Comment letter on Round-table discussions

Erleenlewis

Description

NJO=açêëÉí=oáëÉ= qÉä=HQQ=EMF=OM=TSVQ=USQM= =içåÇçå= c~ñ=HQQ=EMF=OM=TPNN=PPNN= =b`Qv=Ubk= au=PUMRM=_ä~ÅâÑêá~êë= =råáíÉÇ=háåÖÇçã= = ==== Sir David Tweedie Chairman Your ref International Accounting Standards Board 30 Cannon Street Our ref th London EC4M 6XH Contact Terry Harding 020 7694 8640 17 March 2003 IAS 32/39 Round Tables Many thanks for the opportunity to attend the Round Tables last week. We appreciate the time and effort that the Board and the Staff spent in preparing for the Round Tables and in listening to respondents’ views. Having observed a number of the sessions, I thought it might be helpful to set out a number of suggested amendments in the area of hedge accounting that we did not have time to explore fully at our session last week and that were not covered in our comment letter. We believe these may go some way to striking a balance that eases the implementation difficulties for banks and corporates without compromising the principles in the Standards. Prospective effectiveness assessment The requirement in IAS 39.146, that changes in the fair value or cash flows on the hedged item and the hedging instrument should be expected to ‘almost fully offset’, is regarded by many as unduly restrictive. We note the concerns of both banks and corporates that accounting rules should not drive their economic hedging strategies, and the assertion by banks that their risk management systems should be capable ...

Informations

• Publié par: Immi
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English

Extrait

NJO=açêëÉí=oáëÉ=

qÉä=HQQ=EMF=OM=TSVQ=USQM=

=

içåÇçå=

c~ñ=HQQ=EMF=OM=TPNN=PPNN=

=

b`Qv=Ubk=

au=PUMRM=_ä~ÅâÑêá~êë=

=

råáíÉÇ=háåÖÇçã=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

[[[[

=

=

hmjd=iim=

hmjd=iimI=~=rh=äáãáíÉÇ=äá~Äáäáíó=é~êíåÉêëÜáéI=

áë=~=ãÉãÄÉê=çÑ=hmjd=fåíÉêå~íáçå~äI=

~=pïáëë=åçå=çéÉê~íáåÖ=~ëëçÅá~íáçå=

=

=

oÉÖáëíÉêÉÇ=áå=båÖä~åÇ=kç=l`PMNRQM=

oÉÖáëíÉêÉÇ=çÑÑáÅÉW=

U=p~äáëÄìêó=pèì~êÉI=

içåÇçå=b`Qv=U__=

=

Sir David Tweedie

Chairman

International Accounting Standards Board

30 Cannon Street

London

EC4M 6XH

17 March 2003

Your ref

Our ref th

Contact Terry Harding

020 7694 8640

IAS 32/39 Round Tables

Many thanks for the opportunity to attend the Round Tables last week.

We appreciate the time

and effort that the Board and the Staff spent in preparing for the Round Tables and in listening to

respondents’ views.

Having observed a number of the sessions, I thought it might be helpful to

set out a number of suggested amendments in the area of hedge accounting that we did not have

time to explore fully at our session last week and that were not covered in our comment letter.

We believe these may go some way to striking a balance that eases the implementation

difficulties for banks and corporates without compromising the principles in the Standards.

Prospective effectiveness assessment

The requirement in IAS 39.146, that changes in the fair value or cash flows on the hedged item

and the hedging instrument should be expected to ‘almost fully offset’, is regarded by many as

unduly restrictive.

We note the concerns of both banks and corporates that accounting rules

should not drive their economic hedging strategies, and the assertion by banks that their risk

management systems should be capable of ensuring that ineffectiveness will never exceed

narrow limits.

We understand that the requirement is more restrictive than US GAAP, and we

are not convinced of the rationale for setting a higher hurdle for expected effectiveness than is

required for actual effectiveness.

One suggestion would be to amend paragraph 146 to require

both prospective and retrospective hedge effectiveness to fall within the 80-125% range. The

impact of actual ineffectiveness would, following the Board’s principle, continue to be

recognised in income. Both corporates and banks may find such an amendment helpful in that it

would allow them to align existing effectiveness procedures with those required to qualify for

hedge accounting under IAS 39.

kpmg

hmjd=iim=

IAS 32/39 Round Tables

17 March 2003

th

2

Copyright © 2003 KPMG International, a Swiss nonoperating association.

All rights reserved.

Internal derivatives as hedging instruments

IGC 134-1-b currently permits hedge accounting for foreign exchange risk to be applied at the

subsidiary level, and also on consolidation, without the need for redesignating hedging

relationships for group reporting purposes.

The basis for that conclusion is, essentially, that the

accounting would be the same, whether or not the hedge is redesignated because, in effect, gross

positions within the group offset (hedge) each other on consolidation.

To address the concerns of corporates and financial institutions that sound risk management

should, where appropriate, drive hedge accounting requirements, the Board may wish to consider

an alternative approach.

That is to allow hedge accounting claimed at a subsidiary or divisional

level, using an internal derivative as the hedging instrument, to continue to qualify for hedge

accounting at the group level where it can be demonstrated that the hedged risk has been fully

transferred outside the group through one or more external transactions.

Effectiveness would be

tested at the subsidiary level and ineffectiveness would be recognised in income at that level. An

additional requirement would be that all internal and external derivatives are measured at fair

value using the same sources of fair value data.

Under this approach, a group risk management policy that prevents each subsidiary from

hedging externally, but instead requires the passing of risk to a treasury centre, the netting of

those risks and the external offset of the net risk, is seen as part of a sensible risk/cost

management approach that should not affect the accounting result.

The transfer of risk

externally ‘validates’ the internal hedging relationship, even on consolidation.

We note that both

the approach in IGC 134-1-b and the alternative above are practical accommodations to avoid

the need to duplicate documentation and effectiveness testing requirements.

Conceptually, the

hedge should be redesignated at the group level, even if the result is the same, because the

internal hedging instrument does not exist in the group financial statements. Our suggested

alternative is equally pragmatic but perhaps more consistent with the way that corporates view

and manage the risk, and less reliant on the accounting outcome being the same.

Since this approach does not rely on the idea that a non-derivative qualifies as a hedging

instrument only for foreign exchange risk, the Board might also consider whether it could

usefully be applied in interest rate risk management by financial institutions.

We understand that

the approach in respect of interest rate risk would diverge from US GAAP. However, it would

seem that allowing banks to designate interest rate hedges at the banking book level, then net the

risk centrally before passing it externally, may be part of a solution that would address some of

the concerns expressed. Whether that risk transfer might be achieved through a ring-fenced and

tightly controlled ‘trading desk’ would need to be considered separately.

Hedging components or ingredients of a non-financial asset

IAS 39.129 and 130 require a non-financial item to be designated as a hedged item either in its

entirety (for all risks) or for foreign exchange risk only.

The reason is that changes in the price

of a component or an ingredient of a non-financial asset or liability generally cannot be

kpmg

hmjd=iim=

IAS 32/39 Round Tables

17 March 2003

th

3

Copyright © 2003 KPMG International, a Swiss nonoperating association.

All rights reserved.

measured reliably.

In practice we have seen several cases where it seems prices of components

or ingredients could be measured reliably. For example a standard price for coffee, measurable

from a futures price, could be a component of a contract to purchase coffee in a specified

location.

In the oil industry, we understand that the ‘components’ of an oil price can be

separately and reliably measured.

One suggestion would be to restate paragraphs 129 and 130 in

the form of a principle, that components or ingredients of a non-financial asset or liability should

qualify as a hedged item only when the value of the component can be reliably measured,

possibly by reference to an active market. Again, we note that such an amendment would

diverge from US GAAP.

Matching the critical terms of a hedged item and hedging instrument

Having observed and taken part in the discussions on ‘critical terms’ and ‘portions’ last week,

we continue to believe that both accommodations may be useful. We do not understand why

(accepting that ‘portions’ is a wider accommodation than ‘critical terms’) allowing ‘portions’

means that a ‘critical terms’ exemption should not also be allowed. Although we agree that

matching of critical terms may be difficult and perhaps costly to achieve, it does seem that some

companies would be prepared to incur that cost if it would largely eliminate the requirement to

test for effectiveness.

It therefore seems unduly restrictive to prohibit it. We note that IAS

39.151 seems already to allow an assumption of no ineffectiveness when critical terms are

matched, although IGC 147-1 takes a different view. As a minimum, the apparent inconsistency

should be clarified.

Designating a hedging relationship for part of the life of a derivative

IAS 39.145 prohibits a derivative from being designated as a hedging instrument for part of its

life.

The reason for this is unclear. The requirement can create difficulties in practice, for

example where a derivative matures at the end of the month in which a stream of cash flows is

expected, or where a hedged cash flow takes place earlier than originally expected. We agree

that the timing mis-match will give rise to ineffectiveness, but, once again, the prohibition seems

unduly restrictive.

We hope you find these additional comments helpful, and would ask that you circulate them to

other Board members.

I would be happy to discuss them further if that would be helpful, or

indeed to help in any way I can as the project progresses.

Terry Harding

Partner, KPMG LLP

IAS Advisory Services