International Accounting Standard 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation (IAS 32) is set out in paragraphs 2–100 and the Appendix. All the paragraphs have equal authority but retain the IASC format of the Standard when it was adopted by the IASB. IAS 32 should be read in the context of its objective and the Basis for Conclusions, the Preface to IFRS Standards and the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors provides a basis for selecting and applying accounting policies in the absence of explicit guidance. [Refer:IAS 8 paragraphs 10–12]
1 | [Deleted] |
2 | The objective of this Standard is to establish principles for presenting financial instruments as liabilities or equity and for offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities. It applies to the classification of financial instruments, from the perspective of the issuer, into financial assets, financial liabilities and equity instruments; the classification of related interest, dividends, losses and gains; and the circumstances in which financial assets and financial liabilities should be offset. |
3 | The principles in this Standard complement the principles for recognising and measuring financial assets and financial liabilities in IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, and for disclosing information about them in IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. |
4 | This Standard shall be applied by all entities to all types of financial instruments except:
|
| E1 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2005, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation—Employee long‑service leave’ The IFRIC considered whether a liability for long‑service leave falls within IAS 19 or whether it is a financial liability within the scope of IAS 32. The IFRIC noted that IAS 19 indicates that employee benefit plans include a wide range of formal and informal arrangements. It is therefore clear that the exclusion of employee benefit plans from IAS 32 extends to all employee benefits covered by IAS 19. The IFRIC decided that, since the Standard was clear, it would not expect diversity in practice and would not add this item to its agenda.] |
5–7 | [Deleted] |
8 | This Standard shall be applied to those contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, as if the contracts were financial instruments, with the exception of contracts that were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements. However, this Standard shall be applied to those contracts that an entity designates as measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 2.5 of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. [Refer:paragraphs AG20–AG23]
|
9 | There are various ways in which a contract to buy or sell a non‑financial item can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument or by exchanging financial instruments. These include:
A contract to which (b) or (c) applies is not entered into for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non‑financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements, and, accordingly, is within the scope of this Standard. Other contracts to which paragraph 8 applies are evaluated to determine whether they were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non‑financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirement, and accordingly, whether they are within the scope of this Standard. |
10 | A written option to buy or sell a non‑financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, in accordance with paragraph 9(a) or (d) is within the scope of this Standard. Such a contract cannot be entered into for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non‑financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements. |
11 | The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified: A financial instrument is any contract that gives rise to a financial asset of one entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity. [Refer:
paragraphs AG7 and AG23 paragraphs 8–10 and AG20 for contracts that are accounted for as financial instruments even though they do not satisfy the definition of a financial instrument] [Link to IFRS 9 Implementation Guidance question B.1 for an item that does not satisfy the definition of a financial instrument] A financial asset is any asset that is:
[Link toparagraphs AG9–AG12 for examples of items that are not financial assets]
A financial liability is any liability that is:
An equity instrument is any contract that evidences a residual interest in the assets of an entity after deducting all of its liabilities. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.) A puttable instrument is a financial instrument that gives the holder the right to put the instrument back to the issuer for cash or another financial asset or is automatically put back to the issuer on the occurrence of an uncertain future event or the death or retirement of the instrument holder. |
| E2 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Classification of liability for a prepaid card in the issuer’s financial statements’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an entity classifies the liability that arises when it issues a prepaid card in exchange for cash and how the entity accounts for any unspent balance on such a card. Specifically, the Interpretations Committee discussed a prepaid card with the following features:
The Interpretations Committee was asked to consider whether the liability for the prepaid card is a non-financial liability on the basis that the entity does not have an obligation to deliver cash to the cardholder. The Interpretations Committee observed that the entity’s liability for the prepaid card meets the definition of a financial liability. This is because the entity:
Consequently, an entity that issues such a card applies the requirements in IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement) to account for the financial liability for the prepaid card. The Interpretations Committee noted that customer loyalty programmes were outside the scope of its discussion on this issue. In the light of the existing requirements in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and IFRS 9 (IAS 39), the Interpretations Committee determined that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
| E3 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2008, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets—Deposits on returnable containers’ The IFRIC was asked to provide guidance on the accounting for the obligation to refund deposits on returnable containers. In some industries, entities that distribute their products in returnable containers collect a deposit for each container delivered and have an obligation to refund this deposit when containers are returned by the customer. The issue was whether the obligation should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. The IFRIC noted that paragraph 11 of IAS 32 defines a financial instrument as ‘any contract that gives rise to a financial asset of one entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity.’ Following delivery of the containers to its customers, the seller has an obligation only to refund the deposit for any returned containers. In circumstances in which the containers are derecognised as part of the sale transaction, the obligation is an exchange of cash (the deposit) for the containers (non‑financial assets). Whether that exchange transaction occurs is at the option of the customer. Because the transaction involves the exchange of a non‑financial item, it does not meet the definition of a financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32. In contrast, when the containers are not derecognised as part of the sale transaction, the customer’s only asset is its right to the refund. In such circumstances, the obligation meets the definition of a financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 and is therefore within the scope of IAS 39. In particular, paragraph 49 of IAS 39 states that ‘the fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg a demand deposit) is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid.’ The IFRIC concluded that divergence in this area was unlikely to be significant and therefore decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
| E4 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2006, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Foreign currency instruments exchangeable into equity instruments of the parent entity of the issuer’ At its meeting in April 2005 the IFRIC concluded that derivative contracts that may be settled by an entity by delivering a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for a fixed amount of foreign currency are financial liabilities. At the same time, the IFRIC recommended that the issue should be referred to the Board. However, the Board, in September 2005, decided not to proceed with any amendments to IAS 32 in connection with convertible instruments issued by an entity in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity. Subsequently, the IFRIC was asked to consider a question relating to the issue by a subsidiary of financial instruments that provide holders with the rights to exchange the financial instruments into a fixed number of equity instruments of the parent at a fixed amount of currency. Variants considered were that the amount of currency is fixed if it is denominated in (i) the functional currency of the issuer of the exchangeable financial instruments or (ii) the functional currency of the issuer of the equity instruments. The question was whether the conversion options embedded in the exchangeable financial instruments should be classified as equity in the consolidated financial statements of the parent in accordance with IAS 32. The IFRIC noted that a group does not have a functional currency. It therefore discussed whether it should add a project to its agenda to address which functional currency should be the reference point in determining whether or not the embedded conversion options are equity instruments. The IFRIC believed that the question was sufficiently narrow that it was not expected to have widespread relevance in practice. The IFRIC, therefore, decided not to add the matter to its agenda.] |
12 | The following terms are defined in Appendix A of IFRS 9 or paragraph 9 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement and are used in this Standard with the meaning specified in IAS 39 and IFRS 9.
|
13 | In this Standard, ‘contract’ and ‘contractual’ refer to an agreement between two or more parties that has clear economic consequences that the parties have little, if any, discretion to avoid, usually because the agreement is enforceable by law. Contracts, and thus financial instruments, may take a variety of forms and need not be in writing. [Refer:paragraph AG12]
|
14 | In this Standard, ‘entity’ includes individuals, partnerships, incorporated bodies, trusts and government agencies. |
| E5 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2006, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Changes in the contractual terms of an existing equity instrument resulting in it being reclassified to financial liability’ The IFRIC was asked to consider a situation in which an amendment to the contractual terms of an equity instrument resulted in the instrument being classified as a financial liability of the issuer. Two issues were discussed: (i) on what basis the financial liability should be measured at the date when the terms were changed and (ii) how any difference between the carrying amount of the previously recognised equity instrument and the amount of the financial liability recognised at the date when the terms were changed should be accounted for. The IFRIC noted that at the time when the contractual terms were changed, a financial liability was initially recognised, and, furthermore, that a financial liability on initial recognition is measured at its fair value in accordance with paragraph 43 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. [IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replaced IAS 39. The requirements of paragraph 43 of IAS 39 relating to the initial measurement of financial liabilities were relocated to paragraph 5.1.1 of IFRS 9] The IFRIC observed that Example 3 of IFRIC 2 Members’ Shares in Co‑operative Entities and Similar Instruments deals with a similar situation. In that example, at the time when the financial liabilities are recognised, when the terms are changed, they are recognised at their fair value. The IFRIC observed that the change in the terms of the instrument gave rise to derecognition of the original equity instrument. The IFRIC noted that paragraph 33 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation states that no gain or loss shall be recognised in profit or loss on the purchase, sale, issue or cancellation of an entity’s own equity instruments. The IFRIC, therefore, believed that, at the time when the terms were changed, the difference between the carrying amount of the equity instrument and the fair value of the newly recognised financial liability should be recognised in equity. The IFRIC believed that the requirements of IFRS, taken as a whole, were sufficiently clear and that the issue was not expected to have widespread relevance in practice. The IFRIC therefore decided that the issue should not be added to the agenda.] |
15 | The issuer of a financial instrument shall classify the instrument, or its component parts, on initial recognition as a financial liability, a financial asset or an equity instrument in accordance with the substance of the contractual arrangement and the definitions of a financial liability, a financial asset and an equity instrument.E6,E7,E8 [Refer:paragraphs 11–14]
|
| E6 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—a financial instrument that is mandatorily convertible into a variable number of shares (subject to a cap and a floor) but gives the issuer the option to settle by delivering the maximum (fixed) number of shares’ The Interpretations Committee discussed how an issuer would assess the substance of a particular early settlement option included in a financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The instrument has a stated maturity date and at maturity the issuer must deliver a variable number of its own equity instruments to equal a fixed cash amount, subject to a cap and a floor. The cap and the floor limit and guarantee, respectively, the number of equity instruments to be delivered. The issuer is required to pay interest at a fixed rate. The issuer has the contractual right to settle the instrument at any time before maturity. If the issuer chooses to exercise that early settlement option, it must:
The Interpretations Committee noted that the definitions of financial asset, financial liability and equity instrument in IAS 32 are based on the financial instrument’s contractual rights and contractual obligations. However, paragraph 15 of IAS 32 requires the issuer of a financial instrument to classify the instrument in accordance with the substance of the contractual arrangement. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee noted that if a contractual term of a financial instrument lacks substance, that contractual term would be excluded from the classification assessment of the instrument. The Interpretations Committee noted that the issuer cannot assume that a financial instrument (or its components) meets the definition of an equity instrument simply because the issuer has the contractual right to settle the financial instrument by delivering a fixed number of its own equity instruments. The Interpretations Committee noted that judgement will be required to determine whether the issuer’s early settlement option is substantive and thus should be considered in determining how to classify the instrument. If the early settlement option is not substantive, that term would not be considered in determining the classification of the financial instrument. The Interpretations Committee noted that the guidance in paragraph 20(b) of IAS 32 is relevant because it provides an example of a situation in which one of an instrument’s settlement alternatives is excluded from the classification assessment. Specifically, the example in that paragraph describes an instrument that the issuer will settle by delivering either cash or its own shares and states that one of the settlement alternatives should be excluded from the classification assessment in some circumstances. The Interpretations Committee noted that to determine whether the early settlement option is substantive, the issuer will need to understand whether there are actual economic or other business reasons that the issuer would exercise the option. In making that assessment, the issuer could consider, along with other factors, whether the instrument would have been priced differently if the issuer’s early settlement option had not been included in the contractual terms. The Interpretations Committee also noted that factors such as the term of the instrument, the width of the range between the cap and the floor, the issuer’s share price and the volatility of the share price could be relevant to the assessment of whether the issuer’s early settlement option is substantive. For example, the early settlement option may be less likely to have substance—especially if the instrument is short-lived—if the range between the cap and the floor is wide and the current share price would equate to the delivery of a number of shares that is close to the floor (ie the minimum). That is because the issuer may have to deliver significantly more shares to settle early than it may otherwise be obliged to deliver at maturity. The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
| E7 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—accounting for a financial instrument that is mandatorily convertible into a variable number of shares subject to a cap and a floor’ The Interpretations Committee discussed how an issuer would account for a particular mandatorily convertible financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement or IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The financial instrument has a stated maturity date and, at maturity, the issuer must deliver a variable number of its own equity instruments to equal a fixed cash amount—subject to a cap and a floor, which limit and guarantee, respectively, the number of equity instruments to be delivered. The Interpretations Committee noted that the issuer’s obligation to deliver a variable number of the entity’s own equity instruments is a non-derivative that meets the definition of a financial liability in paragraph 11(b)(i) of IAS 32 in its entirety. Paragraph 11(b)(i) of the definition of a liability does not have any limits or thresholds regarding the degree of variability that is required. Therefore, the contractual substance of the instrument is a single obligation to deliver a variable number of equity instruments at maturity, with the variation based on the value of those equity instruments. Such a single obligation to deliver a variable number of own equity instruments cannot be subdivided into components for the purposes of evaluating whether the instrument contains a component that meets the definition of equity. Even though the number of equity instruments to be delivered is limited and guaranteed by the cap and the floor, the overall number of equity instruments that the issuer is obliged to deliver is not fixed and therefore the entire obligation meets the definition of a financial liability. Furthermore, the Interpretations Committee noted that the cap and the floor are embedded derivative features whose values change in response to the price of the issuer’s equity share. Therefore, assuming that the issuer has not elected to designate the entire instrument under the fair value option, the issuer must separate those features and account for the embedded derivative features separately from the host liability contract at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IAS 39 or IFRS 9. The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing IFRS requirements, an Interpretation was not necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
| E8 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2021, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Accounting for Warrants that are Classified as Financial Liabilities on Initial Recognition’ The Committee received a request about the application of IAS 32 in relation to the reclassification of warrants. Specifically, the request described a warrant that provides the holder with the right to buy a fixed number of equity instruments of the issuer of the warrant for an exercise price that will be fixed at a future date. At initial recognition, because of the variability in the exercise price, the issuer in applying paragraph 16 of IAS 32 classifies these instruments as financial liabilities. This is because for a derivative financial instrument to be classified as equity, it must be settled by the issuer exchanging a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset for a fixed number of its own equity instruments (‘fixed-for-fixed condition’). The request asked whether the issuer reclassifies the warrant as an equity instrument following the fixing of the warrant’s exercise price after initial recognition as specified in the contract, given that the fixed-for-fixed condition would at that stage be met. The Committee observed that IAS 32 contains no general requirements for reclassifying financial liabilities and equity instruments after initial recognition when the instrument’s contractual terms are unchanged. The Committee acknowledged that similar questions about reclassification arise in other circumstances. Reclassification by the issuer has been identified as one of the practice issues the Board will consider addressing in its Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity (FICE) project. The Committee concluded that the matter described in the request is, in isolation, too narrow for the Board or the Committee to address in a cost-effective manner. Instead, the Board should consider the matter as part of its broader discussions on the FICE project. For these reasons, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.] |
16 | When an issuer applies the definitions in paragraph 11 to determine whether a financial instrument is an equity instrument rather than a financial liability, the instrument is an equity instrument if, and only if, both conditions (a) and (b) below are met.E9
A contractual obligation, including one arising from a derivative financial instrument, that will or may result in the future receipt or delivery of the issuer’s own equity instruments, but does not meet conditions (a) and (b) above, is not an equity instrument. As an exception, an instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability is classified as an equity instrument if it has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D. |
| E9 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Classification of financial instruments that give the issuer the contractual right to choose the form of settlement’ The IFRS Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an issuer would classify three financial instruments in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. None of the financial instruments had a maturity date but each gave the holder the contractual right to redeem at any time. The holder's redemption right was described differently for each of the three financial instruments; however in each case the issuer had the contractual right to choose to settle the instrument in cash or a fixed number of its own equity instruments if the holder exercised its redemption right. The issuer was not required to pay dividends on the three instruments but could choose to do so at its discretion. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph 15 of IAS 32 requires the issuer of a financial instrument to classify the instrument in accordance with the substance of the contractual arrangement. Consequently, the issuer cannot achieve different classification results for financial instruments with the same contractual substance simply by describing the contractual arrangements differently. Paragraph 11 in IAS 32 sets out the definitions of both a financial liability and an equity instrument. Paragraph 16 describes in more detail the circumstances in which a financial instrument meets the definition of an equity instrument. The Interpretations Committee noted that a non-derivative financial instrument that gives the issuer the contractual right to choose to settle in cash or a fixed number of its own equity instruments meets the definition of an equity instrument in IAS 32 as long as the instrument does not establish an obligation to deliver cash (or another financial asset) indirectly through its terms and conditions. Paragraph 20(b) of IAS 32 provides the example that an indirect contractual obligation would be established if a financial instrument provides that on settlement the entity will deliver either cash or its own equity instruments whose value is determined to exceed substantially the value of the cash. The Committee also acknowledged that financial instruments, in particular those that are more structured or complex, require careful analysis to determine whether they contain equity and non equity components that must be accounted for separately in accordance with IAS 32. The Interpretations Committee noted that if the issuer has a contractual obligation to deliver cash, that obligation meets the definition of a financial liability. The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing IFRS requirements, an interpretation was not necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
16A | A puttable financial instrument includes a contractual obligation for the issuer to repurchase or redeem that instrument for cash or another financial asset on exercise of the put. As an exception to the definition of a financial liability, an instrument that includes such an obligation is classified as an equity instrumentE10 [Refer:paragraph AG29A] if it has all the following features:
[Refer:paragraphs AG14F–AG14I]
|
| E10 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2013, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements—Classification of puttable instruments that are non-controlling interests’ The Interpretations Committee discussed a request for guidance on the classification, in the consolidated financial statements of a group, of puttable instruments that are issued by a subsidiary but that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The submitter asked about puttable instruments classified as equity instruments in the financial statements of the subsidiary in accordance with paragraphs 16A–16B of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation (‘puttable instruments’) that are not held, directly or indirectly, by the parent. The question asked was whether these instruments should be classified as equity or liability in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The submitter claims that paragraph 22 of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements is not consistent with paragraph AG29A of IAS 32, because:
The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraphs 16A–16D of IAS 32 state that puttable instruments and instruments that impose on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation meet the definition of a financial liability. These instruments are classified as equity in the financial statements of the subsidiary as an exception to the definition of a financial liability if all relevant requirements are met. Paragraph AG29A clarifies that this exception applies only to the financial statements of the subsidiary and does not extend to the parent’s consolidated financial statements. Consequently, these financial instruments should be classified as financial liabilities in the parent’s consolidated financial statements. The Interpretations Committee therefore concluded that in the light of the existing guidance in IAS 32, neither an interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
| E11 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2009, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Classification of puttable and perpetual instruments’ The IFRIC received a request for guidance on the application of paragraph 16A(c) of IAS 32, which states that ‘All financial instruments in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes of instruments have identical features’. The request asked for guidance on the classification of an entity’s puttable instruments that are subordinate to all other classes of instruments when the entity also has perpetual instruments that are classified as equity. The IFRIC noted that a financial instrument is first classified as a liability or equity instrument in accordance with the general requirements of IAS 32. That classification is not affected by the existence of puttable instruments. As a second step, if a financial instrument would meet the general definition of a liability because it is puttable to the issuer, the entity considers the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B of IAS 32 to determine whether it should be classified as equity. Consequently, the IFRIC noted that IAS 32 does not preclude the existence of several classes of equity. The IFRIC also noted that paragraph 16A(c) applies only to ‘instruments in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes of instruments’. Paragraph 16A(b) specifies that the level of an instrument’s subordination is determined by its priority in liquidation. Accordingly, the existence of the put does not of itself imply that the puttable instruments are less subordinate than the perpetual instruments. Given the requirements in IAS 32, the IFRIC did not expect significant diversity in practice to develop. Therefore the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
16B | For an instrument to be classified as an equity instrument, in addition to the instrument having all the above features, the issuer must have no other financial instrument or contract that has:
For the purposes of applying this condition, the entity shall not consider non‑financial contracts with a holder of an instrument described in paragraph 16A that have contractual terms and conditions that are similar to the contractual terms and conditions of an equivalent contract that might occur between a non‑instrument holder and the issuing entity. If the entity cannot determine that this condition is met, it shall not classify the puttable instrument as an equity instrument. [Refer:paragraph AG14J]
|
16C | Some financial instruments include a contractual obligation for the issuing entity to deliver to another entity a pro rata share of its net assets only on liquidation. The obligation arises because liquidation either is certain to occur and outside the control of the entity (for example, a limited life entity) or is uncertain to occur but is at the option of the instrument holder. As an exception to the definition of a financial liability, an instrument that includes such an obligation is classified as an equity instrument [Refer:paragraph AG29A] if it has all the following features:
[Refer:paragraphs AG14F–AG14I]
|
16D | For an instrument to be classified as an equity instrument, in addition to the instrument having all the above features, the issuer must have no other financial instrument or contract that has:
For the purposes of applying this condition, the entity shall not consider non‑financial contracts with a holder of an instrument described in paragraph 16C that have contractual terms and conditions that are similar to the contractual terms and conditions of an equivalent contract that might occur between a non‑instrument holder and the issuing entity. If the entity cannot determine that this condition is met, it shall not classify the instrument as an equity instrument. [Refer:paragraph AG14J]
|
16E | An entity shall classify a financial instrument as an equity instrument in accordance with paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D from the date when the instrument has all the features and meets the conditions set out in those paragraphs. An entity shall reclassify a financial instrument from the date when the instrument ceases to have all the features or meet all the conditions set out in those paragraphs. For example, if an entity redeems all its issued non‑puttable instruments and any puttable instrument that remain outstanding have all the features and meet all the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B, the entity shall reclassify the puttable instruments as equity instruments from the date when it redeems the non‑puttable instruments. |
16F | An entity shall account as follows for the reclassification of an instrument in accordance with paragraph 16E:
|
17 | With the exception of the circumstances described in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D, a critical feature in differentiating a financial liability from an equity instrument is the existence of a contractual obligation [Refer:paragraphs 25, AG25, AG26, AG27(b) and AG28] of one party to the financial instrument (the issuer) either to deliver cash or another financial asset to the other party (the holder) or to exchange financial assets or financial liabilities with the holder under conditions that are potentially unfavourable to the issuer. Although the holder of an equity instrument may be entitled to receive a pro rata share of any dividends or other distributions of equity, the issuer does not have a contractual obligation to make such distributions because it cannot be required to deliver cash or another financial asset to another party. |
18 | The substance of a financial instrument, rather than its legal form, governs its classification in the entity’s statement of financial position.E12 Substance and legal form are commonly consistent, but not always. Some financial instruments take the legal form of equity but are liabilities in substance and others may combine features associated with equity instruments and features associated with financial liabilities. [Refer:paragraph AG25] For example:
|
| E12 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2006, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Classification of a financial instrument as liability or equity’ At its meeting in March 2006 the IFRIC discussed a submission for a possible agenda item relating to the role of contractual obligations and economic compulsion in the classification of financial instruments. At that meeting and the following meeting in May, the IFRIC agreed not to add the item to the agenda but did not agree on reasons to be given for that decision. At the IFRIC meeting in July, the Chairman reported the Board’s discussions on the issue at its meeting in June 2006. As stated in the June 2006 IASB Update, the Board discussed whether so‑called economic compulsion should affect the classification of a financial instrument (or a component of a financial instrument) under IAS 32. This issue had previously been debated at the IFRIC meetings in March and May 2006. For a financial instrument (or a component of a financial instrument) to be classified as a financial liability under IAS 32, the issuer must have a contractual obligation either
(Different requirements apply to financial instruments that may or will be settled in the issuer’s own equity instruments.) The Board confirmed that such a contractual obligation could be established explicitly or indirectly, but it must be established through the terms and conditions of the instrument. Thus, by itself, economic compulsion would not result in a financial instrument being classified as a liability under IAS 32. The Board also stressed that IAS 32 requires an assessment of the substance of the contractual arrangement. It does not, however, require or permit factors not within the contractual arrangement to be taken into consideration in classifying a financial instrument. In view of the Board’s discussion, the IFRIC believed that it could not achieve anything substantial by adding the issue on the agenda. Instead, the IFRIC agreed to draw the Board’s attention to comments raised by constituents and to ask the Board whether anything could be done to achieve even greater clarity on this point.] |
19 | If an entity does not have an unconditional right to avoid delivering cash or another financial asset to settle a contractual obligation, the obligation meets the definition of a financial liability, [Refer:paragraphs 16(a)(i), 25 and AG28] except for those instruments classified as equity instruments in accordance with paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D. For example:
|
20 | A financial instrument that does not explicitly establish a contractual obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset may establish an obligation indirectly through its terms and conditions. For example:
|
| E13 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance—Accounting for repayable cash receipts’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the accounting for cash received from a government to help an entity finance a research and development project. More specifically, the request asked whether the entity must recognise the cash received as a liability (on the basis that the entity has received a forgivable loan as defined in IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance) or in profit or loss (on the basis that the entity has received a government grant as defined in IAS 20). The cash received from the government is repayable in cash only if the entity decides to exploit and commercialise the results of the research phase of the project. The terms of that repayment can result in the government receiving as much as twice the amount of the original cash proceeds if the project is successful. If the entity decides not to exploit and commercialise the results of the research phase, the cash received is not repayable in cash, but instead the entity must transfer to the government the rights to the research. The Interpretations Committee noted that, in this arrangement, the entity has obtained financing for its research and development project. The Interpretations Committee observed that the cash receipt described in the submission gives rise to a financial liability (applying paragraph 20(a) of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation) because the entity can avoid a transfer of cash only by settling a non-financial obligation (ie by transferring the rights to the research to the government). The entity accounts for that financial liability applying IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement). The Interpretations Committee noted that, in the arrangement described in the submission, the cash received from the government does not meet the definition of a forgivable loan in IAS 20. This is because, in this arrangement, the government does not undertake to waive repayment of the loan, but rather to require settlement in cash or by transfer of the rights to the research. The Interpretations Committee noted that, applying paragraph B5.1.1 of IFRS 9 (paragraph AG64 of IAS 39), the entity assesses at initial recognition whether part of the cash received from the government is for something other than the financial instrument. For example, in the fact pattern described in the submission, part of the cash received (the difference between the cash received and the fair value of the financial liability) may represent a government grant. If this is the case, the entity accounts for the government grant applying IAS 20. The Interpretations Committee noted that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis to enable an entity to account for the cash received from the government. In the light of the existing requirements in IFRS Standards, the Interpretations Committee determined that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
21 | A contract is not an equity instrument solely because it may result in the receipt or delivery of the entity’s own equity instruments. An entity may have a contractual right or obligation to receive or deliver a number of its own shares or other equity instruments that varies so that the fair value of the entity’s own equity instruments to be received or delivered equals the amount of the contractual right or obligation. Such a contractual right or obligation may be for a fixed amount or an amount that fluctuates in part or in full in response to changes in a variable other than the market price of the entity’s own equity instruments (eg an interest rate, a commodity price or a financial instrument price). Two examples are (a) a contract to deliver as many of the entity’s own equity instruments as are equal in value to CU100,1 and (b) a contract to deliver as many of the entity’s own equity instruments as are equal in value to the value of 100 ounces of gold. Such a contract is a financial liability of the entity even though the entity must or can settle it by delivering its own equity instruments. It is not an equity instrument because the entity uses a variable number of its own equity instruments as a means to settle the contract. Accordingly, the contract does not evidence a residual interest in the entity’s assets after deducting all of its liabilities. [Refer:
Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC10(b), BC13–BC15 and BC21(a)] |
22 | Except as stated in paragraph 22A, a contract that will be settled by the entity (receiving or) delivering a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for a fixed amount of cashE14 or another financial asset is an equity instrument. For example, an issued share option that gives the counterparty a right to buy a fixed number of the entity’s shares for a fixed price or for a fixed stated principal amount of a bond is an equity instrument. Changes in the fair value of a contract arising from variations in market interest rates that do not affect the amount of cash or other financial assets to be paid or received, or the number of equity instruments to be received or delivered, on settlement of the contract do not preclude the contract from being an equity instrument. Any consideration received (such as the premium received for a written option or warrant on the entity’s own shares) is added directly to equity. Any consideration paid (such as the premium paid for a purchased option) is deducted directly from equity. Changes in the fair value of an equity instrument are not recognised in the financial statements. [Note:The IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) discussed the classification of contracts settled in own equity denominated in a foreign currency in June 2005. The Committee recommended that the Board consider amending IAS 32 so that, for classification purposes only, a fixed amount of foreign currency is considered to be a fixed amount of cash. In September 2005 the Board decided not to proceed with an amendment. The Board noted that such an amendment would result in equity and foreign exchange features whose values are interdependent being recognised in equity. The Board observed that excluding from equity the value attributable to the foreign exchange features would require arbitrary rules. The Board also noted that allowing dual indexed contracts (to share price and foreign exchange rates) to be classified as equity would require additional and detailed guidance to avoid structuring opportunities aimed at obtaining a desired accounting result.]
|
| E14 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2010, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Application of the "fixed for fixed" condition’ The IFRIC received requests for guidance on the application of paragraph 22 of IAS 32 which states that ‘except as stated in paragraph 22A, a contract that will be settled by the entity (receiving or) delivering a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset is an equity instrument’ (often referred to as the ‘fixed‑for‑fixed’ condition). The IFRIC identified that diversity might exist in practice in the application of the fixed‑for‑fixed condition to other situations in addition to the specific situations identified in the requests. The IFRIC noted that the Board was currently undertaking a project to improve and simplify the financial reporting requirements for financial instruments with characteristics of equity. A key objective of this project was to develop a better distinction between equity and non‑equity instruments. This included consideration of the current fixed‑for‑fixed condition in IAS 32. Consequently, the IFRIC concluded that the Board’s current project on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity was expected to address issues relating to the fixed‑for‑fixed condition on a timely basis. Therefore, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
22A | If the entity’s own equity instruments to be received, or delivered, by the entity upon settlement of a contract are puttable financial instruments with all the features and meeting the conditions described in paragraphs 16A and 16B, or instruments that impose on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation with all the features and meeting the conditions described in paragraphs 16C and 16D, the contract is a financial asset or a financial liability. This includes a contract that will be settled by the entity receiving or delivering a fixed number of such instruments in exchange for a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset. |
23 | With the exception of the circumstances described in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D, a contract that contains an obligation for an entity to purchase its own equity instruments for cash or another financial asset gives rise to a financial liability for the present value of the redemption amount (for example, for the present value of the forward repurchase price, option exercise price or other redemption amount). This is the case even if the contract itself is an equity instrument. One example is an entity’s obligation under a forward contract to purchase its own equity instruments for cash. The financial liability is recognised initially [Refer:IFRS 9 paragraph 3.1.1] at the present value of the redemption amount, and is reclassified from equity. Subsequently, the financial liability is measured in accordance with IFRS 9. [Refer:IFRS 9 paragraph 5.3.1] If the contract expires without delivery, the carrying amount of the financial liability is reclassified to equity. An entity’s contractual obligation to purchase its own equity instruments gives rise to a financial liability for the present value of the redemption amount even if the obligation to purchase is conditional on the counterparty exercising a right to redeem (eg a written put option that gives the counterparty the right to sell an entity’s own equity instruments to the entity for a fixed price).E15,E16 [Refer:
paragraphs 16(a)(i), 16(b)(i), AG25 and AG27(a) and (b) [Note:In May 2012 the IFRS Interpretations Committee (Committee) published a draft Interpretation on the accounting for put options written on non-controlling interests in the parent's consolidated financial statements (NCI puts). That draft Interpretation proposed to clarify that the financial liability that is recognised for an NCI put must be remeasured in accordance with IAS 39 and IFRS 9, which require that changes in the measurement to be recognised in profit or loss. The Committee did not finalise the proposed Interpretation and in June 2013 the Board decided to consider this matter as part of its project clarifying the distinction between liabilities and equity.]
|
| E15 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2006, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Puts and forwards held by minority interests’ The IFRIC considered a request for clarification of the accounting when a parent entity has entered into a forward to acquire the shares held by the [non‑controlling] minority interest in a subsidiary or the holder of the [non‑controlling] minority interest can put its shares to the parent entity. Paragraph 23 of IAS 32 states that a parent must recognise a financial liability when it has an obligation to pay cash in the future to purchase the minority’s shares, even if the payment of that cash is conditional on the option being exercised by the holder. After initial recognition any liability to which IFRS 3 Business Combinations is not being applied will be accounted for in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. The parent will reclassify the liability to equity if a put expires unexercised. The IFRIC agreed that there is likely to be divergence in practice in how the related equity is classified. However, the IFRIC did not believe that it could reach a consensus on this matter on a timely basis. Accordingly, the IFRIC decided not to add this item to its agenda.] |
| E16 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Written put options over non-controlling interests to be settled by a variable number of the parent’s shares’ The Interpretations Committee received a request regarding how an entity accounts for a written put option over non-controlling interests (NCI put) in its consolidated financial statements. The NCI put has a strike price that will, or may, be settled by the exchange of a variable number of the parent’s own equity instruments. Specifically, the Interpretations Committee was asked to consider whether, in its consolidated financial statements, the parent:
The Interpretations Committee was also asked whether the parent applies the same accounting for NCI puts for which the parent has the choice to settle the exercise price either in cash or by way of a variable number of its own equity instruments to the same value. The Interpretations Committee observed that, in the past, it had discussed issues relating to NCI puts that are settled in cash. Those issues were referred to the Board and are being considered as part of the Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity project. The Interpretations Committee noted that:
For these reasons, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
24 | A contract that will be settled by the entity delivering or receiving a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for a variable amount of cash or another financial asset is a financial asset or financial liability. An example is a contract for the entity to deliver 100 of its own equity instruments in return for an amount of cash calculated to equal the value of 100 ounces of gold. |
25 | A financial instrument may require the entity to deliver cash or another financial asset, or otherwise to settle it in such a way that it would be a financial liability, in the event of the occurrence or non‑occurrence of uncertain future events (or on the outcome of uncertain circumstances) that are beyond the control of both the issuer and the holder of the instrument, such as a change in a stock market index, consumer price index, interest rate or taxation requirements, or the issuer’s future revenues, net income or debt‑to‑equity ratio. The issuer of such an instrument does not have the unconditional right to avoid delivering cash or another financial asset (or otherwise to settle it in such a way that it would be a financial liability). Therefore, it is a financial liability of the issuer unless:E17
|
| E17 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Classification of a financial instrument that is mandatorily convertible into a variable number of shares upon a contingent "nonviability" event’ The Interpretations Committee discussed how an issuer would classify a particular mandatorily convertible financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The financial instrument did not have a stated maturity date but was mandatorily convertible into a variable number of the issuer’s own equity instruments if the issuer breached the Tier 1 Capital ratio (ie described as a ‘contingent non-viability event’). The financial instrument is issued at par and the value of the equity instruments that will be delivered at conversion is equal to that fixed par amount. Interest payments on the instrument are payable at the discretion of the issuer. Specifically the Interpretations Committee discussed the following issues:
The Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda. The Interpretations Committee noted that the scope of the issues raised in the submission is too broad for it to address in an efficient manner. |
26 | When a derivative financial instrument gives one party a choice over how it is settled (eg the issuer or the holder can choose settlement net in cash or by exchanging shares for cash), it is a financial asset or a financial liability unless all of the settlement alternatives would result in it being an equity instrument. [Refer:
Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC20 Illustrative Examples paragraphs IE6, IE11, IE16, IE21, IE26 and IE31] |
27 | An example of a derivative financial instrument with a settlement option that is a financial liability is a share option that the issuer can decide to settle net in cash or by exchanging its own shares for cash. Similarly, some contracts to buy or sell a non‑financial item in exchange for the entity’s own equity instruments are within the scope of this Standard because they can be settled either by delivery of the non‑financial item or net in cash or another financial instrument (see paragraphs 8–10). Such contracts are financial assets or financial liabilities and not equity instruments. |
28 | The issuer of a non‑derivative financial instrument shall evaluate the terms of the financial instrument to determine whether it contains both a liability and an equity component. Such components shall be classified separately as financial liabilities, financial assets or equity instruments in accordance with paragraph 15. |
29 | An entity recognises separately the components of a financial instrument that (a) creates a financial liability of the entity and (b) grants an option to the holder of the instrument to convert it into an equity instrument of the entity. For example, a bond or similar instrument convertible by the holder into a fixed number of ordinary shares of the entity is a compound financial instrument. From the perspective of the entity, such an instrument comprises two components: a financial liability (a contractual arrangement to deliver cash or another financial asset) and an equity instrument (a call option granting the holder the right, for a specified period of time, to convert it into a fixed number of ordinary shares of the entity). The economic effect of issuing such an instrument is substantially the same as issuing simultaneously a debt instrument with an early settlement provision and warrants to purchase ordinary shares, or issuing a debt instrument with detachable share purchase warrants. Accordingly, in all cases, the entity presents the liability and equity components separately in its statement of financial position. |
30 | Classification of the liability and equity components of a convertible instrument is not revised as a result of a change in the likelihood that a conversion option will be exercised, even when exercise of the option may appear to have become economically advantageous to some holders. Holders may not always act in the way that might be expected because, for example, the tax consequences resulting from conversion may differ among holders. Furthermore, the likelihood of conversion will change from time to time. The entity’s contractual obligation to make future payments remains outstanding until it is extinguished through conversion, maturity of the instrument or some other transaction. [Refer:paragraphs AG32–AG35 for guidance on subsequent accounting for other aspects of compound financial instruments]
|
31 | IFRS 9 deals with the measurement of financial assets and financial liabilities. [Refer:IFRS 9 Chapter 5] Equity instruments are instruments that evidence a residual interest in the assets of an entity after deducting all of its liabilities. Therefore, when the initial carrying amount of a compound financial instrument is allocated to its equity and liability components, the equity component is assigned the residual amount after deducting from the fair value of the instrument as a whole the amount separately determined for the liability component. The value of any derivative features (such as a call option) embedded in the compound financial instrument other than the equity component (such as an equity conversion option) is included in the liability component. The sum of the carrying amounts assigned to the liability and equity components on initial recognition is always equal to the fair value that would be ascribed to the instrument as a whole. No gain or loss arises from initially recognising the components of the instrument separately. |
32 | Under the approach described in paragraph 31, the issuer of a bond convertible into ordinary shares first determines the carrying amount of the liability component by measuring the fair value of a similar liability (including any embedded non‑equity derivative features) that does not have an associated equity component. The carrying amount of the equity instrument represented by the option to convert the instrument into ordinary shares is then determined by deducting the fair value of the financial liability from the fair value of the compound financial instrument as a whole. |
33 | If an entity reacquires its own equity instruments, those instruments (‘treasury shares’) shall be deducted from equity.E18 No gain or loss shall be recognised in profit or loss on the purchase, sale, issue or cancellation of an entity’s own equity instruments. Such treasury shares may be acquired and held by the entity or by other members of the consolidated group. Consideration paid or received shall be recognised directly in equity. |
| E18 | [IFRIC® Update, August 2002, Agenda Decision, ‘Own shares that are held for trading purposes’ The IFRIC considered providing guidance on whether an exception from SIC‑16 Share Capital—Reacquired Own Equity Instruments (Treasury Shares) should be made for own shares that are held for trading purposes in order to allow them to be measured at fair value with changes in value being reported in the income statement. The IFRIC agreed not to issue an Interpretation, because IAS 39 and SIC‑16are clear that: (a) own shares should be treated as a deduction from equity in all circumstances, (b) they may not be classified as an asset that is held for trading; and (c) no gain or loss is recognised in the income statement on such shares. [These issues were considered as part of the process of improving IAS 32. SIC‑16was superseded by IAS 32 (as revised in December 2003). In 2017 IFRS 17 amended IAS 32 to permit some treasury shares, in limited circumstances, to be measured at fair value through profit or loss—see paragraph 33A of IAS 32.]] |
33A | Some entities operate, either internally or externally, an investment fund that provides investors with benefits determined by units in the fund and recognise financial liabilities for the amounts to be paid to those investors. Similarly, some entities issue groups of insurance contracts with direct participation features and those entities hold the underlying items. Some such funds or underlying items include the entity’s treasury shares. Despite paragraph 33, an entity may elect not to deduct from equity a treasury share that is included in such a fund or is an underlying item when, and only when, an entity reacquires its own equity instrument for such purposes. Instead, the entity may elect to continue to account for that treasury share as equity and to account for the reacquired instrument as if the instrument were a financial asset and measure it at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9. That election is irrevocable and made on an instrument-by-instrument basis. For the purposes of this election, insurance contracts include investment contracts with discretionary participation features. (See IFRS 17 for terms used in this paragraph that are defined in that Standard.) |
34 | The amount of treasury shares held is disclosed separately either in the statement of financial position or in the notes, in accordance with IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. [Refer:IAS 1 paragraph 79(a)(vi)] An entity provides disclosure in accordance with IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures [Refer:IAS 24 paragraphs 18–24] if the entity reacquires its own equity instruments from related parties.
|
35 | Interest, dividends, losses and gains relating to a financial instrument or a component that is a financial liability shall be recognised as income or expense in profit or loss. Distributions to holders of an equity instrument shall be recognised by the entity directly in equity. Transaction costs of an equity transaction shall be accounted for as a deduction from equity. |
35A | Income tax relating to distributions to holders of an equity instrument and to transaction costs of an equity transaction shall be accounted for in accordance with IAS 12 Income Taxes. |
36 | The classification of a financial instrument as a financial liability or an equity instrument determines whether interest, dividends, losses and gains relating to that instrument are recognised as income or expense in profit or loss. Thus, dividend payments on shares wholly recognised as liabilities are recognised as expenses in the same way as interest on a bond. Similarly, gains and losses associated with redemptions or refinancings of financial liabilities are recognised in profit or loss, whereas redemptions or refinancings of equity instruments are recognised as changes in equity. Changes in the fair value of an equity instrument are not recognised in the financial statements. |
37 | An entity typically incurs various costs in issuing or acquiring its own equity instruments. Those costs might include registration and other regulatory fees, amounts paid to legal, accounting and other professional advisers, printing costs and stamp duties. The transaction costs of an equity transaction are accounted for as a deduction from equity to the extent they are incremental costs directly attributable to the equity transaction that otherwise would have been avoided.E19 The costs of an equity transaction that is abandoned are recognised as an expense. |
| E19 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2008, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Transaction costs to be deducted from equity’ The IFRIC received a request for guidance on the extent of transaction costs to be accounted for as a deduction from equity in accordance with IAS 32 paragraph 37 and on how the requirements of IAS 32 paragraph 38 to allocate transaction costs that relate jointly to one or more transaction should be applied. This issue relates specifically to the meaning of the terms ‘incremental’ and ‘directly attributable’. The IFRIC noted that only incremental costs directly attributable to issuing new equity instruments or acquiring previously outstanding equity instruments are related to an equity transaction in accordance with IAS 32. The IFRIC also noted that judgement will be required to determine which costs are related solely to other activities undertaken at the same time as issuing equity, such as becoming a public company or acquiring an exchange listing, and which are costs that relate jointly to both activities that must be allocated in accordance with paragraph 38. In view of the existing guidance, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda. However, the IFRIC also noted that the terms ‘incremental’ and ‘directly attributable’ are used with similar but not identical meanings in many Standards and Interpretations. The IFRIC recommended that common definitions should be developed for both terms and added to the Glossary as part of the Board’s Annual Improvements project.] |
38 | Transaction costs that relate to the issue of a compound financial instrument are allocated to the liability and equity components of the instrument in proportion to the allocation of proceeds. Transaction costs that relate jointly to more than one transaction (for example, costs of a concurrent offering of some shares and a stock exchange listing of other shares) are allocated to those transactions using a basis of allocation that is rational and consistent with similar transactions.E20 |
| E20 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2008, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Transaction costs to be deducted from equity’ The IFRIC received a request for guidance on the extent of transaction costs to be accounted for as a deduction from equity in accordance with IAS 32 paragraph 37 and on how the requirements of IAS 32 paragraph 38 to allocate transaction costs that relate jointly to one or more transaction should be applied. This issue relates specifically to the meaning of the terms ‘incremental’ and ‘directly attributable’. The IFRIC noted that only incremental costs directly attributable to issuing new equity instruments or acquiring previously outstanding equity instruments are related to an equity transaction in accordance with IAS 32. The IFRIC also noted that judgement will be required to determine which costs are related solely to other activities undertaken at the same time as issuing equity, such as becoming a public company or acquiring an exchange listing, and which are costs that relate jointly to both activities that must be allocated in accordance with paragraph 38. In view of the existing guidance, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda. However, the IFRIC also noted that the terms ‘incremental’ and ‘directly attributable’ are used with similar but not identical meanings in many Standards and Interpretations. The IFRIC recommended that common definitions should be developed for both terms and added to the Glossary as part of the Board’s Annual Improvements project.] |
39 | The amount of transaction costs accounted for as a deduction from equity in the period is disclosed separately in accordance with IAS 1 [Refer:IAS 1 paragraphs 106, 108 and 109]. |
40 | Dividends classified as an expense may be presented in the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income either with interest on other liabilities or as a separate item. In addition to the requirements of this Standard, disclosure of interest and dividends is subject to the requirements of IAS 1 [Refer:IAS 1 paragraphs 82(b), 107 and 137] and IFRS 7 [Refer:IFRS 7 paragraph 20]. In some circumstances, because of the differences between interest and dividends with respect to matters such as tax deductibility, it is desirable to disclose them separately in the statement(s) of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. Disclosures of the tax effects are made in accordance with IAS 12.
|
41 | Gains and losses related to changes in the carrying amount of a financial liability are recognised as income or expense in profit or loss even when they relate to an instrument that includes a right to the residual interest in the assets of the entity in exchange for cash or another financial asset (see paragraph 18(b)). Under IAS 1 the entity presents any gain or loss arising from remeasurement of such an instrument separately in the statement of comprehensive income when it is relevant in explaining the entity’s performance. [Refer:IAS 1 paragraph 85] |
42 | A financial asset and a financial liability shall be offset and the net amount presented in the statement of financial position when, and only when, an entity:
In accounting for a transfer of a financial asset that does not qualify for derecognition, the entity shall not offset the transferred asset and the associated liability (see IFRS 9, paragraph 3.2.22). |
| E21 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Offsetting and cash-pooling arrangements’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify an issue related to IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The issue relates to whether a particular cash-pooling arrangement would meet the requirements for offsetting in accordance with IAS 32—specifically, whether the regular physical transfers of balances (but not at the reporting date) into a netting account would be sufficient to demonstrate an intention to settle the entire period-end account balances on a net basis in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of IAS 32. For the purposes of the analysis, the Interpretations Committee considered the specific example included in the request, which describes a cash-pooling arrangement involving subsidiaries within a group, each of which have legally separate bank accounts. At the reporting date, the group has the legally enforceable right to set off balances in these bank accounts in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of IAS 32. Interest is calculated on a notional basis using the net balance of all the separate bank accounts. In addition, the group instigates regular physical transfers of balances into a single netting account. However, such transfers are not required under the terms of the cash-pooling arrangement and are not performed at the reporting date. Furthermore, at the reporting date, the group expects that its subsidiaries will use their bank accounts before the next net settlement date, by placing further cash on deposit or by withdrawing cash to settle other obligations. In considering whether the group could demonstrate an intention to settle on a net basis in accordance with paragraph 42(b) of IAS 32, the Interpretations Committee observed that:
Consequently, within the context of the particular cash-pooling arrangement described by the submitter, the Interpretations Committee noted that the group should consider the principles above in order to assess whether, at the reporting date, there is an intention to settle its subsidiaries’ bank account balances on a net basis or whether the intention is for its subsidiaries to use those individual bank account balances for other purposes before the next net settlement date. In this regard, the Interpretations Committee observed that the group expects cash movements to take place on individual bank accounts before the next net settlement date because the group expects its subsidiaries to use those bank accounts in their normal course of business. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee noted that, to the extent to which the group did not expect to settle its subsidiaries’ period-end account balances on a net basis, it would not be appropriate for the group to assert that it had the intention to settle the entire period-end balances on a net basis at the reporting date. This is because presenting these balances net would not appropriately reflect the amounts and timings of the expected future cash flows, taking into account the group’s and its subsidiaries’ normal business practices. However, the Interpretations Committee also observed that in other cash-pooling arrangements, a group’s expectations regarding how subsidiaries will use their bank accounts before the next net settlement date may be different. Consequently it was noted that, in those circumstances, the group would be required to apply judgement in determining whether there was an intention to settle on a net basis at the reporting date. The Interpretations Committee also observed that the results of the outreach did not suggest that the particular type of cash-pooling arrangement described by the submitter was widespread. Furthermore, it was noted that many different types of cash-pooling arrangements exist in practice. Consequently, the determination of what constitutes an intention to settle on a net basis would depend on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The Interpretations Committee further noted that an entity should also consider the disclosure requirements related to offsetting of financial assets and financial liabilities in the applicable IFRS Standards. In the light of this and the existing requirements in IFRS Standards, the Interpretations Committee decided that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
43 | This Standard requires the presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities on a net basis when doing so reflects an entity’s expected future cash flows from settling two or more separate financial instruments. When an entity has the right to receive or pay a single net amount and intends to do so, it has, in effect, only a single financial asset or financial liability. In other circumstances, financial assets and financial liabilities are presented separately from each other consistently with their characteristics as resources or obligations of the entity. An entity shall disclose the information required in paragraphs 13B–13E of IFRS 7 for recognised financial instruments that are within the scope of paragraph 13A of IFRS 7. |
44 | Offsetting a recognised financial asset and a recognised financial liability and presenting the net amount differs from the derecognition of a financial asset or a financial liability. Although offsetting does not give rise to recognition of a gain or loss, the derecognition of a financial instrument not only results in the removal of the previously recognised item from the statement of financial position but also may result in recognition of a gain or loss. |
45 | A right of set‑off is a debtor’s legal right, by contract or otherwise, to settle or otherwise eliminate all or a portion of an amount due to a creditor by applying against that amount an amount due from the creditor. In unusual circumstances, a debtor may have a legal right to apply an amount due from a third party against the amount due to a creditor provided that there is an agreement between the three parties that clearly establishes the debtor’s right of set‑off. Because the right of set‑off is a legal right, the conditions supporting the right may vary from one legal jurisdiction to another and the laws applicable to the relationships between the parties need to be considered. [Refer:paragraphs AG38C and AG38D]
|
46 | The existence of an enforceable right to set off a financial asset and a financial liability affects the rights and obligations associated with a financial asset and a financial liability and may affect an entity’s exposure to credit and liquidity risk. However, the existence of the right, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for offsetting. In the absence of an intention to exercise the right or to settle simultaneously, the amount and timing of an entity’s future cash flows are not affected. When an entity intends to exercise the right or to settle simultaneously, presentation of the asset and liability on a net basis reflects more appropriately the amounts and timing of the expected future cash flows, as well as the risks to which those cash flows are exposed. An intention by one or both parties to settle on a net basis without the legal right to do so is not sufficient to justify offsetting because the rights and obligations associated with the individual financial asset and financial liability remain unaltered. |
47 | An entity’s intentions with respect to settlement of particular assets and liabilities may be influenced by its normal business practices, the requirements of the financial markets and other circumstances that may limit the ability to settle net or to settle simultaneously. When an entity has a right of set‑off, but does not intend to settle net or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously, the effect of the right on the entity’s credit risk exposure is disclosed in accordance with paragraph 36 of IFRS 7. |
48 | Simultaneous settlement of two financial instruments may occur through, for example, the operation of a clearing house in an organised financial market or a face‑to‑face exchange. In these circumstances the cash flows are, in effect, equivalent to a single net amount and there is no exposure to credit or liquidity risk. In other circumstances, an entity may settle two instruments by receiving and paying separate amounts, becoming exposed to credit risk for the full amount of the asset or liquidity risk for the full amount of the liability. Such risk exposures may be significant even though relatively brief. Accordingly, realisation of a financial asset and settlement of a financial liability are treated as simultaneous only when the transactions occur at the same moment. |
49 | The conditions set out in paragraph 42 are generally not satisfied and offsetting is usually inappropriate when:
|
50 | An entity that undertakes a number of financial instrument transactions with a single counterparty may enter into a ‘master netting arrangement’ with that counterparty. Such an agreement provides for a single net settlement of all financial instruments covered by the agreement in the event of default on, or termination of, any one contract. These arrangements are commonly used by financial institutions to provide protection against loss in the event of bankruptcy or other circumstances that result in a counterparty being unable to meet its obligations. A master netting arrangement commonly creates a right of set‑off that becomes enforceable and affects the realisation or settlement of individual financial assets and financial liabilities only following a specified event of default or in other circumstances not expected to arise in the normal course of business. A master netting arrangement does not provide a basis for offsetting unless both of the criteria in paragraph 42 are satisfied. When financial assets and financial liabilities subject to a master netting arrangement are not offset, the effect of the arrangement on an entity’s exposure to credit risk is disclosed in accordance with paragraph 36 of IFRS 7. [Refer:paragraph AG38B]
|
51–95 | [Deleted] |
96 | An entity shall apply this Standard for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. Earlier application is permitted. An entity shall not apply this Standard for annual periods beginning before 1 January 2005 unless it also applies IAS 39 (issued December 2003), including the amendments issued in March 2004. If an entity applies this Standard for a period beginning before 1 January 2005, it shall disclose that fact. |
96A | Puttable Financial Instruments and Obligations Arising on Liquidation (Amendments to IAS 32 and IAS 1), issued in February 2008, required financial instruments that contain all the features and meet the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D to be classified as an equity instrument, amended paragraphs 11, 16, 17–19, 22, 23, 25, AG13, AG14 and AG27, and inserted paragraphs 16A–16F, 22A, 96B, 96C, 97C, AG14A–AG14J and AG29A. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the changes for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact and apply the related amendments to IAS 1, IAS 39, IFRS 7 and IFRIC 2 at the same time. |
96B | Puttable Financial Instruments and Obligations Arising on Liquidation introduced a limited scope exception; therefore, an entity shall not apply the exception by analogy. |
96C |
97 | This Standard shall be applied retrospectively. |
97A | IAS 1 (as revised in 2007) amended the terminology used throughout IFRSs. In addition it amended paragraph 40. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. If an entity applies IAS 1 (revised 2007) for an earlier period, the amendments shall be applied for that earlier period. |
97B | IFRS 3 Business Combinations (as revised in 2008) deleted paragraph 4(c). An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2009. If an entity applies IFRS 3 (revised 2008) for an earlier period, the amendment shall also be applied for that earlier period. However, the amendment does not apply to contingent consideration that arose from a business combination for which the acquisition date preceded the application of IFRS 3 (revised 2008). Instead, an entity shall account for such consideration in accordance with paragraphs 65A–65E of IFRS 3 (as amended in 2010). |
97C | When applying the amendments described in paragraph 96A, an entity is required to split a compound financial instrument with an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation into separate liability and equity components. If the liability component is no longer outstanding, a retrospective application of those amendments to IAS 32 would involve separating two components of equity. The first component would be in retained earnings and represent the cumulative interest accreted on the liability component. The other component would represent the original equity component. Therefore, an entity need not separate these two components if the liability component is no longer outstanding at the date of application of the amendments. |
97D | Paragraph 4 was amended by Improvements to IFRSs issued in May 2008. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the amendment for an earlier period it shall disclose that fact and apply for that earlier period the amendments to paragraph 3 of IFRS 7, paragraph 1 of IAS 28 and paragraph 1 of IAS 31 issued in May 2008. An entity is permitted to apply the amendment prospectively. |
97E | Paragraphs 11 and 16 were amended by Classification of Rights Issues issued in October 2009. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 February 2010. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the amendment for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. |
97F | [Deleted] |
97G | Paragraph 97B was amended by Improvements to IFRSs issued in May 2010. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2010. Earlier application is permitted. |
97H | [Deleted] |
97I | IFRS 10 and IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 4(a) and AG29. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 10 and IFRS 11. |
97J | IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 11 and amended paragraphs 23 and AG31. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13. |
97K | Presentation of Items of Other Comprehensive Income (Amendments to IAS 1), issued in June 2011, amended paragraph 40. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IAS 1 as amended in June 2011. |
97L | Offsetting Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Amendments to IAS 32), issued in December 2011, deleted paragraph AG38 and added paragraphs AG38A–AG38F. An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014. An entity shall apply those amendments retrospectively. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies those amendments from an earlier date, it shall disclose that fact and shall also make the disclosures required by Disclosures—Offsetting Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Amendments to IFRS 7) issued in December 2011. |
97M | Disclosures—Offsetting Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Amendments to IFRS 7), issued in December 2011, amended paragraph 43 by requiring an entity to disclose the information required in paragraphs 13B–13E of IFRS 7 for recognised financial assets that are within the scope of paragraph 13A of IFRS 7. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013 and interim periods within those annual periods. An entity shall provide the disclosures required by this amendment retrospectively. |
97N | Annual Improvements 2009–2011 Cycle, issued in May 2012, amended paragraphs 35, 37 and 39 and added paragraph 35A. An entity shall apply that amendment retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies that amendment for an earlier period it shall disclose that fact. |
97O | Investment Entities (Amendments to IFRS 10, IFRS 12 and IAS 27), issued in October 2012, amended paragraph 4. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014. Earlier application of Investment Entities is permitted. If an entity applies that amendment earlier it shall also apply all amendments included in Investment Entities at the same time. |
97P | [Deleted] |
97Q | IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, issued in May 2014, amended paragraph AG21. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 15. |
97R | IFRS 9, as issued in July 2014, amended paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 12, 23, 31, 42, 96C, AG2 and AG30 and deleted paragraphs 97F, 97H and 97P. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 9. |
97S | IFRS 16 Leases, issued in January 2016, amended paragraphs AG9 and AG10. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 16. |
97T | IFRS 17, issued in May 2017, amended paragraphs 4, AG8 and AG36, and added paragraph 33A. Amendments to IFRS 17, issued in June 2020, further amended paragraph 4. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 17. |
98 | This Standard supersedes IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation revised in 2000.2 |
99 | This Standard supersedes the following Interpretations:
|
100 | This Standard withdraws draft SIC Interpretation D34 Financial Instruments—Instruments or Rights Redeemable by the Holder. |
This appendix is an integral part of the Standard.
AG1 | This Application Guidance explains the application of particular aspects of the Standard. |
AG2 | The Standard does not deal with the recognition or measurement of financial instruments. Requirements about the recognition and measurement of financial assets and financial liabilities are set out in IFRS 9. |
AG3 | Currency (cash) is a financial asset because it represents the medium of exchange and is therefore the basis on which all transactions are measured and recognised in financial statements. A deposit of cash with a bank or similar financial institution is a financial asset because it represents the contractual right of the depositor to obtain cash from the institution or to draw a cheque or similar instrument against the balance in favour of a creditor in payment of a financial liability. |
AG4 | Common examples of financial assets representing a contractual right to receive cash in the future and corresponding financial liabilities representing a contractual obligation to deliver cash in the future are:
In each case, one party’s contractual right to receive (or obligation to pay) cash is matched by the other party’s corresponding obligation to pay (or right to receive). |
AG5 | Another type of financial instrument is one for which the economic benefit to be received or given up is a financial asset other than cash. For example, a note payable in government bonds gives the holder the contractual right to receive and the issuer the contractual obligation to deliver government bonds, not cash. The bonds are financial assets because they represent obligations of the issuing government to pay cash. The note is, therefore, a financial asset of the note holder and a financial liability of the note issuer. |
AG6 | ‘Perpetual’ debt instruments (such as ‘perpetual’ bonds, debentures and capital notes) normally provide the holder with the contractual right to receive payments on account of interest at fixed dates extending into the indefinite future, either with no right to receive a return of principal or a right to a return of principal under terms that make it very unlikely or very far in the future. For example, an entity may issue a financial instrument requiring it to make annual payments in perpetuity equal to a stated interest rate of 8 per cent applied to a stated par or principal amount of CU1,000.3 Assuming 8 per cent to be the market rate of interest for the instrument when issued, the issuer assumes a contractual obligation to make a stream of future interest payments having a fair value (present value) of CU1,000 on initial recognition. The holder and issuer of the instrument have a financial asset and a financial liability, respectively. |
AG7 | A contractual right or contractual obligation to receive, deliver or exchange financial instruments is itself a financial instrument. A chain of contractual rights or contractual obligations meets the definition of a financial instrument if it will ultimately lead to the receipt or payment of cash or to the acquisition or issue of an equity instrument. |
AG8 | The ability to exercise a contractual right or the requirement to satisfy a contractual obligation may be absolute, or it may be contingent on the occurrence of a future event. For example, a financial guarantee is a contractual right of the lender to receive cash from the guarantor, and a corresponding contractual obligation of the guarantor to pay the lender, if the borrower defaults. The contractual right and obligation exist because of a past transaction or event (assumption of the guarantee), even though the lender’s ability to exercise its right and the requirement for the guarantor to perform under its obligation are both contingent on a future act of default by the borrower. A contingent right and obligation meet the definition of a financial asset and a financial liability, even though such assets and liabilities are not always recognised in the financial statements. Some of these contingent rights and obligations may be contracts within the scope of IFRS 17. |
AG9 | A lease typically creates an entitlement of the lessor to receive, and an obligation of the lessee to pay, a stream of payments that are substantially the same as blended payments of principal and interest under a loan agreement. The lessor accounts for its investment in the amount receivable under a finance lease rather than the underlying asset itself that is subject to the finance lease. Accordingly, a lessor regards a finance lease as a financial instrument. Under IFRS 16, a lessor does not recognise its entitlement to receive lease payments under an operating lease. [Refer:IFRS 16 Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC57–BC63] The lessor continues to account for the underlying asset itself rather than any amount receivable in the future under the contract. Accordingly, a lessor does not regard an operating lease as a financial instrument, except as regards individual payments currently due and payable by the lessee. [Refer:paragraph 97S for effective date]
|
AG10 | Physical assets (such as inventories, property, plant and equipment), right-of-use assets and intangible assets (such as patents and trademarks) are not financial assets. Control of such physical assets, right-of-use assets and intangible assets creates an opportunity to generate an inflow of cash or another financial asset, but it does not give rise to a present right to receive cash or another financial asset. |
AG11 | Assets (such as prepaid expenses) for which the future economic benefit is the receipt of goods or services, rather than the right to receive cash or another financial asset, are not financial assets. Similarly, items such as deferred revenue and most warranty obligations are not financial liabilities because the outflow of economic benefits associated with them is the delivery of goods and services rather than a contractual obligation to pay cash or another financial asset. |
AG12 | Liabilities or assets that are not contractual (such as income taxes that are created as a result of statutory requirements imposed by governments) are not financial liabilities or financial assets. Accounting for income taxes is dealt with in IAS 12. Similarly, constructive obligations, as defined in IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, do not arise from contracts and are not financial liabilities. [Refer:paragraphs 11 and 13]
|
AG13 | Examples of equity instruments include non‑puttable ordinary shares, some puttable instruments (see paragraphs 16A and 16B), some instruments that impose on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation (see paragraphs 16C and 16D), some types of preference shares (see paragraphs AG25 and AG26), and warrants or written call options that allow the holder to subscribe for or purchase a fixed number of non‑puttable ordinary shares in the issuing entity in exchange for a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset. An entity’s obligation to issue or purchase a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset is an equity instrument of the entity (except as stated in paragraph 22A). However, if such a contract contains an obligation for the entity to pay cash or another financial asset (other than a contract classified as equity in accordance with paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D), it also gives rise to a liability for the present value of the redemption amount (see paragraph AG27(a)). An issuer of non‑puttable ordinary shares assumes a liability when it formally acts to make a distribution and becomes legally obliged to the shareholders to do so. This may be the case following the declaration of a dividend or when the entity is being wound up and any assets remaining after the satisfaction of liabilities become distributable to shareholders. |
AG14 | A purchased call option or other similar contract acquired by an entity that gives it the right to reacquire a fixed number of its own equity instruments in exchange for delivering a fixed amount of cash or another financial asset is not a financial asset of the entity (except as stated in paragraph 22A). Instead, any consideration paid for such a contract is deducted from equity. |
AG14A | One of the features of paragraphs 16A and 16C is that the financial instrument is in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes. |
AG14B | When determining whether an instrument is in the subordinate class, an entity evaluates the instrument’s claim on liquidation as if it were to liquidate on the date when it classifies the instrument. An entity shall reassess the classification if there is a change in relevant circumstances. For example, if the entity issues or redeems another financial instrument, this may affect whether the instrument in question is in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes. |
AG14C | An instrument that has a preferential right on liquidation of the entity is not an instrument with an entitlement to a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity. For example, an instrument has a preferential right on liquidation if it entitles the holder to a fixed dividend on liquidation, in addition to a share of the entity’s net assets, when other instruments in the subordinate class with a right to a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity do not have the same right on liquidation. |
AG14D | If an entity has only one class of financial instruments, that class shall be treated as if it were subordinate to all other classes. |
AG14E | The total expected cash flows of the instrument over the life of the instrument must be substantially based on the profit or loss, change in the recognised net assets or fair value of the recognised and unrecognised net assets of the entity over the life of the instrument. Profit or loss and the change in the recognised net assets shall be measured in accordance with relevant IFRSs. |
AG14F | The holder of a puttable financial instrument or an instrument that imposes on the entity an obligation to deliver to another party a pro rata share of the net assets of the entity only on liquidation may enter into transactions with the entity in a role other than that of an owner. For example, an instrument holder may also be an employee of the entity. Only the cash flows and the contractual terms and conditions of the instrument that relate to the instrument holder as an owner of the entity shall be considered when assessing whether the instrument should be classified as equity under paragraph 16A or paragraph 16C. |
AG14G | An example is a limited partnership that has limited and general partners. Some general partners may provide a guarantee to the entity and may be remunerated for providing that guarantee. In such situations, the guarantee and the associated cash flows relate to the instrument holders in their role as guarantors and not in their roles as owners of the entity. Therefore, such a guarantee and the associated cash flows would not result in the general partners being considered subordinate to the limited partners, and would be disregarded when assessing whether the contractual terms of the limited partnership instruments and the general partnership instruments are identical. |
AG14H | Another example is a profit or loss sharing arrangement that allocates profit or loss to the instrument holders on the basis of services rendered or business generated during the current and previous years. Such arrangements are transactions with instrument holders in their role as non‑owners and should not be considered when assessing the features listed in paragraph 16A or paragraph 16C. However, profit or loss sharing arrangements that allocate profit or loss to instrument holders based on the nominal amount of their instruments relative to others in the class represent transactions with the instrument holders in their roles as owners and should be considered when assessing the features listed in paragraph 16A or paragraph 16C. |
AG14I | The cash flows and contractual terms and conditions of a transaction between the instrument holder (in the role as a non‑owner) and the issuing entity must be similar to an equivalent transaction that might occur between a non‑instrument holder and the issuing entity. |
AG14J | A condition for classifying as equity a financial instrument that otherwise meets the criteria in paragraph 16A or paragraph 16C is that the entity has no other financial instrument or contract that has (a) total cash flows based substantially on the profit or loss, the change in the recognised net assets or the change in the fair value of the recognised and unrecognised net assets of the entity and (b) the effect of substantially restricting or fixing the residual return. The following instruments, when entered into on normal commercial terms with unrelated parties, are unlikely to prevent instruments that otherwise meet the criteria in paragraph 16A or paragraph 16C from being classified as equity:
|
AG15 | Financial instruments include primary instruments (such as receivables, payables and equity instruments) and derivative financial instruments (such as financial options, futures and forwards, interest rate swaps and currency swaps). Derivative financial instruments meet the definition of a financial instrument and, accordingly, are within the scope of this Standard. |
AG16 | Derivative financial instruments create rights and obligations that have the effect of transferring between the parties to the instrument one or more of the financial risks inherent in an underlying primary financial instrument. On inception, derivative financial instruments give one party a contractual right to exchange financial assets or financial liabilities with another party under conditions that are potentially favourable, or a contractual obligation to exchange financial assets or financial liabilities with another party under conditions that are potentially unfavourable. However, they generally4 do not result in a transfer of the underlying primary financial instrument on inception of the contract, nor does such a transfer necessarily take place on maturity of the contract. Some instruments embody both a right and an obligation to make an exchange. Because the terms of the exchange are determined on inception of the derivative instrument, as prices in financial markets change those terms may become either favourable or unfavourable. |
AG17 | A put or call option to exchange financial assets or financial liabilities (ie financial instruments other than an entity’s own equity instruments) gives the holder a right to obtain potential future economic benefits associated with changes in the fair value of the financial instrument underlying the contract. Conversely, the writer of an option assumes an obligation to forgo potential future economic benefits or bear potential losses of economic benefits associated with changes in the fair value of the underlying financial instrument. The contractual right of the holder and obligation of the writer meet the definition of a financial asset and a financial liability, respectively. The financial instrument underlying an option contract may be any financial asset, including shares in other entities and interest‑bearing instruments. An option may require the writer to issue a debt instrument, rather than transfer a financial asset, but the instrument underlying the option would constitute a financial asset of the holder if the option were exercised. The option‑holder’s right to exchange the financial asset under potentially favourable conditions and the writer’s obligation to exchange the financial asset under potentially unfavourable conditions are distinct from the underlying financial asset to be exchanged upon exercise of the option. The nature of the holder’s right and of the writer’s obligation are not affected by the likelihood that the option will be exercised. |
AG18 | Another example of a derivative financial instrument is a forward contract to be settled in six months’ time in which one party (the purchaser) promises to deliver CU1,000,000 cash in exchange for CU1,000,000 face amount of fixed rate government bonds, and the other party (the seller) promises to deliver CU1,000,000 face amount of fixed rate government bonds in exchange for CU1,000,000 cash. During the six months, both parties have a contractual right and a contractual obligation to exchange financial instruments. If the market price of the government bonds rises above CU1,000,000, the conditions will be favourable to the purchaser and unfavourable to the seller; if the market price falls below CU1,000,000, the effect will be the opposite. The purchaser has a contractual right (a financial asset) similar to the right under a call option held and a contractual obligation (a financial liability) similar to the obligation under a put option written; the seller has a contractual right (a financial asset) similar to the right under a put option held and a contractual obligation (a financial liability) similar to the obligation under a call option written. As with options, these contractual rights and obligations constitute financial assets and financial liabilities separate and distinct from the underlying financial instruments (the bonds and cash to be exchanged). Both parties to a forward contract have an obligation to perform at the agreed time, whereas performance under an option contract occurs only if and when the holder of the option chooses to exercise it. |
AG19 | Many other types of derivative instruments embody a right or obligation to make a future exchange, including interest rate and currency swaps, interest rate caps, collars and floors, loan commitments, note issuance facilities and letters of credit. An interest rate swap contract may be viewed as a variation of a forward contract in which the parties agree to make a series of future exchanges of cash amounts, one amount calculated with reference to a floating interest rate and the other with reference to a fixed interest rate. Futures contracts are another variation of forward contracts, differing primarily in that the contracts are standardised and traded on an exchange. [Refer:paragraph 11]
|
AG20 | Contracts to buy or sell non‑financial items do not meet the definition of a financial instrument because the contractual right of one party to receive a non‑financial asset or service and the corresponding obligation of the other party do not establish a present right or obligation of either party to receive, deliver or exchange a financial asset. For example, contracts that provide for settlement only by the receipt or delivery of a non‑financial item (eg an option, futures or forward contract on silver) are not financial instruments. Many commodity contracts are of this type. Some are standardised in form and traded on organised markets in much the same fashion as some derivative financial instruments. For example, a commodity futures contract may be bought and sold readily for cash because it is listed for trading on an exchange and may change hands many times. However, the parties buying and selling the contract are, in effect, trading the underlying commodity. The ability to buy or sell a commodity contract for cash, the ease with which it may be bought or sold and the possibility of negotiating a cash settlement of the obligation to receive or deliver the commodity do not alter the fundamental character of the contract in a way that creates a financial instrument. Nevertheless, some contracts to buy or sell non‑financial items that can be settled net or by exchanging financial instruments, or in which the non‑financial item is readily convertible to cash, are within the scope of the Standard as if they were financial instruments (see paragraph 8). [Refer:paragraphs 9–11]
|
AG21 | Except as required by IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, a contract that involves the receipt or delivery of physical assets does not give rise to a financial asset of one party and a financial liability of the other party unless any corresponding payment is deferred past the date on which the physical assets are transferred. Such is the case with the purchase or sale of goods on trade credit. |
AG22 | Some contracts are commodity‑linked, but do not involve settlement through the physical receipt or delivery of a commodity. They specify settlement through cash payments that are determined according to a formula in the contract, rather than through payment of fixed amounts. For example, the principal amount of a bond may be calculated by applying the market price of oil prevailing at the maturity of the bond to a fixed quantity of oil. The principal is indexed by reference to a commodity price, but is settled only in cash. Such a contract constitutes a financial instrument. |
AG23 | The definition of a financial instrument also encompasses a contract that gives rise to a non‑financial asset or non‑financial liability in addition to a financial asset or financial liability. Such financial instruments often give one party an option to exchange a financial asset for a non‑financial asset. For example, an oil‑linked bond may give the holder the right to receive a stream of fixed periodic interest payments and a fixed amount of cash on maturity, with the option to exchange the principal amount for a fixed quantity of oil. The desirability of exercising this option will vary from time to time depending on the fair value of oil relative to the exchange ratio of cash for oil (the exchange price) inherent in the bond. The intentions of the bondholder concerning the exercise of the option do not affect the substance of the component assets. The financial asset of the holder and the financial liability of the issuer make the bond a financial instrument, regardless of the other types of assets and liabilities also created. |
AG24 | [Deleted] |
AG25 | Preference shares may be issued with various rights. In determining whether a preference share is a financial liability or an equity instrument, an issuer assesses the particular rights attaching to the share to determine whether it exhibits the fundamental characteristic of a financial liability. For example, a preference share that provides for redemption on a specific date or at the option of the holder contains a financial liability because the issuer has an obligation to transfer financial assets to the holder of the share. The potential inability of an issuer to satisfy an obligation to redeem a preference share when contractually required to do so, whether because of a lack of funds, a statutory restriction or insufficient profits or reserves, does not negate the obligation. An option of the issuer to redeem the shares for cash does not satisfy the definition of a financial liability because the issuer does not have a present obligation to transfer financial assets to the shareholders. In this case, redemption of the shares is solely at the discretion of the issuer. An obligation may arise, however, when the issuer of the shares exercises its option, usually by formally notifying the shareholders of an intention to redeem the shares. |
AG26 | When preference shares are non‑redeemable, the appropriate classification is determined by the other rights that attach to them. Classification is based on an assessment of the substance of the contractual arrangements [Refer:paragraph 18] and the definitions of a financial liability and an equity instrument. [Refer:paragraph 11] When distributions to holders of the preference shares, whether cumulative or non‑cumulative, are at the discretion of the issuer, [Refer:paragraph 17] the shares are equity instruments.E22 The classification of a preference share as an equity instrument or a financial liability is not affected by, for example:
|
| E22 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2010, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation—Shareholder discretion’ The IFRIC received a request for guidance on whether a financial instrument, in the form of a preference share that includes a contractual obligation to deliver cash, is a financial liability or equity, if the payment is at the ultimate discretion of the issuer’s shareholders. The IFRIC noted that paragraph AG26 of IAS 32 identifies that when distributions to holders of preference shares are at the discretion of the issuer, the shares are equity instruments. The IFRIC identified that diversity may exist in practice in assessing whether an entity has an unconditional right to avoid delivering cash if the contractual obligation is at the ultimate discretion of the issuer’s shareholders, and consequently whether a financial instrument should be classified as a financial liability or equity. The IFRIC noted that the Board is currently undertaking a project to improve and simplify the financial reporting requirements for financial instruments with characteristics of equity. The main objectives of this project are to develop a better distinction between equity and non‑equity instruments and convergence of IFRSs and US GAAP. Consequently, the IFRIC recommended that the Board address this issue as part of its current project on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity. The Board’s project was expected to address the distinction between equity and non‑equity instruments in a shorter period than the IFRIC would require to complete its due process. Therefore, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
AG27 | The following examples illustrate how to classify different types of contracts on an entity’s own equity instruments:
|
AG28 | Paragraph 25 requires that if a part of a contingent settlement provision that could require settlement in cash or another financial asset (or in another way that would result in the instrument being a financial liability) is not genuine, the settlement provision does not affect the classification of a financial instrument. Thus, a contract that requires settlement in cash or a variable number of the entity’s own shares only on the occurrence of an event that is extremely rare, highly abnormal and very unlikely to occur is an equity instrument. Similarly, settlement in a fixed number of an entity’s own shares may be contractually precluded in circumstances that are outside the control of the entity, but if these circumstances have no genuine possibility of occurring, classification as an equity instrument is appropriate. |
AG29 | In consolidated financial statements, an entity presents non‑controlling interests—ie the interests of other parties in the equity and income of its subsidiaries—in accordance with IAS 1 and IFRS 10. When classifying a financial instrument (or a component of it) in consolidated financial statements, an entity considers all terms and conditions agreed between members of the group and the holders of the instrument in determining whether the group as a whole has an obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset in respect of the instrument or to settle it in a manner that results in liability classification. When a subsidiary in a group issues a financial instrument and a parent or other group entity agrees additional terms directly with the holders of the instrument (eg a guarantee), the group may not have discretion over distributions or redemption. Although the subsidiary may appropriately classify the instrument without regard to these additional terms in its individual financial statements, the effect of other agreements between members of the group and the holders of the instrument is considered in order to ensure that consolidated financial statements reflect the contracts and transactions entered into by the group as a whole. To the extent that there is such an obligation or settlement provision, the instrument (or the component of it that is subject to the obligation) is classified as a financial liability in consolidated financial statements. |
AG29A | Some types of instruments that impose a contractual obligation on the entity are classified as equity instruments in accordance with paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D. Classification in accordance with those paragraphs is an exception to the principles otherwise applied in this Standard to the classification of an instrument. This exception is not extended to the classification of non‑controlling interests in the consolidated financial statements. Therefore, instruments classified as equity instruments in accordance with either paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D in the separate or individual financial statements that are non‑controlling interests are classified as liabilities in the consolidated financial statements of the group. |
AG30 | Paragraph 28 applies only to issuers of non‑derivative compound financial instruments. Paragraph 28 does not deal with compound financial instruments from the perspective of holders. IFRS 9 deals with the classification and measurement of financial assets that are compound financial instruments from the holder’s perspective. |
AG31 | A common form of compound financial instrument is a debt instrument with an embedded conversion option, such as a bond convertible into ordinary shares of the issuer, and without any other embedded derivative features. Paragraph 28 requires the issuer of such a financial instrument to present the liability component and the equity component separately in the statement of financial position, as follows:
|
AG32 | On conversion of a convertible instrument at maturity, the entity derecognises the liability component and recognises it as equity. The original equity component remains as equity (although it may be transferred from one line item within equity to another). There is no gain or loss on conversion at maturity. |
AG33 | When an entity extinguishes a convertible instrument before maturity through an early redemption or repurchase in which the original conversion privileges are unchanged, the entity allocates the consideration paid and any transaction costs for the repurchase or redemption to the liability and equity components of the instrument at the date of the transaction. The method used in allocating the consideration paid and transaction costs to the separate components is consistent with that used in the original allocation to the separate components of the proceeds received by the entity when the convertible instrument was issued, in accordance with paragraphs 28–32. |
AG34 | Once the allocation of the consideration is made, any resulting gain or loss is treated in accordance with accounting principles applicable to the related component, as follows:
|
AG35 | An entity may amend the terms of a convertible instrument to induce early conversion, for example by offering a more favourable conversion ratio or paying other additional consideration in the event of conversion before a specified date. The difference, at the date the terms are amended, between the fair value of the consideration the holder receives on conversion of the instrument under the revised terms and the fair value of the consideration the holder would have received under the original terms is recognised as a loss in profit or loss. |
AG36 | An entity’s own equity instruments are not recognised as a financial asset regardless of the reason for which they are reacquired. Paragraph 33 requires an entity that reacquires its own equity instruments to deduct those equity instruments from equity (but see also paragraph 33A). However, when an entity holds its own equity on behalf of others, eg a financial institution holding its own equity on behalf of a client, there is an agency relationship and as a result those holdings are not included in the entity’s statement of financial position. |
AG37 | The following example illustrates the application of paragraph 35 to a compound financial instrument. Assume that a non‑cumulative preference share is mandatorily redeemable for cash in five years, but that dividends are payable at the discretion of the entity before the redemption date. Such an instrument is a compound financial instrument, with the liability component being the present value of the redemption amount. The unwinding of the discount on this component is recognised in profit or loss and classified as interest expense. Any dividends paid relate to the equity component and, accordingly, are recognised as a distribution of profit or loss. A similar treatment would apply if the redemption was not mandatory but at the option of the holder, or if the share was mandatorily convertible into a variable number of ordinary shares calculated to equal a fixed amount or an amount based on changes in an underlying variable (eg commodity). However, if any unpaid dividends are added to the redemption amount, the entire instrument is a liability. In such a case, any dividends are classified as interest expense. [Refer:paragraphs 35 and 36]
|
AG38 | [Deleted] |
AG38A | A right of set‑off may be currently available or it may be contingent on a future event (for example, the right may be triggered or exercisable only on the occurrence of some future event, such as the default, insolvency or bankruptcy of one of the counterparties). Even if the right of set‑off is not contingent on a future event, it may only be legally enforceable in the normal course of business, or in the event of default, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, of one or all of the counterparties. |
AG38B | To meet the criterion in paragraph 42(a), an entity must currently have a legally enforceable right of set‑off. This means that the right of set‑off:
|
AG38C | The nature and extent of the right of set‑off, including any conditions attached to its exercise and whether it would remain in the event of default or insolvency or bankruptcy, may vary from one legal jurisdiction to another. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that the right of set‑off is automatically available outside of the normal course of business. For example, the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of a jurisdiction may prohibit, or restrict, the right of set‑off in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency in some circumstances. |
AG38D | The laws applicable to the relationships between the parties (for example, contractual provisions, the laws governing the contract, or the default, insolvency or bankruptcy laws applicable to the parties) need to be considered to ascertain whether the right of set‑off is enforceable in the normal course of business, in an event of default, and in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, of the entity and all of the counterparties (as specified in paragraph AG38B(b)). |
AG38E | To meet the criterion in paragraph 42(b) an entity must intend either to settle on a net basis or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously. Although the entity may have a right to settle net, it may still realise the asset and settle the liability separately. |
AG38F | If an entity can settle amounts in a manner such that the outcome is, in effect, equivalent to net settlement, the entity will meet the net settlement criterion in paragraph 42(b). This will occur if, and only if, the gross settlement mechanism has features that eliminate or result in insignificant credit and liquidity risk, and that will process receivables and payables in a single settlement process or cycle. For example, a gross settlement system that has all of the following characteristics would meet the net settlement criterion in paragraph 42(b):
|
AG39 | The Standard does not provide special treatment for so‑called ‘synthetic instruments’, which are groups of separate financial instruments acquired and held to emulate the characteristics of another instrument. For example, a floating rate long‑term debt combined with an interest rate swap that involves receiving floating payments and making fixed payments synthesises a fixed rate long‑term debt. Each of the individual financial instruments that together constitute a ‘synthetic instrument’ represents a contractual right or obligation with its own terms and conditions and each may be transferred or settled separately. Each financial instrument is exposed to risks that may differ from the risks to which other financial instruments are exposed. Accordingly, when one financial instrument in a ‘synthetic instrument’ is an asset and another is a liability, they are not offset and presented in an entity’s statement of financial position on a net basis unless they meet the criteria for offsetting in paragraph 42. [Refer:paragraphs 43–50]
|
AG40 | [Deleted] |
International Accounting Standard 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation (as revised in 2003) was approved for issue by thirteen of the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr Leisenring dissented. His dissenting opinion is set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Sir David Tweedie | Chairman |
| Thomas E Jones | Vice‑Chairman |
| Mary E Barth | |
| Hans‑Georg Bruns | |
| Anthony T Cope | |
| Robert P Garnett | |
| Gilbert Gélard | |
| James J Leisenring | |
| Warren J McGregor | |
| Patricia L O’Malley | |
| Harry K Schmid | |
| John T Smith | |
| Geoffrey Whittington | |
| Tatsumi Yamada |
Puttable Financial Instruments and Obligations Arising on Liquidation (Amendments to IAS 32 and IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements) was approved for issue by eleven of the thirteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Professor Barth and Mr Garnett dissented. Their dissenting opinions are set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Sir David Tweedie | Chairman |
| Thomas E Jones | Vice‑Chairman |
| Mary E Barth | |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Robert P Garnett | |
| Gilbert Gélard | |
| James J Leisenring | |
| Warren J McGregor | |
| John T Smith | |
| Tatsumi Yamada | |
| Wei‑Guo Zhang |
Classification of Rights Issues (Amendment to IAS 32) was approved for issue by thirteen of the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Messrs Leisenring and Smith dissented from the issue of the amendment. Their dissenting opinions are set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Sir David Tweedie | Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Robert P Garnett | |
| Gilbert Gélard | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| James J Leisenring | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Warren J McGregor | |
| John T Smith | |
| Tatsumi Yamada | |
| Wei‑Guo Zhang |
Offsetting Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Amendments to IAS 32) was approved for issue by the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice‑Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Elke König | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Paul Pacter | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| John T Smith | |
| Wei‑Guo Zhang |
| 1 | In this Standard, monetary amounts are denominated in ‘currency units (CU)’. (back) |
| 2 | In August 2005 the IASB relocated all disclosures relating to financial instruments to IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. (back) |
| 3 | In this guidance, monetary amounts are denominated in ‘currency units (CU)’. (back) |
| 4 | This is true of most, but not all derivatives, eg in some cross‑currency interest rate swaps principal is exchanged on inception (and re‑exchanged on maturity). (back) |