers and acquisitions) do accountants reveal that, in truth, they
understand that the accounting figure for "Total Assets" on the balance sheet is
sheer nonsense.
**********
I was especially intrigued by the following module in the IAS Plus Notes:
Application of cash flow hedge accounting
mechanics to fair value hedges
The Board considered the application of the Board's
September 2009 decision to replace fair value hedge accounting with a
mechanism that permitted recognition outside profit or loss of gains and
losses on financial instruments designated as hedging instruments – that is,
applying the mechanics of cash flow hedge accounting also to fair value
hedges. The major implication would be the application of the so-called
'lower-of test' to fair value hedges. The 'lower-of test', currently applied
to cash flow hedges only, ensures that only ineffectiveness due to excess
cash flows on the hedging instrument (that is, the derivative) is recognised
in profit or loss.
The Board members disagreed with the extension of
the 'lower-of test' to fair value hedges. The Board was concerned that it
was inconsistent with the nature of fair value hedging, could lead to
changes in eligibility of portions, could have unintended consequences in
the area of deliberately under-hedging, and in effect would lead to a
situation that there would be no ineffectiveness in fair value hedges as
such. A FASB member clarified that in the FASB approach to hedge accounting
(given the recent discussions over the issue) the 'lower of test' would not
be applied to fair value hedges.
After a short debate the Board decided by a bare
majority (8 votes) to retain the 'lower-of test' for cash flow hedges only.
A third of the Board members abstained in this vote.
Jensen Comment
Cash flow hedge accounting in FAS 133 and IAS 39 is relatively straight forward
when a derivative financial instrument (e.g., forward contract, futures
contract, swap, or option) is used to hedge cash flow risk in a hedged item
(forecasted transaction or a booked item subject to cash flow risk such as a
variable-rate bond or purchase contract setting the purchase price at an unknown
future spot price or rate).
Cash flow hedge accounting, like foreign exchange hedge accounting, entails
offsetting changes in value of the hedging derivative with a posting to an
equity account (FAS 133 requires posting to OCI). The simplifying feature of
cash flow hedge accounting is that it makes no difference whether the hedged
item is booked (e.g., a bond asset or liability having variable rate revenue) or
unbooked (e.g., a forecasted transaction to buy inventory or to buy/sell
fixed-rate bonds at a future date where the fixed-rate is currently unknown).
The reason cash flow hedging is not affected by a difference between a booked
or unbooked hedged item is that a hedged item subject to cash flow risk has no
future value risk. Consider a variable rate bond having a booked value of
$1,000. There is future cash flow risk, but the future value of the bond will
always be $1,000 assuming no change in credit risk (I am only considering a
hedge of cash flow risk here). Similarly, if Southwest Airlines has a forecasted
transaction to buy a million gallons of jet fuel at spot rates six months from
now, there is no risk that the value on the purchase will differ from the value
of jet fuel on that future date. Value risk arises when the forecasted
transaction is instead a firm commitment to buy at some price other than spot
rates. But if there is a firm commitment price there is no cash flow risk (only
value risk that the purchase price will differ from the spot price on the date
of the purchase).
Fair value hedge accounting is more complicated because it matters greatly
whether the hedged item is booked or not booked. For example, there is no cash
flow risk of booked inventory already bought and paid for in a warehouse. There
is, however, purchase-price value risk that the spot price of that inventory
diverge from the price already paid for the inventory. Companies frequently
hedge the fair value of inventory (although this is not necessarily a hedge of
profit is selling prices are not hedged and only purchase prices are hedged if
purchase and selling prices are not perfectly correlated).
Hedge accounting is not usually allowed (or called for) when hedging a booked
item carried at fair value. In theory the changes in value of the hedged item
should offset the changes in the value of the hedging derivative contract and
any hedging ineffectiveness should be charged to current earnings in any case.
If the hedged item is carried at historical cost, no such offset would arise and
hedge accounting is called for at least to the extent the hedge is effective.
Under FAS 133 and IAS 39, the hedge accounting for such a hedged item calls for
change the basis of accounting of the hedged item during the hedge accounting
period. Instead of the customary historical cost accounting (say for jet fuel
inventory), the hedge accounting rules call for a change to fair value
accounting of that inventory during the hedging period.
The most confusing part of fair value hedge accounting arises when the hedged
item is not booked. For example, purchase contracts are typically not booked in
accounting (never have been and hopefully never will be). For example, if
Southwest Airlines signs a firm commitment to buy jet fuel six months from now
at $2.89 per gallon the firm commitment is not booked. There is no cash flow
risk since the purchase price is fixed. There is value risk, however, that the
spot price in six months will be higher or lower than the $2.89 purchase
(forward, strike) price.
Now the accounting becomes complicated because there is no booked hedged item
value to be offset by a change in the booked hedging derivative change in value.
Fair value hedge accounting of unbooked hedged items calls for changes in the
value of the booked hedging contract to be offset by a posting to an equity
account. In FAS 133 the FASB recommends a badly-named equity account called Firm
Commitment. For example, to see how this works
03forfut.pps slide show file listed at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Calgary/CD/JensenPowerPoint/
The above slide show compares cash flow hedging versus fair value hedging of
booked items versus fair value hedging of unbooked (forecasted transaction)
hedged items.
Above I said that the "Firm Commitment" equity account called for in FAS 133
is badly named because changes in the value of fair value hedging contracts are
not firm commitments (although they may hedge a firm commitment unbooked hedged
item). I would've preferred some other name like "unrealized change in fair
value hedging contracts" as an equity account.
Now the debate centers on whether the "Firm Commitment" equity account used
for fair value hedge accounting of unbooked hedged items is tantamount to the "OCI"
equity account used for booked and unbooked cash flow and FX hedge accounting?
Firstly, there is a difference since fair value hedges to not impact any
equity account if the hedged items are booked and carried at fair value
themselves. Fair value hedges of unbooked items create the special and confusing
aspect of hedge accounting relief for fair value hedging.
What the IASB is currently debating with respect to amending IAS 39 is
whether hedge accounting would be greatly simplified by always offsetting
changes in hedge contact fair value to OCI (by whatever name) to the extent the
hedge is effective. Presumably the changes in the value of a booked hedged item
would also be charged to OCI (e.g., like available for sale investment changes
in value are currently accounted for under the amended FAS 115/130). Such
accounting could apply equally to cash flow, fair value, and FX hedges.
If the above simplification sounds to ideal, what is holding it up? Why did
the IASB turn down this simplification in the October 6, 2009 special board
meeting?
The reasoning of the IASB on October 6 seems to have been that the proposed
"simplification" of fair value hedge accounting is would not leave any hedge
ineffectiveness to be charged to current earnings for some fair value hedges
whereas all hedge ineffectiveness of cash flow and FX hedges is charged to
current earnings.
Hedges are often not fully effective at interim points in time. Options as
hedging derivatives, for example, are notoriously ineffective as hedges and
seldom meet the "80-125 percent test" of hedge effectiveness specified in
Paragraph BC 106 of IAS 39. One reason is that speculators are more often more
dominant in options trading markets vis-a-vis commodities markets themselves.
Option values are divided into two components --- time value plus intrinsic
value (equal the amount by which an option is in-the-money). Interim changes
(before option expiration) in total option hedging value seldom satisfy the
"80-125 percent test" or hedge effectiveness. It is common in hedge accounting
under FAS 133 and IAS 39 rules to charge all changes in an option's time value
to current earnings and only allow hedge accounting relief to changes in
intrinsic value (which are zero until if and when the option is in-the-money).
It would be a sorry state of affairs if the IASB had essentially voted for
hedge ineffectiveness to be ignored for fair value hedging. This would be
entirely inconsistent with hedge accounting for cash flow and FX hedges where
both FAS 133 ahd IAS 39 require that hedge ineffectiveness be posted to current
earnings. This is also required at present for fair value hedge ineffectiveness.
How sad it would be if the IASB voted in a huge inconsistency for treating hedge
ineffectiveness for fair value hedging relative to cash flow and FX hedge
accounting.
Whew! That was a close one that came within eight votes, at the IASB special
meeting on October 6, of injecting a huge inconsistency between fair value
hedging versus cash flow and FX hedge accounting. If the proposed amendment had
passed it would greatly simplify the accounting at the expense of greatly
complicating financial statement analysis.
For added illustrations go to
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/CaseAmendment.htm
My PowerPoint shows, examination materials, and free tutorials are at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Calgary/CD/
My overall links to FAS 133 and IAS 39 free tutorials are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
Question
Should international accountants learn more about FAS 133 on accounting for
derivative financial instruments?
Bob Jensen's Answer
My answer is most certainly yes even when IAS 39 is to be applied as a standard
outside the United States. I like to commence my foreign workshops on this by
making a case that it is important to learn many parts of FAS 133. The problem
with IAS 39 is that, like most IFRS, it is “principles-based” and does not
address many complicated contracts encountered by auditors in practice. When the
literature is silent about how to treat many of these contracts, the auditors
must be highly trained experts to reason down from a “principles-based” standard
that is silent as to the type of contract encountered.
One source to turn to in such instances is FAS 133. FAS 133 and the
accompanying DIG guidelines discuss many of these difficult contracts not
addressed in IAS 39. Hence it advised that auditors turn to FAS 133 to find out
what accounting treatment is recommended and then reason out whether this is
consistent with the general “principles” in IAS 39.
My point here that the short listing of differences between the two standards
really overlooks the underlying problem that there are a huge number of
unmentioned differences due to the silence of IAS 39 on thousands of types of
contracts covered in FAS 133 and the DIG pronouncements.
This is why most international auditors end up having to use FAS 133 as a
reference when applying IAS 39 as a standard. I will point out the major
differences between IAS 39 and FAS 133 as I go along, but I will also ask the
audience to consider the many instances where IAS 39 just does not do the job,
especially in the DIG pronouncements that you will find in back of the green
book that I brought you last year.
In summary, my workshop approach is mainly to focus on illustrations and then
point out where IAS 39 departs from FAS 133.
You can read more about FAS 133 (in black), IAS 39 (in green), and DIG
pronouncements (in red) at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm
My tutorials are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
My updated workshop multimedia CD, that includes PowerPoint files, that is
handed out at my workshops can be found at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Trinidad/CD/
I might add that U.S. GAAP in general is useful to international auditors
since IFRS in general still lacks the specificity of dealing with contracts
encountered worldwide. U.S. GAAP is most certainly not appropriate in all
international situations, but when IFRS is totally silent about a particular
contract encountered in practice, U.S. GAAP may at least have a recommended
treatment for such a contract. It is then up to the international
accountant/auditor to then reason out whether the U.S. approach is appropriate
under the IFRS broad principles.
Deloitte provides a very helpful and consistent set of differences between
IFRS and U.S. GAAP. What this listing overlooks is the thousands of situations
where U.S. GAAP considers a particular type of contract about which IFRS is
silent. The DIG pronouncements are excellent examples of such contracts ---
http://www.fasb.org/derivatives/
The Deloitte listing of IFRS vs. GAAP in various nations is at
http://www.iasplus.com/country/compare.htm
This is more up to date than the reference shown below from the FASB.
The non-free FASB comparison study of all standards entitled
The IASC-U.S. Comparison Project: A Report on the Similarities and
Differences between IASC Standards and U.S. GAAP
SECOND EDITION, (October 1999) ---
http://www.fasb.org/intl/iascpg2d.shtml
Of course some of this is now outdated.
Bob Jensen's threads and tutorials on hedge accounting are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
Bob Jensen's glossary on derivative financial instruments and
hedge accounting is at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm
The following Ernst & Young document provides a nice summary of
revisions.
"IAS 32 and IAS 39 Revised: An Overview," Ernst & Young,
February 2004 --- http://www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/International/IAS32-39_Overview_Febr04/$file/IAS32-39_Overview_Febr04.pdf
I shortened the above URL to http://snipurl.com/RevisedIAS32and39
One of the differences that I have to
repeatedly warn my students about is the fact that Other Comprehensive Income (OCI)
is generally converted to current earnings when the derivative hedging contract
is settled on a cash flow hedge (this conversion is usually called basis
adjustment). For example, if I hedge a forecasted purchase of inventory, I will
use OCI during the cash flow hedging period, but when I buy the inventory, IAS
39 says to covert the OCI to current earnings. (Actually, IAS standards do not
admit to an "Other Comprehensive Income" (OCI) account, but they
recommend what is tantamount to using OCI in the equity section of the balance
sheet.)
Under FAS 133, basis adjustment is not
permitted under many circumstances when derivatives are settled. In the example
above, FAS 133 requires that OCI be carried forward after the inventory is
purchased and the derivative is settled. OCI is subsequently converted to
earnings in a piecemeal fashion. For example, if 20% of the inventory is sold,
20% of the OCI balance at the time the derivative is settled is then converted
to current earnings. I call this deferred basis adjustment under FAS 133. This
is also true of a cash flow hedge of AFS investment. OCI is carried forward
until the investment is sold. See "Basis Adjustment" at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm#B-Terms
Initially, it portfolio (macro) hedges were not afforded any
hedge accounting relief unless the portfolios were completely homogeneous with
respect to each item in a portfolio. In practice, the result was to
virtually not allow hedge accounting on macro hedges. Although the
International Accounting Standards Board is close to a revision that will allow
limited macro hedging (mostly for banks) under IAS 39, the macro hedging dispute
between companies and standard setters is unresolved. See "Macro
Hedge" at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm#M-Terms
The Delotte listing of IFRS vs. GAAP in various nations is
at
http://www.iasplus.com/country/compare.htm
This is more up to date than the reference shown below from the FASB.
The non-free FASB comparison study of all standards entitled The IASC-U.S.
Comparison Project: A Report on the Similarities and Differences between IASC
Standards and U.S. GAAP
SECOND EDITION, (October 1999) at http://www.fasb.org/intl/iascpg2d.shtml
In 1999 the Joint Working Group of the Banking
Associations sharply rebuffed the IAS 39 fair value accounting in two white
papers that can be downloaded from http://www.iasc.org.uk/frame/cen3_112.htm.
Also see the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
and the International Federation of Accountants Committee (IFAC).
Side by Side: IAS 39 Compared with FASB Standards (FAS 133), by Paul Pacter,
as published in Accountancy International Magazine, June 1999 --- http://www.iasc.org.uk/news/cen8_142.htm
Also note "Comparisons of International IAS Versus FASB Standards" ---
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/pocketiasus.pdf
I.
Key Differences Between IAS 39 Versus FAS 133
A.
Some Key Differences That Remain
Definitions of derivatives
- IAS 39: Does
not define “net settlement” as being
required to be scoped into IAS 39 as a
derivative such as when interest rate swap
payments and receipts are not net settled
into a single payment.
- FAS 133: Net
settlement is an explicit requirement to be
scoped into FAS 133 as a derivative
financial instrument.
- Implications:
This is not a major difference since IAS 39
scoped out most of what is not net settled
such as Normal Purchases and Normal Sales (NPNS)
and other instances where physical delivery
transpires in commodities rather than cash
settlements.
Offsetting amounts due from and owed to
two different parties
- IAS 39:
Required if legal right of set-off and
intent to settle net.
- FAS 133:
Prohibited.
Multiple embedded derivatives in a single
hybrid instrument
- IAS 39:
Sometimes accounted for as separate
derivative contracts
- FAS 133: Always
combined into a single hybrid instrument.
- Implications:
FAS 133 does not allow hybrid instruments to
be hedged items. This restriction can be
overcome in some instances by disaggregating
for implementation of IAS 39.
Subsequent reversal of an impairment loss
- IAS 39:
Previous impairment losses may be reversed
under some circumstances.
- FAS 133:
Reversal is not allowed for HTM and AFS
securities.
- Implications:
The is a less serious difference since Fair
Value Options (FVOs) were adopted by both
the IASB and FASB. Companies can now avoid
HTM and AFS implications by adopting fair
values under the FVO hedged instrument.
Derecognition of financial assets
- IAS 39: It is
possible, under restrictive guidelines, to
derecognise part of an a financial
instrument and no "isolation in bankruptcy"
test is required.
- FAS 133:
Derecognise financial instruments when
transferor has surrendered control in part
or in whole. An isolation bankruptcy test is
required.
- Status: This
inconsistency in the two standards will
probably be resolved in future amendments.
Hedging foreign currency risk in a
held-to-maturity investment
- IAS 39: Can qualify
for hedge accounting for FX risk but not
cash flow or fair value risk.
- FAS 133: Cannot
qualify for hedge accounting.
IAS 39 Hedging foreign currency risk in a
firm commitment to acquire a business in a
business combination
- IAS 39: Can qualify
for hedge accounting.
- FAS 133: Cannot
qualify for hedge accounting.
Assuming perfect effectiveness of a hedge
if critical terms match
- IAS 39: Hedge
effectiveness must always be tested in order
to qualify for hedge accounting.
- FAS 133: The
“Shortcut Method” is allowed for interest
rate swaps.
- Implications:
This is am important difference that will
probably become more political due to
pressures from international bankers.
Use of
"basis adjustment"
-
IAS 39:
Fair value hedge: Basis is adjusted
when the hedge expires or is dedesignated.
Cash flow hedge: Basis is adjusted
when the hedge expires or is dedesignated.
-
FAS 133:
Fair value hedge: Basis is adjusted
when the hedged item is sold or otherwise
utilized in operations such as using raw
material in production (Para 24)
Cash flow hedge of a transaction
resulting in an asset or liability: OCI
or other hedge accounting equity amount
remains in equity and is reclassified into
earnings when the earnings cycle is
completed such as when inventory is sold
rather than purchased or when inventory is
used in the production process. (Para 376)
IAS 39 Macro hedging
- IAS 39: Allows
hedge accounting for portfolios having
assets and/or liabilities with different
maturity dates.
- FAS 133: Hedge
accounting treatment is prohibited for
portfolios that are not homogeneous in
virtually all major respects.
- Implications:
This is pure theory pitched against
practicality, politics, and how industry
hedges portfolios. It is a very sore point
for companies having lots and lots of items
in portfolios that make it impractical to
hedge each item separately.
B.
The Most Important Differences Are the
Unstated and/or Unknown Differences
The most important differences may arise simply
because both IAS 39 and FAS 133 do not provide
bright lines on how to account for a particular
financial contract or hedging contract.
Financial statements may then differ under the
two standards because one company reasoned one
way under IAS 39, whereas a similar contract is
accounted for differently by a company that
reasoned another way under FAS 133.
Similarly FAS 133 has many more bright lines and
other implementation guidance for many more
types of derivative instruments than does IAS
39. When faced with such circumstances, many
companies under IAS 39 will turn to FAS 133 for
guidance. This lends some consistency when for
some contracts not mentioned in IAS 39 that are
illustrated in IAS 39.
IAS 39 is a clear-cut example of where IFRS
standards tend to be “principles-based” whereas
U.S. GAAP tends to be “rules-based” with many
more bright lines that reduce subjective
judgment on how to account for contracts. It’s
outside the scope of this portfolio to discuss
the merits and drawbacks of each foundation upon
which sets of standards rest. Principles-based
standards are a bit like common law where the
courts make laws more rules based as cases are
decided over time. Similarly, standards like IAS
39 become more like “rules-based” standards as
accounting practice becomes filled with
illustrations of how thousands of types of
derivatives contracts are accounted for “by
tradition” when bright lines are not spelled out
in the standards themselves. Already practice
guidance databases such as Comperio
from PricewaterhouseCoopers are filling up with
illustrations of how some types of contracts
have been accounted for that are not mentioned
in IAS 39. Of course in some instances FAS 133
is cited for further guidance.
Since IAS 39 is so much less detailed than FAS
133, its implementation may vary widely in some
nations due to tradition and national laws that
vary between nations. The most obvious instance
is where national laws carve out certain parts
of IAS 39 as happened in two major parts of IAS
39 due to rulings in European law. More common,
however, will be the subtle differences that
arise from prior traditions under previous
national GAAP. For example, if and when IAS 39
replaces FAS 133, U.S. companies may use FAS 133
for guidance that does not exist in IAS 39.
Companies in other nations may prefer not to use
FAS 133 for guidance.
Fair value accounting politics in the revised
IAS 39
From Paul Pacter's IAS Plus on July 13, 2005
---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
-
Why did the Commission
carve out the full fair
value option in the
original IAS 39
standard?
-
Do
prudential supervisors
support IAS 39 FVO as
published by the IASB?
-
When will the Commission
to adopt the amended
standard for the IAS 39
FVO?
-
Will companies be able
to apply the amended
standard for their 2005
financial statements?
-
Does the amended
standard for IAS 39 FVO
meet the EU endorsement
criteria?
-
What about the
relationship between the
fair valuation of own
liabilities under the
amended IAS 39 FVO
standard and under
Article 42(a) of the
Fourth Company Law
Directive?
-
Will the Commission now
propose amending Article
42(a) of the Fourth
Company Directive?
-
What about the remaining
IAS 39 carve-out
relating to certain
hedge accounting
provisions?
|
|
Bob Jensen's threads and tutorials on FAS
133 and IAS 39 are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
IAS 39 Implementation Guidance
IAS 39 Amendments in 2005 ---
http://snipurl.com/IAS39amendments
Side by Side: IAS 39 Compared with FASB Standards (FAS 133), by Paul Pacter,
as published in Accountancy International Magazine, June 1999. He
discusses these at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/pacter.htm
Also note "Comparisons of International IAS Versus FASB Standards" ---
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/pocketiasus.pdf
GAAP Differences in Your
Pocket: IAS and US GAAP
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/pocketiasus.pdf
Topic |
IAS
39 from the IASB |
FAS
133 from the FASB |
Change in value of
non-trading investment |
Recognize either
in net profit or loss or in equity (with recycling).
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments. |
Recognize in
equity (with recycling). |
Accounting for
hedges of a firm commitment |
Cash flow hedge.
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments. |
Fair value hedge. |
Use of
partial-term hedges |
Allowed. |
Prohibited. |
Effect of selling
investments classified as held-to-maturity |
Prohibited from
using held-to- maturity classification for the next two years. |
Prohibited from
using held-to- maturity classification (no two year limit). |
Use of "basis
adjustment" |
Gain/loss on
hedging instrument that had been reported in equity becomes an
adjustment of the carrying amount of the asset.
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments. |
Gain/loss on
hedging instrument that had been reported in equity remains in equity
and is amortized over the same period as the asset. |
Derecognition
of financial assets |
No "isolation
in bankruptcy" test.
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments.
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments. |
Derecognition
prohibited unless the transferred asset is beyond the reach of the
transferor even in bankruptcy. |
Subsequent
reversal of an impairment loss |
Required, if
certain criteria are met
May be changed in IAS 39 Amendments. |
Prohibited. |
Use of
"Qualifying SPEs" |
Prohibited. |
Allowed. |
When seeking out the
Canadian Chartered Accountants rules for accounting for derivative financial
instruments and hedge accounting, a good place to start is the Guideline 13
(AcG-13) on Hedging Relationships from the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants --- http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/17150/la_id/1.htm
Summary of AcSB roundtable
discussions of March 2003 proposals --- http://www.cica.ca/multimedia/Download_Library/Standards/Accounting/English/e_FIRoundtable.pdf
March 2003 Exposure Draft
on Hedges --- http://www.cica.ca/multimedia/Download_Library/Standards/Accounting/English/e_HedgingIG1.pdf
Information Services
Officer
Standards Group
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
277 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H2
Fax: (416) 204-3412
The Accounting
Standards Board proposes, subject to comments received following exposure, to
issue three new Handbook Sections, FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS — RECOGNITION AND
MEASUREMENT, Section 3855, HEDGES, Section 3865, and COMPREHENSIVE INCOME,
Section 1530. These Exposure Drafts should be read in conjunction with the
accompanying Background Information and Basis for Conclusions documents.
The Exposure Drafts:
• specify when a
financial instrument or non-financial derivative is to be recognized on the
balance sheet;
• require a financial instrument or non-financial derivative to be
measured at fair value, amortized cost, or cost;
• establish how gains and losses are to be recognized and presented,
including introducing comprehensive income;
• specify how hedge accounting should be applied;
• establish new disclosures about an entity’s accounting for designated
hedging relationships and the methods and assumptions applied in determining
fair values; and
• modify SURPLUS, Section 3250, to bring it more up to date.
The Exposure Drafts
apply to all entities, including not-for-profit organizations and those
entities qualifying for differential reporting.
Implementation Guide on
Hedging Relationships http://www.cica.ca/multimedia/Download_Library/Standards/Accounting/English/e_HedgingIG1.pdf
February 3, 2004 message
from Don Carter [carter@casb.com]
Hi Bob:
Good to hear from you! I'm glad to see
that you are still sharing your expertise in these complex issues even in
retirement. I wish your presentation was in Vancouver rather than Calgary so
that I could get to visit with you.
How's the new home and how did you
survive the winter, which I hear was somewhat severe in your neck of the woods?
You may have had some moments when you wished you were back in Texas?
We continue with implementation of
improvements to our program as recommended in your review and have just
completed our first offering of three new "focus" modules - one in
Valuation, one in Tax and one in IT (Systems Reliability).
Rather than give you my somewhat
superficial understanding of the differences in hedge accounting rules, I
forwarded your request to a friend at the CICA Accounting Standards Board. I am
forwarding his reply which I hope will give you all the information you require
and it is "right from the horse's mouth".
Warm personal regards,
Don.
Dr. Don Carter, FCA
VP Learning
CA School of Business - Learning Centre
Suite 500, One Bentall Centre
505 Burrard Street, Box 22
Vancouver, BC V7X 1M4
E-mail: carter@casb.com
Website: www.casb.com
The following is a list of a number of
the differences between IAS 39 and FAS 133 - it is not comprehensive. In
addition, please note that the macrohedging proposal is not yet approved by IASB.
Some of these differences have been eliminated in the Canadian material, but not
all. [Comments on the Canadian position are based on the latest AcSB
deliberations - not yet approved, but in some cases different from the March
2003 EDs]
The basic hedge accounting model in IAS
39 is similar to US GAAP, which specifies the same basic types of hedges - fair
value hedges, cash flow hedges and hedges of net investments, and accounts for
them in similar manners. Most of the differences are in the details as to what
qualifies for hedge accounting. The following summarizes some of the most
significant differences.
(a) Non-derivatives may be designated
as hedges of any foreign currency risk in accordance with IAS 39.
Non-derivatives may be designated as hedging instruments only for fair value
hedges of foreign currency risk in unrecognized firm commitments and net
investments in foreign operations in accordance with US GAAP. [Canada as IAS 39]
(b) Hedging of prepayment risk in a
held-to-maturity investment is precluded in accordance with IAS 39. Hedge
accounting is permitted for the overall fair value of a prepayment option in
accordance with US GAAP. [Canada as US]
(c) A portion of an anticipated
transaction may be designated as a hedged item in accordance with IAS 39.
However, US GAAP does not permit such designation. [Canada as IAS 39]
(d) IAS 39 permits hedging of foreign
exchange risk relating to an anticipated business combination. US GAAP does not
permit hedge accounting of foreign exchange risk in these circumstances. [Canada
as IAS 39]
(e) IAS 39 does not permit a
"shortcut" method for assuming no ineffectiveness in certain hedges of
interest rate risk using interest rate swaps, which is available in accordance
with US GAAP. [Canada as US]
(f) The definition of a firm commitment
in IAS 39, while very similar to that in US GAAP is slightly less extensive.
Although the first parts of the definitions are very similar, the FASB
definition adds additional criteria. Therefore, there is a possibility that a
particular circumstance would qualify as a cash flow hedge in accordance with
IAS 39 while qualifying as a fair value hedge in accordance with US GAAP, or
vice versa. [Canada as US]
(g) IAS 39 does not appear to prohibit
designation of an embedded derivative that is clearly and closely related to the
host contract as the hedged item. FASB Statement 133 permits designating an
embedded derivative as the hedged item in a fair value hedge only if it is a put
option, call option, interest rate cap, or interest rate floor embedded in an
existing asset or liability that is not an embedded derivative accounted for
separately. If the entire asset or liability is an instrument with variable cash
flows, FASB Statement 133 expressly prohibits the hedged item from being an
implicit fixed-to-variable swap (or similar instrument) perceived to be embedded
in a host contract with fixed cash flows. This does not create an impediment to
complying with US GAAP, since a company that also wishes to comply with US GAAP
could choose not to designate any such items as hedged items. [Canada as IAS 39]
(h) IAS 39 does not permit a company to
hedge separately changes in the fair value of a recognized loan servicing right
or a non-financial firm commitment with financial components due to interest
rate risk, credit risk or foreign currency risk, because these items are
non-financial in nature. US GAAP specifically permits these exposures to be
hedged notwithstanding their non-financial nature. [Canada as US]
(i) FASB Statement 133 requires
additional disclosures about hedge accounting that are not included in IAS 39.
[Canada as US]