Contents
International Financial Reporting Standard 9 Financial Instruments (IFRS 9) is set out in paragraphs 1.1–7.3.2 and Appendices A–C. All the paragraphs have equal authority. Paragraphs in bold type state the main principles. Terms defined in Appendix A are in italics the first time they appear in the IFRS. Definitions of other terms are given in the Glossary for International Financial Reporting Standards. IFRS 9 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]
International Financial Reporting Standard 9Financial Instruments
Chapter 1 Objective
1.1 | The objective of this Standard is to establish principles for the financial reporting of financial assets and financial liabilities that will present relevant and useful information [Refer:Conceptual Framework paragraphs 2.4–2.38] to users of financial statements [Refer:Conceptual Framework paragraphs 1.2–1.10 and 2.36] for their assessment of the amounts, timing and uncertainty of an entity’s future cash flows. |
Chapter 2 Scope
2.1 | This Standard shall be applied by all entities to all types of financial instrumentsE1 except:
|
| E1 | [IFRIC® Update, June 2017, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Centrally cleared client derivatives’ Some jurisdictions mandate the clearing of particular derivative products through a central clearing counterparty (CCP). To clear through a CCP, an entity must be a clearing member (sometimes referred to as a 'clearing broker’). The types of products required to be cleared, and the surrounding legal framework, vary across jurisdictions. The Committee received a request to clarify the accounting for centrally cleared client derivative contracts from the perspective of the clearing member. The Committee concluded that the clearing member first applies the requirements for financial instruments. More specifically, the Committee observed that:
The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a clearing member to account for centrally cleared client derivative contracts. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
| E2 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2022, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IFRS 16 Leases—Lessor Forgiveness of Lease Payments’ The Committee received a request about a lessor’s application of IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 in accounting for a particular rent concession. The rent concession is one for which the only change to the lease contract is the lessor’s forgiveness of lease payments due from the lessee under that contract. The fact pattern The request described a rent concession agreed by a lessor and a lessee on the date the rent concession is granted. The rent concession changes the original terms and conditions of a lease contract classified by the lessor—applying IFRS 16—as an operating lease. The lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments:
No other changes are made to the lease contract, nor are there any other negotiations between the lessor and the lessee that might affect the accounting for the rent concession. Before the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor applies the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The question The request asked:
Applying the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that ‘operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition and impairment requirements’ in IFRS 9. Therefore, a lessor is required to apply the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the gross carrying amount of an operating lease receivable from the date on which it recognises that receivable, taking into account applicable derecognition requirements in IFRS 9. IFRS 9 defines credit loss as ‘the difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls)…’. Paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9 states that ‘an entity shall measure expected credit losses … in a way that reflects (a) an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes; (b) the time value of money; and (c) reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort at the reporting date about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions’. Consequently, in the fact pattern described in the request, the lessor applies the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The lessor estimates expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable by measuring any credit loss to reflect ‘all cash shortfalls’. These shortfalls are the difference between:
Therefore, the Committee concluded that, before the rent concession is granted, the lessor measures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable in a way that reflects ‘an unbiased and probability-weighted amount …’, ‘the time value of money’, and ‘reasonable and supportable information …’ (as required by paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9). This measurement of expected credit losses includes the lessor considering its expectations of forgiving lease payments recognised as part of that receivable. Accounting for the rent concession—IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 Applying the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9. Consequently, on granting the rent concession, the lessor considers whether the requirements for derecognition in paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 are met. In the rent concession described in the request, the lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments, some of which the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable. Accordingly, on granting the rent concession, the lessor concludes that the requirements in paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9 have been met—that is, its contractual rights to the cash flows from the operating lease receivable expire—because it has agreed to legally release the lessee from its obligation and thus has given up its contractual rights to those specifically identified cash flows. Therefore, on the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor remeasures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable (and recognises any change to the expected credit loss allowance in profit or loss) and derecognises the operating lease receivable (and associated expected credit loss allowance). Applying the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to future lease payments under the lease The rent concession described in the request meets the definition of a lease modification in IFRS 16. The rent concession is ‘a change in … the consideration for a lease … that was not part of the original terms and conditions of the lease’. Therefore, the lessor applies paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 and accounts for the modified lease as a new lease from the date the rent concession is granted. Paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 requires a lessor to consider any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease as part of the lease payments for the new lease. The Committee observed that lease payments contractually due from the lessee that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable (to which the derecognition and impairment requirements in IFRS 9 apply) are not accrued lease payments. Consequently, neither those lease payments nor their forgiveness are considered—applying paragraph 87 of IFRS 16—as part of the lease payments for the new lease. In accounting for the modified lease as a new lease, a lessor applies paragraph 81 of IFRS 16 and recognises the lease payments (including any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease) as income on either a straight-line basis or another systematic basis. The Committee concluded that the lessor accounts for the rent concession described in the request on the date it is granted by applying: (a) the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable; and (b) the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has not recognised as an operating lease receivable. Conclusion The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards provide an adequate basis for a lessor to determine how to apply the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to an operating lease receivable and account for the rent concession described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan. |
2.2 | The impairment requirements of this Standard shall be applied to those rights that IFRS 15 specifies are accounted for in accordance with this Standard for the purposes of recognising impairment gains or losses. [Refer:Section 5.5]
|
2.3 | The following loan commitments are within the scope of this Standard:
|
2.4 | 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.E3,E4,E5 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. |
| E3 | [IFRIC® Update, August 2005, Agenda Decision, ‘Meaning of delivery’ The IFRIC considered the application of the ‘own purchase, sale or usage requirements’ scope exemption in paragraph 5 of IAS 39 [now in paragraph 2.4 of IFRS 9] when:
The IFRIC noted that ‘delivery’ for the purposes of the paragraph 5 exemption is not necessarily restricted to the physical delivery of the underlying to a specific customer, as physical delivery is not a condition of the exemption. The IFRIC was of the view that delivery of gold to a refiner in return for an allocation of an equivalent quantity of refined gold was not delivery, but that allocation of that refined gold to a customer’s account could be regarded as delivery. The IFRIC decided not to develop guidance on the meaning of ‘delivery’ as it was not aware of evidence of significant diversity in practice. The IFRIC indicated that a synthetic arrangement that results from the linking of a non-deliverable contract entered into with a customer to fix the price of a commodity with a transaction to buy or sell the commodity through an intermediary would not satisfy the paragraph 5 scope exemption. The IFRIC decided not to add this topic to its agenda, since IAS 39 was clear on both points.] |
| E4 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2010, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Unit of account for forward contracts with volumetric optionality’ The IFRIC received a request to add an item to its agenda on providing guidance on whether a contract that (a) obliges an entity to deliver (sell) at a fixed price a fixed number of units of a non-financial item that is readily convertible to cash and (b) that provides the counterparty with the option to purchase also at a fixed price a fixed number of additional units of the same item can be assessed as two separate contracts for the purpose of applying paragraphs 5–7 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraphs 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 of IFRS 9]. Although the IFRIC recognised that significant diversity exists in practice, it noted that the Board has accelerated its project to develop a replacement for IAS 39 and expects to issue a new standard by the end of 2010. The Board will consider the scope of IAS 39, including the guidance about contracts to buy or sell non-financial items in IAS 39.5–7, as part of the replacement for that standard. Therefore, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
| E5 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Physical Settlement of Contracts to Buy or Sell a Non-financial Item’ The Committee received a request about how an entity applies IFRS 9 to particular contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item in the future at a fixed price. The request describes two fact patterns in which an entity accounts for such contracts as derivatives at fair value through profit or loss (FVPL) but nonetheless physically settles the contracts by either delivering or taking delivery of the underlying non-financial item. IFRS 9 must be applied to 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 those contracts were financial instruments, with one exception. That exception applies to 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 (‘own use scope exception’ in paragraph 2.4 of IFRS 9). In the fact patterns described in the request, the entity concludes that the contracts are within the scope of IFRS 9 because they do not meet the own use scope exception. Consequently, the entity accounts for the contracts as derivatives measured at FVPL. The entity does not designate the contracts as part of a hedging relationship for accounting purposes. At the settlement date, the entity physically settles the contracts by either delivering or taking delivery of the non-financial item. In accounting for that settlement, the request explains that the entity records the cash paid (in the case of the purchase contract) or received (in the case of the sale contract) and derecognises the derivative. In addition, the entity:
The request asked whether, in accounting for the physical settlement of these contracts, the entity is permitted or required to make an additional journal entry that would:
The Committee observed that, in the fact patterns described in the request, the contracts are settled by the receipt (or delivery) of a non-financial item in exchange for both cash and the settlement of the derivative asset or liability. The Committee also observed that the accounting for contracts that do not meet the own use scope exception in IFRS 9 (and are accounted for as a derivative) is different from the accounting for contracts that meet that exception (and are not accounted for as a derivative). Similarly, the accounting for contracts designated in a hedging relationship for accounting purposes is different from the accounting for contracts that are not designated in such relationships. Those differences in accounting reflect differences in the respective requirements. IFRS 9 neither permits nor requires an entity to reassess or change its accounting for a derivative contract because that contract is ultimately physically settled. The additional journal entry described in the request would effectively negate the requirement in IFRS 9 to account for the contract as a derivative because it would reverse the accumulated fair value gain or loss on the derivative without any basis to do so. The additional journal entry would also result in the recognition of income or expenses on the derivative that do not exist. Consequently, the Committee concluded that IFRS 9 neither permits nor requires an entity to make the additional journal entry described in the request. However, the Committee observed that an entity is required to present gains and losses on the derivative, and disclose information about those amounts, applying applicable IFRS Standards, such as IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements and IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. In determining what line items to present in profit or loss, the requirements in IAS 1 (including those related to aggregation) are applicable. IAS 1 does not specify requirements for the presentation of amounts related to the remeasurement of derivatives. However paragraph 20(a)(i) of IFRS 7 specifies disclosure requirements for net gains or net losses on financial assets or financial liabilities that are mandatorily measured at FVPL applying IFRS 9. For these purposes, in the fact patterns described in the request, there is no gain or loss on the derivative caused by settlement. The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to conclude on whether it is permitted or required to make the additional journal entry described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
2.5 | A contract 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 contract was a financial instrument, may be irrevocably designated as measured at fair value through profit or loss even if it was entered into 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. This designation is available only at inception of the contract and only if it eliminates or significantly reduces a recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) that would otherwise arise from not recognising that contract because it is excluded from the scope of this Standard (see paragraph 2.4). |
2.6 | 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 2.4 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 requirements and, accordingly, whether they are within the scope of this Standard. |
2.7 | A written optionE6 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 2.6(a) or 2.6(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. |
| E6 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2007, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Written options in retail energy contracts’ The IFRIC received a request to interpret what is meant by ‘written option’ within the context of paragraph 7 of IAS 39 [now in paragraph 2.7 of IFRS 9]. Under paragraph 7 of IAS 39 a written option to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be net settled (as defined in paragraph 5) cannot be considered to have been entered into for the purpose of meeting the reporting entity’s normal purchase, sale and usage requirements. The application of this paragraph is illustrated in the current guidance. The submission was primarily concerned with the accounting for energy supply contracts to retail customers. Analysis of such contracts suggests that in many situations these contracts are not capable of net cash settlement as laid out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of IAS 39. If this is the case, such contracts would not be considered to be within the scope of IAS 39. In the light of the above, the IFRIC expected little divergence in practice and therefore decided not to add the item to the agenda.] |
Chapter 3 Recognition and derecognition
3.1 Initial recognition
3.1.1 | An entity shall recognise a financial asset or a financial liability in its statement of financial position when, and only when, the entity becomes party to the contractual provisions of the instrument (see paragraphs B3.1.1 and B3.1.2). When an entity first recognises a financial asset, it shall classify it in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 and measure it in accordance with paragraphs 5.1.1–5.1.3. When an entity first recognises a financial liability, it shall classify it in accordance with paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and measure it in accordance with paragraph 5.1.1. |
Regular way purchase or sale of financial assets
3.1.2 | A regular way purchase or sale of financial assets shall be recognised and derecognised, as applicable, using trade date accounting or settlement date accounting (see paragraphs B3.1.3–B3.1.6). |
3.2 Derecognition of financial assetsE7
| E7 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2009, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Derecognition’ The IFRIC was asked:
At its meeting in July 2006, the IFRIC decided to refer these issues to the Board for clarification. The Board discussed these issues at its meeting in September 2006 and the Board’s observations were communicated to the IFRIC at its meeting in November 2006. The IFRIC decided not to add the issue to the agenda. A tentative decision was published in the November 2006 IFRIC Update. At its meeting in January 2007, the IFRIC decided to add a limited scope project on derecognition to its agenda. However, the project has been inactive pending the availability of staff resources. Subsequently, the Board has accelerated its project to develop a replacement for the sections of IAS 39 that would have been interpreted by this IFRIC issue. The Board expects to issue a new standard on this topic no later than 2010. Therefore the IFRIC decided to remove this issue from its agenda. [In October 2010 the Board carried forward unchanged from IAS 39 the requirements related to the derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities]] |
3.2.1 | In consolidated financial statements, paragraphs 3.2.2–3.2.9, B3.1.1, B3.1.2 and B3.2.1–B3.2.17 are applied at a consolidated level. Hence, an entity first consolidates all subsidiaries in accordance with IFRS 10 and then applies those paragraphs to the resulting group. |
3.2.2 | Before evaluating whether, and to what extent, derecognition is appropriate under paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9, an entity determines whether those paragraphs should be applied to a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets) or a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its entirety, as follows.
In paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.12, the term ‘financial asset’ refers to either a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets) as identified in (a) above or, otherwise, a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its entirety. |
3.2.3 | An entity shall derecognise a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] when, and only when:E8
(See paragraph 3.1.2 for regular way sales of financial assets.) |
| E8 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Derecognition of modified financial assets’ The Interpretations Committee discussed whether to undertake a potential narrow-scope project to clarify the requirements in IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement about when a modification or exchange of financial assets results in derecognition of the original asset. Many Interpretations Committee members observed that, in their experience, the circumstances in which an entity should derecognise financial assets that have been modified or exchanged is an issue that arises in practice. However, because of the broad nature of the issue, the Interpretations Committee noted that it could not resolve it in an efficient manner. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to further consider such a project.] |
| E9 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2022, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IFRS 16 Leases—Lessor Forgiveness of Lease Payments’ The Committee received a request about a lessor’s application of IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 in accounting for a particular rent concession. The rent concession is one for which the only change to the lease contract is the lessor’s forgiveness of lease payments due from the lessee under that contract. The fact pattern The request described a rent concession agreed by a lessor and a lessee on the date the rent concession is granted. The rent concession changes the original terms and conditions of a lease contract classified by the lessor—applying IFRS 16—as an operating lease. The lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments:
No other changes are made to the lease contract, nor are there any other negotiations between the lessor and the lessee that might affect the accounting for the rent concession. Before the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor applies the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The question The request asked: …
… Accounting for the rent concession—IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 Applying the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9. Consequently, on granting the rent concession, the lessor considers whether the requirements for derecognition in paragraph 3.2.3 of IFRS 9 are met. In the rent concession described in the request, the lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments, some of which the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable. Accordingly, on granting the rent concession, the lessor concludes that the requirements in paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9 have been met—that is, its contractual rights to the cash flows from the operating lease receivable expire—because it has agreed to legally release the lessee from its obligation and thus has given up its contractual rights to those specifically identified cash flows. Therefore, on the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor remeasures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable (and recognises any change to the expected credit loss allowance in profit or loss) and derecognises the operating lease receivable (and associated expected credit loss allowance). Applying the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to future lease payments under the lease The rent concession described in the request meets the definition of a lease modification in IFRS 16. The rent concession is ‘a change in … the consideration for a lease … that was not part of the original terms and conditions of the lease’. Therefore, the lessor applies paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 and accounts for the modified lease as a new lease from the date the rent concession is granted. Paragraph 87 of IFRS 16 requires a lessor to consider any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease as part of the lease payments for the new lease. The Committee observed that lease payments contractually due from the lessee that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable (to which the derecognition and impairment requirements in IFRS 9 apply) are not accrued lease payments. Consequently, neither those lease payments nor their forgiveness are considered—applying paragraph 87 of IFRS 16—as part of the lease payments for the new lease. In accounting for the modified lease as a new lease, a lessor applies paragraph 81 of IFRS 16 and recognises the lease payments (including any prepaid or accrued lease payments relating to the original lease) as income on either a straight-line basis or another systematic basis. The Committee concluded that the lessor accounts for the rent concession described in the request on the date it is granted by applying: (a) the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has recognised as an operating lease receivable; and (b) the lease modification requirements in IFRS 16 to forgiven lease payments that the lessor has not recognised as an operating lease receivable. Conclusion The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards provide an adequate basis for a lessor to determine how to apply the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to an operating lease receivable and account for the rent concession described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan. [The full text of the agenda decision is reproduced after paragraph 2.1 of IFRS 9.]] |
| E10 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2012, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Derecognition of financial instruments upon modification’ The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on the circumstances in which the restructuring of Greek government bonds (GGB) should result in derecognition in accordance with IAS 39 of the whole asset or only part of it. In particular, the Interpretations Committee has been requested to consider whether:
Exchange of Financial Instruments: derecognition? The Interpretations Committee noted that the request has been made within the context of a narrow fact pattern. The narrow fact pattern highlights the diversity in views that has arisen in relation to the accounting for the portion of the old GGBs that is exchanged for twenty new bonds with different maturities and interest rates. The submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to consider whether these should be derecognised, or conversely accounted for as a modification or transfer that would not require derecognition. In addition, the Interpretations Committee has been asked to consider whether IAS 8 would be applicable in analysing the submitted fact pattern, and whether the exchange can be considered to be a transfer within the scope of paragraph 17(b) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(b) of IFRS 9]. The Interpretations Committee observed that the term ‘transfer’ is not defined in IAS 39. However, the potentially relevant portion of paragraph 18 of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.4 of IFRS 9] states that an entity transfers a financial asset if it transfers the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset. The Interpretations Committee noted that, in the fact pattern submitted, the bonds are transferred back to the issuer rather than being transferred to a third party. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee believed that the transaction should be assessed against paragraph 17(a) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9]. In applying paragraph 17(a), the Interpretations Committee noted that, in order to determine whether the financial asset is extinguished, it is necessary to assess the changes made as part of the bond exchange against the notion of ‘expiry’ of the rights to the cash flows. The Interpretations Committee also noted that, if an entity applies IAS 8 because of the absence in IAS 39 of an explicit discussion of when a modification of a financial asset results in derecognition, applying IAS 8 requires judgement to develop and apply an accounting policy. Paragraph 11 of IAS 8 requires that, in determining an appropriate accounting policy, consideration must first be given to the requirements in IFRSs that deal with similar and related issues. The Interpretations Committee noted that, in the fact pattern submitted, that requirement would lead to the development of an analogy to the notion of a substantial change of the terms of a financial liability in paragraph 40 of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.3.2 of IFRS 9]. Paragraph 40 sets out that such a change can be effected by the exchange of debt instruments or by modification of the terms of an existing instrument. Hence, if this analogy to financial liabilities is applied to financial assets, a substantial change of terms (whether effected by exchange or by modification) would result in derecognition of the financial asset. The Interpretations Committee noted that, if the guidance for financial liabilities is applied by analogy to assess whether the exchange of a portion of the old GGBs for twenty new bonds is a substantial change of the terms of the financial asset, the assessment needs to be made taking into consideration all of the changes made as part of the bond exchange. In the fact pattern submitted, the relevant facts led the Interpretations Committee to conclude that, in determining whether the transaction results in the derecognition of the financial asset, both approaches (ie extinguishment under paragraph 17(a) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9] or substantial change of the terms of the asset) would result in derecognition. The Interpretations Committee considered the following aspects of the fact pattern in assessing the extent of the change that results from the transaction:
The Interpretations Committee noted that the starting point that it used for its analysis was the assumption in the submission that the part of the principal amount of the old GGBs that was exchanged for new GGBs could be separately assessed for derecognition. The Interpretations Committee emphasised that this assumption was more favourable for achieving partial derecognition than looking at the whole of the old bond. Hence, its conclusion that the old GGBs should be derecognised would apply even more so when taking into account that the exchange of the old GGBs was, as a matter of fact, the result of a single agreement that covered all aspects and types of consideration for surrendering the old GGBs. As a consequence, the Interpretations Committee noted that partial derecognition did not apply. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add the issue to its agenda. Application of paragraphs AG62 or AG8 of IAS 39 to the submitted fact pattern The Interpretations Committee noted that the questions raised by the submitter assume that the old GGBs in the fact pattern would not be derecognised. In the submitted fact pattern, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the old GGBs are derecognised. The Interpretations Committee noted that, because of its conclusion on derecognition, these questions did not need to be answered.] |
3.2.4 | An entity transfers a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] if, and only if, it either: [Refer:paragraph 3.2.6]
|
| E11 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2005, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Retention of servicing rights’ The IFRIC was asked to provide guidance on whether an arrangement under which an entity has transferred the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset but continues to provide servicing on the transferred asset would fail the definition of a transfer of cash flows in terms of IAS 39 paragraph 18(a) [now paragraph 3.2.4(a) of IFRS 9]. The IFRIC noted that paragraph 18(a) focuses on whether an entity transfers the contractual rights to receive the cash flows from a financial asset. The determination of whether the contractual rights to cash flows have been transferred is not affected by the transferor retaining the role of an agent to administer collection and distribution of cash flows. Therefore, retention of servicing rights by the entity transferring the financial asset does not in itself cause the transfer to fail the requirements in paragraph 18(a) of IAS 39. The IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda as it did not expect significant diversity in practice to arise.] |
3.2.5 | When an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] (the ‘original asset’), but assumes a contractual obligation to pay those cash flows to one or more entities (the ‘eventual recipients’), the entity treats the transaction as a transfer of a financial asset if, and only if, all of the following three conditions are met.
|
| E12 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2005, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Revolving structures’ The IFRIC discussed a request for guidance on whether ‘revolving’ structures would meet the pass-through requirements in paragraph 19(c) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.5(c) of IFRS 9]. In a revolving structure an entity collects cash flows on behalf of eventual recipients and uses the amounts collected to purchase new assets instead of remitting the cash to the eventual recipients. On maturity the principal amount is remitted to the eventual recipients from the cash flows arising from the reinvested assets. The IFRIC noted that in order to meet the pass-through arrangement requirements in IAS 39 paragraph 19(c) an entity is required to remit any cash flows it collects on behalf of eventual recipients without material delay. This paragraph also limits permissible reinvestments to items that qualify as cash or cash equivalents. Most revolving arrangements would involve a material delay before the original collection of cash is remitted. Furthermore, the nature of the new assets typically acquired means that most revolving arrangements involve reinvestment in assets that would not qualify as cash or cash equivalents. Therefore, it is clear that such structures would not meet the requirements in paragraph 19(c) of IAS 39. Consequently, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda as it did not expect significant diversity in practice to arise.] |
3.2.6 | When an entity transfers a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] (see paragraph 3.2.4), it shall evaluate the extent to which it retains the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset. In this case: [Refer:paragraphs 3.2.7 and 3.2.8]
|
3.2.7 | The transfer of risks and rewards (see paragraph 3.2.6) is evaluated by comparing the entity’s exposure, before and after the transfer, with the variability in the amounts and timing of the net cash flows of the transferred asset. An entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] if its exposure to the variability in the present value of the future net cash flows from the financial asset does not change significantly as a result of the transfer (eg because the entity has sold a financial asset subject to an agreement to buy it back at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender’s return). An entity has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a financial asset if its exposure to such variability is no longer significant in relation to the total variability in the present value of the future net cash flows associated with the financial asset (eg because the entity has sold a financial asset subject only to an option to buy it back at its fair value [Refer:IFRS 13] at the time of repurchase or has transferred a fully proportionate share of the cash flows from a larger financial asset in an arrangement, such as a loan sub‑participation, that meets the conditions in paragraph 3.2.5). |
3.2.8 | Often it will be obvious whether the entity has transferred or retained substantially all risks and rewards of ownership and there will be no need to perform any computations. In other cases, it will be necessary to compute and compare the entity’s exposure to the variability in the present value of the future net cash flows before and after the transfer. The computation and comparison are made using as the discount rate an appropriate current market interest rate. All reasonably possible variability in net cash flows is considered, with greater weight being given to those outcomes that are more likely to occur. |
3.2.9 | Whether the entity has retained control (see paragraph 3.2.6(c)) [Refer:paragraphs B3.2.7–B3.2.9] of the transferred asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] depends on the transferee’s ability to sell the asset. If the transferee has the practical ability to sell the asset in its entirety to an unrelated third party and is able to exercise that ability unilaterally and without needing to impose additional restrictions on the transfer, the entity has not retained control. In all other cases, the entity has retained control. |
Transfers that qualify for derecognition
3.2.10 | If an entity transfers a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] in a transfer that qualifies for derecognition in its entirety and retains the right to service the financial asset for a fee, it shall recognise either a servicing asset or a servicing liability for that servicing contract. If the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity adequately for performing the servicing, a servicing liability for the servicing obligation shall be recognised at its fair value [Refer:IFRS 13]. If the fee to be received is expected to be more than adequate compensation for the servicing, a servicing asset shall be recognised for the servicing right at an amount determined on the basis of an allocation of the carrying amount of the larger financial asset in accordance with paragraph 3.2.13. |
3.2.11 | If, as a result of a transfer, a financial asset is derecognised in its entirety but the transfer results in the entity obtaining a new financial asset or assuming a new financial liability, or a servicing liability, the entity shall recognise the new financial asset, financial liability or servicing liability at fair value [Refer:IFRS 13]. |
3.2.12 | On derecognition of a financial asset [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11 (definition of a financial asset) and the last sentence of paragraph 3.2.2] in its entirety, the difference between:
shall be recognised in profit or loss. |
3.2.13 | If the transferred asset is part of a larger financial asset (eg when an entity transfers interest cash flows that are part of a debt instrument, see paragraph 3.2.2(a)) and the part transferred qualifies for derecognition in its entirety, the previous carrying amount of the larger financial asset shall be allocated between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, on the basis of the relative fair values [Refer:IFRS 13] of those parts on the date of the transfer. For this purpose, a retained servicing asset shall be treated as a part that continues to be recognised. The difference between:
shall be recognised in profit or loss. [Refer:paragraphs B3.2.10 and B3.2.11]
|
3.2.14 | When an entity allocates the previous carrying amount of a larger financial asset between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, the fair value [Refer:IFRS 13] of the part that continues to be recognised needs to be measured. When the entity has a history of selling parts similar to the part that continues to be recognised or other market transactions exist for such parts, recent prices of actual transactions provide the best estimate of its fair value. [Refer:IFRS 13 paragraphs 77, 81 and 82] When there are no price quotes or recent market transactions to support the fair value of the part that continues to be recognised, the best estimate of the fair value is the difference between the fair value of the larger financial asset as a whole and the consideration received from the transferee for the part that is derecognised. |
Transfers that do not qualify for derecognition
3.2.15 | If a transfer does not result in derecognition because the entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, the entity shall continue to recognise the transferred asset in its entirety and shall recognise a financial liability for the consideration received. In subsequent periods, the entity shall recognise any income on the transferred asset and any expense incurred on the financial liability. |
Continuing involvement in transferred assets
3.2.16 | If an entity neither transfers nor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a transferred asset, and retains control of the transferred asset, the entity continues to recognise the transferred asset to the extent of its continuing involvement. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BCZ3.27] The extent of the entity’s continuing involvement in the transferred asset is the extent to which it is exposed to changes in the value of the transferred asset. For example:
|
3.2.17 | When an entity continues to recognise an asset to the extent of its continuing involvement, the entity also recognises an associated liability. Despite the other measurement requirements in this Standard, the transferred asset and the associated liability are measured on a basis that reflects the rights and obligations that the entity has retained. The associated liability is measured in such a way that the net carrying amount of the transferred asset and the associated liability is:
|
3.2.18 | The entity shall continue to recognise any income arising on the transferred asset to the extent of its continuing involvement and shall recognise any expense incurred on the associated liability. [Refer:paragraph B3.2.17]
|
3.2.19 | For the purpose of subsequent measurement, recognised changes in the fair value [Refer:IFRS 13] of the transferred asset and the associated liability are accounted for consistently with each other in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1, and shall not be offset. |
3.2.20 | If an entity’s continuing involvement is in only a part of a financial asset [Refer:paragraphs 3.2.2 and B3.2.17] (eg when an entity retains an option to repurchase part of a transferred asset, or retains a residual interest that does not result in the retention of substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership and the entity retains control), the entity allocates the previous carrying amount of the financial asset between the part it continues to recognise under continuing involvement, and the part it no longer recognises on the basis of the relative fair values [Refer:IFRS 13] of those parts on the date of the transfer. For this purpose, the requirements of paragraph 3.2.14 apply. The difference between:
shall be recognised in profit or loss. [Refer:paragraph B3.2.17]
|
3.2.21 | If the transferred asset is measured at amortised cost, the option in this Standard to designate a financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss [Refer:paragraph 4.2.2] is not applicable to the associated liability. |
All transfers
3.2.22 | If a transferred asset continues to be recognised, the asset and the associated liability shall not be offset. Similarly, the entity shall not offset any income arising from the transferred asset with any expense incurred on the associated liability (see paragraph 42 of IAS 32). |
3.2.23 | If a transferor provides non‑cash collateral (such as debt or equity instruments) to the transferee, the accounting for the collateral by the transferor and the transferee depends on whether the transferee has the right to sell or repledge the collateral and on whether the transferor has defaulted. The transferor and transferee shall account for the collateral as follows:
|
3.3 Derecognition of financial liabilities
3.3.1 | An entity shall remove a financial liability (or a part of a financial liability) from its statement of financial position when, and only when, it is extinguished—ie when the obligation specified in the contract is discharged or cancelled or expires. |
3.3.2 | An exchange between an existing borrower and lender of debt instruments with substantially different terms shall be accounted for as an extinguishment of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability. Similarly, a substantial modification of the terms of an existing financial liability or a part of it (whether or not attributable to the financial difficulty of the debtor) shall be accounted for as an extinguishment of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability. [Refer:paragraphs B3.3.6–B3.3.6A]
|
3.3.3 | The difference between the carrying amount of a financial liability (or part of a financial liability) extinguished or transferred to another party and the consideration paid, including any non‑cash assets transferred or liabilities assumed, shall be recognised in profit or loss. [Refer:paragraph B3.3.7]
|
3.3.4 | If an entity repurchases a part of a financial liability, the entity shall allocate the previous carrying amount of the financial liability between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised based on the relative fair values of those parts on the date of the repurchase. The difference between (a) the carrying amount allocated to the part derecognised and (b) the consideration paid, including any non‑cash assets transferred or liabilities assumed, for the part derecognised shall be recognised in profit or loss. |
3.3.5 | 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 financial liability (for example, a corporate bond issued). Despite the other requirements in this Standard for the derecognition of financial liabilities, an entity may elect not to derecognise its financial liability that is included in such a fund or is an underlying item when, and only when, the entity repurchases its financial liability for such purposes. Instead, the entity may elect to continue to account for that instrument as a financial liability and to account for the repurchased instrument as if the instrument were a financial asset, and measure it at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with this Standard. 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.) |
Chapter 4 Classification
4.1 Classification of financial assets
4.1.1 | Unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies, an entity shall classify financial assets as subsequently measured at amortised cost, fair value through other comprehensive income or fair value through profit or loss [Refer:paragraphs 5.2.1–5.2.3] on the basis of both:
|
4.1.2 | A financial asset shall be measured at amortised cost if both of the following conditions are met:
Paragraphs B4.1.1–B4.1.26 provide guidance on how to apply these conditions. |
4.1.2A | A financial asset shall be measured at fair value through other comprehensive income if both of the following conditions are met:
Paragraphs B4.1.1–B4.1.26 provide guidance on how to apply these conditions. |
4.1.3 | For the purpose of applying paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b):
|
4.1.4 | A financial asset shall be measured at fair value through profit or loss unless it is measured at amortised cost in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2 or at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A. However an entity may make an irrevocable election at initial recognition for particular investments in equity instruments that would otherwise be measured at fair value through profit or loss to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income (see paragraphs 5.7.5–5.7.6).E13,E14 |
| E13 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2017, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Financial assets eligible for the election to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income’ The Committee received a request asking whether particular financial instruments are eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9. That election permits the holder of particular investments in equity instruments to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income, rather than in profit or loss. The submitter asked whether financial instruments are eligible for that presentation election if the issuer would classify them as equity applying paragraphs 16A–16D of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The Committee observed that the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9 refers to particular investments in equity instruments. ‘Equity instrument’ is a defined term, and Appendix A of IFRS 9 specifies that it is defined in paragraph 11 of IAS 32. IAS 32 defines an equity instrument as ‘any contract that evidences a residual interest in the assets of an entity after deducting all of its liabilities’. Consequently, a financial instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability cannot meet the definition of an equity instrument. The Committee also observed that paragraph 11 of IAS 32 specifies that, as an exception, an instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability is classified as an equity instrument by the issuer if it has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS 32. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that a financial instrument that has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS 32 is not eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9. This is because such an instrument does not meet the definition of an equity instrument in IAS 32. This conclusion, based on the requirements in IFRS 9 and IAS 32, is supported by the Board’s explanation in paragraph BC5.21 of IFRS 9 of its decision in this respect. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for the holder of the instruments described in the request to classify those instruments. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
| E14 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 27 Separate Financial Statements—Investment in a subsidiary accounted for at cost: Partial disposal’ The Committee received a request about how an entity applies the requirements in IAS 27 to a fact pattern involving an investment in a subsidiary. In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity preparing separate financial statements:
The request asked whether:
Question A Paragraph 9 of IAS 27 requires an entity to apply all applicable IFRS Standards in preparing its separate financial statements, except when accounting for investments in subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures to which paragraph 10 of IAS 27 applies. After the partial disposal transaction, the investee is not a subsidiary, associate or joint venture of the entity. Accordingly, the entity applies IFRS 9 for the first time in accounting for its retained interest in the investee. The Committee observed that the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9 applies at initial recognition of an investment in an equity instrument. An investment in an equity instrument within the scope of IFRS 9 is eligible for the election if it is neither held for trading (as defined in Appendix A of IFRS 9) nor contingent consideration recognised by an acquirer in a business combination to which IFRS 3 Business Combinations applies. In the fact pattern described in the request, assuming the retained interest is not held for trading, the Committee concluded that (a) the retained interest is eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9, and (b) the entity would make this presentation election when it first applies IFRS 9 to the retained interest (ie at the date of losing control of the investee). ... The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to account for a partial disposal transaction in its separate financial statements. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda. [The full text of the agenda decision is reproduced after paragraph 10(a) of IAS 27.]] |
Option to designate a financial asset at fair value through profit or loss
4.1.5 | Despite paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.4, an entity may, at initial recognition, irrevocably designate a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if doing so eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) that would otherwise arise from measuring assets or liabilities or recognising the gains and losses on them on different bases (see paragraphs B4.1.29–B4.1.32). |
4.2 Classification of financial liabilities
4.2.1 | An entity shall classify all financial liabilities as subsequently measured at amortised cost, [Refer:paragraphs 5.3.1 and 5.3.2] except for:
[Refer:paragraph B5.2.1]
[The requirements for embedded derivatives have implications for the unit of account to which the classification criteria for financial liabilities are applied. Refer: paragraphs 4.3.1–4.3.7 and B4.3.1–B4.3.12]
|
Option to designate a financial liability at fair value through profit or loss
4.2.2 | An entity may, at initial recognition, irrevocably designate a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss when permitted by paragraph 4.3.5, or when doing so results in more relevant information, because either:
|
4.3 Embedded derivatives
4.3.1 | An embedded derivative is a component of a hybrid contract that also includes a non‑derivative host—with the effect that some of the cash flows of the combined instrument vary in a way similar to a stand‑alone derivative. An embedded derivative causes some or all of the cash flows that otherwise would be required by the contract to be modified according to a specified interest rate, financial instrument price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index of prices or rates, credit rating or credit index, or other variable, provided in the case of a non‑financial variable that the variable is not specific to a party to the contract. A derivative that is attached to a financial instrument but is contractually transferable independently of that instrument, or has a different counterparty, is not an embedded derivative, but a separate financial instrument. |
Hybrid contracts with financial asset hosts
4.3.2 | If a hybrid contract contains a host that is an asset within the scope of this Standard, an entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 to the entire hybrid contract. [Refer:paragraph B5.2.1 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC4.2, BC4.83–BC4.89 and BC4.196–BC4.204] |
Other hybrid contractsE15
| E15 | [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.] |
4.3.3 | If a hybrid contract contains a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, an embedded derivative shall be separated from the host and accounted for as a derivative under this Standard if, and only if:
[Refer:paragraphs B4.3.1–B4.3.12]
|
4.3.4 | If an embedded derivative is separated, the host contract shall be accounted for in accordance with the appropriate Standards. This Standard does not address whether an embedded derivative shall be presented separately in the statement of financial position. |
4.3.5 | Despite paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, if a contract contains one or more embedded derivatives and the host is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, an entity may designate the entire hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss unless:
[Note:The IFRS Interpretations Committee recommended, and the Board proposed, to clarify paragraph 11A of IAS 39 (now paragraph 4.3.5 of IFRS 9) as part of Improvements to IFRSs in August 2008. The Board proposed to specify whether it applies only to contracts with embedded derivatives that have financial hosts, or whether the fair value option can be applied to all contracts with embedded derivatives. The Board did not finalise its proposal.]
|
4.3.6 | If an entity is required by this Standard to separate an embedded derivative from its host, but is unable to measure the embedded derivative separately either at acquisition or at the end of a subsequent financial reporting period, it shall designate the entire hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss. |
4.3.7 | If an entity is unable to measure reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and conditions, the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid contract and the fair value of the host. If the entity is unable to measure the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 4.3.6 applies and the hybrid contract is designated as at fair value through profit or loss. |
4.4 Reclassification
4.4.1 | When, and only when, an entity changes its business model for managing financial assets it shall reclassify all affected financial assets in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.4. See paragraphs 5.6.1–5.6.7, B4.4.1–B4.4.3 and B5.6.1–B5.6.2 for additional guidance on reclassifying financial assets. |
4.4.2 | An entity shall not reclassify any financial liability. |
4.4.3 | The following changes in circumstances are not reclassifications for the purposes of paragraphs 4.4.1–4.4.2:
|
Chapter 5 Measurement
5.1 Initial measurement
5.1.1 | Except for trade receivables within the scope of paragraph 5.1.3, at initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset or financial liability at its fair value [Refer:IFRS 13 Appendix A] plus or minus, in the case of a financial asset or financial liability not at fair value through profit or loss, transaction costs [Refer:paragraph B5.4.8] that are directly attributable to the acquisition or issue of the financial asset or financial liability.E16 |
| E16 | [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 taken onto the agenda.] |
5.1.1A | However, if the fair value of the financial asset or financial liability at initial recognition [Refer:IFRS 13 paragraphs 57–60] differs from the transaction price, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.1.2A. |
5.1.2 | When an entity uses settlement date accounting for an asset that is subsequently measured at amortised cost, the asset is recognised initially at its fair value on the trade date (see paragraphs B3.1.3–B3.1.6). [Refer:Implementation Guidance question D.2.1] |
5.1.3 | Despite the requirement in paragraph 5.1.1, at initial recognition, an entity shall measure trade receivables at their transaction price (as defined in IFRS 15) if the trade receivables do not contain a significant financing component in accordance with IFRS 15 (or when the entity applies the practical expedient in accordance with paragraph 63 of IFRS 15). |
5.2 Subsequent measurement of financial assets
5.2.1 | After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 at:
|
5.2.2 | An entity shall apply the impairment requirements in Section 5.5 to financial assets that are measured at amortised cost in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2 and to financial assets that are measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A. |
5.2.3 | An entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 (and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) to a financial asset that is designated as a hedged item.1 |
5.3 Subsequent measurement of financial liabilities
5.3.1 | After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial liability in accordance with paragraphs 4.2.1–4.2.2. |
5.3.2 | An entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 (and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of IAS 39 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) to a financial liability that is designated as a hedged item. |
5.4 Amortised cost measurement
Financial assets
Effective interest method
5.4.1 | Interest revenue shall be calculated by using the effective interest method (see Appendix A and paragraphs B5.4.1–B5.4.7). This shall be calculated by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount of a financial asset except for:
|
5.4.2 | An entity that, in a reporting period, calculates interest revenue by applying the effective interest method to the amortised cost of a financial asset in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1(b), shall, in subsequent reporting periods, calculate the interest revenue by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount if the credit risk on the financial instrument improves so that the financial asset is no longer credit-impaired and the improvement can be related objectively to an event occurring after the requirements in paragraph 5.4.1(b) were applied (such as an improvement in the borrower’s credit rating). |
Modification of contractual cash flows
5.4.3 | When the contractual cash flows of a financial asset are renegotiated or otherwise modified and the renegotiation or modification does not result in the derecognition of that financial asset in accordance with this Standard, an entity shall recalculate the gross carrying amount of the financial asset and shall recognise a modification gain or loss in profit or loss. The gross carrying amount of the financial asset shall be recalculated as the present value of the renegotiated or modified contractual cash flows that are discounted at the financial asset’s original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. Any costs or fees incurred adjust the carrying amount of the modified financial asset and are amortised over the remaining term of the modified financial asset. |
Write-off
5.4.4 | An entity shall directly reduce the gross carrying amount of a financial asset when the entity has no reasonable expectations of recovering a financial asset in its entirety or a portion thereof. A write-off constitutes a derecognition event (see paragraph B3.2.16(r)). |
Changes in the basis for determining the contractual cash flows as a result of interest rate benchmark reform
5.4.5 | An entity shall apply paragraphs 5.4.6–5.4.9 to a financial asset or financial liability if, and only if, the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of that financial asset or financial liability changes as a result of interest rate benchmark reform. For this purpose, the term ‘interest rate benchmark reform’ refers to the market-wide reform of an interest rate benchmark as described in paragraph 6.8.2. |
5.4.6 | The basis for determining the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability can change:
|
5.4.7 | As a practical expedient, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.4.5 to account for a change in the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability that is required by interest rate benchmark reform. This practical expedient applies only to such changes and only to the extent the change is required by interest rate benchmark reform (see also paragraph 5.4.9). For this purpose, a change in the basis for determining the contractual cash flows is required by interest rate benchmark reform if, and only if, both these conditions are met:
|
5.4.8 | Examples of changes that give rise to a new basis for determining the contractual cash flows that is economically equivalent to the previous basis (ie the basis immediately preceding the change) are:
|
5.4.9 | If changes are made to a financial asset or financial liability in addition to changes to the basis for determining the contractual cash flows required by interest rate benchmark reform, an entity shall first apply the practical expedient in paragraph 5.4.7 to the changes required by interest rate benchmark reform. The entity shall then apply the applicable requirements in this Standard to any additional changes to which the practical expedient does not apply. If the additional change does not result in the derecognition of the financial asset or financial liability, the entity shall apply paragraph 5.4.3 or paragraph B5.4.6, as applicable, to account for that additional change. If the additional change results in the derecognition of the financial asset or financial liability, the entity shall apply the derecognition requirements. |
5.5 Impairment
Recognition of expected credit losses
General approach
5.5.1 | An entity shall recognise a loss allowance for expected credit losses on a financial asset that is measured in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.2 or 4.1.2A, [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.118−BC5.124 and BC5.129−BC5.130] a lease receivable, [Refer:paragraph 2.1(b) and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.131−BC5.133] a contract asset [Refer:paragraphs 2.1(j) and 2.2 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.134] or a loan commitment [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BCZ2.2–BC2.8] and a financial guarantee contract [Refer:paragraphs 2.1(e) and B2.5 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BCZ2.9–BC2.17 and BC5.125–BC5.128] to which the impairment requirements apply in accordance with paragraphs 2.1(g), 4.2.1(c) or 4.2.1(d). |
5.5.2 | An entity shall apply the impairment requirements for the recognition and measurement of a loss allowance for financial assets that are measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A. However, the loss allowance shall be recognised in other comprehensive income and shall not reduce the carrying amount of the financial asset in the statement of financial position. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.119 and Illustrative Examples, example 13] [Link toBasis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.120−BC5.124 for the background of including financial assets that are measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in the scope of the impairment requirements]
|
5.5.3 | Subject to paragraphs 5.5.13–5.5.16, at each reporting date, an entity shall measure the loss allowance for a financial instrument at an amount equal to the lifetime expected credit losses if the credit risk on that financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition. [Refer:paragraphs B5.5.7–B5.5.24, Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.103 and BC5.149−BC5.151 and Illustrative Examples, examples 1–7] |
5.5.4 | The objective of the impairment requirements is to recognise lifetime expected credit losses for all financial instruments for which there have been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition — whether assessed on an individual or collective basis [Refer:paragraphs B5.5.1−B5.5.6, Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.136−BC5.142 and Illustrative Examples, example 5] — considering all reasonable and supportable information, including that which is forward-looking. [Refer:paragraphs B5.5.49–B5.5.54] |
5.5.5 | Subject to paragraphs 5.5.13–5.5.16, if, at the reporting date, the credit risk on a financial instrument has not increased significantly since initial recognition, an entity shall measure the loss allowance for that financial instrument at an amount equal to 12‑month expected credit losses. [Refer:paragraph B5.5.43, Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.195−BC5.213 and Illustrative Examples, examples 2, 8 and 9] |
5.5.6 | For loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts, the date that the entity becomes a party to the irrevocable commitment shall be considered to be the date of initial recognition for the purposes of applying the impairment requirements. |
5.5.7 | If an entity has measured the loss allowance for a financial instrument at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses in the previous reporting period, but determines at the current reporting date that paragraph 5.5.3 is no longer met, the entity shall measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to 12‑month expected credit losses at the current reporting date. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.210–BC5.213] |
5.5.8 | An entity shall recognise in profit or loss, as an impairment gain or loss, the amount of expected credit losses (or reversal) that is required to adjust the loss allowance at the reporting date to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with this Standard.E17 |
| E17 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Curing of a Credit-impaired Financial Asset’ The Committee received a request about how an entity presents amounts recognised in the statement of profit or loss when a credit-impaired financial asset is subsequently cured (ie paid in full or no longer credit-impaired). When a financial asset becomes credit-impaired, paragraph 5.4.1(b) of IFRS 9 requires an entity to calculate interest revenue by applying the ‘effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset’. This results in a difference between (a) the interest that would be calculated by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount of the credit-impaired financial asset; and (b) the interest revenue recognised for that asset. The request asked whether, following the curing of the financial asset, an entity can present this difference as interest revenue or, instead, is required to present it as a reversal of impairment losses. Appendix A to IFRS 9 defines a credit loss as ‘the difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls), discounted at the original effective interest rate…’. Appendix A also defines the gross carrying amount as ‘the amortised cost of a financial asset, before adjusting for any loss allowance.’ The Committee noted that, based on the definitions in Appendix A to IFRS 9, the gross carrying amount, amortised cost and loss allowance are discounted amounts, and changes in these amounts during a reporting period include the effect of the unwinding of the discount. Paragraph 5.5.8 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to ‘recognise in profit or loss, as an impairment gain or loss, the amount of expected credit losses (or reversal) that is required to adjust the loss allowance at the reporting date to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with this Standard.’ The Committee observed that, applying paragraph 5.5.8 of IFRS 9, an entity recognises in profit or loss as a reversal of expected credit losses the adjustment required to bring the loss allowance to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with IFRS 9 (zero if the asset is paid in full). The amount of this adjustment includes the effect of the unwinding of the discount on the loss allowance during the period that the financial asset was credit-impaired, which means the reversal of impairment losses may exceed the impairment losses recognised in profit or loss over the life of the asset. The Committee also observed that paragraph 5.4.1 specifies how an entity calculates interest revenue using the effective interest method. Applying paragraph 5.4.1(b), an entity calculates interest revenue on a credit-impaired financial asset by applying the effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset, and thus interest revenue on such a financial asset does not include the difference described in the request. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the statement of profit or loss, an entity is required to present the difference described in the request as a reversal of impairment losses following the curing of a credit-impaired financial asset. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to recognise and present the reversal of expected credit losses following the curing of a credit-impaired financial asset in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
Determining significant increases in credit risk
5.5.9 | At each reporting date, an entity shall assess whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly [Refer:paragraphs B5.5.15–B5.5.18] since initial recognition. When making the assessment, an entity shall use the change in the risk of a default occurring over the expected life of the financial instrument [Refer:paragraphs B5.5.9−B5.5.11 and B5.5.36−B5.5.37 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.248−BC5.253] instead of the change in the amount of expected credit losses. To make that assessment, an entity shall compare the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the reporting date with the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the date of initial recognition and consider reasonable and supportable information, that is available without undue cost or effort, that is indicative of significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. |
5.5.10 | An entity may assume that the credit risk on a financial instrument has not increased significantly since initial recognition if the financial instrument is determined to have low credit risk at the reporting date (see paragraphs B5.5.22–B5.5.24). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.180−BC5.189 and Illustrative Examples, example 4] |
5.5.11 | If reasonable and supportable forward-looking information is available without undue cost or effort, an entity cannot rely solely on past due information when determining whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition. However, when information that is more forward-looking than past due status (either on an individual or a collective basis) is not available without undue cost or effort, an entity may use past due information to determine whether there have been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. Regardless of the way in which an entity assesses significant increases in credit risk, there is a rebuttable presumption that the credit risk on a financial asset has increased significantly since initial recognition when contractual payments are more than 30 days past due. An entity can rebut this presumption if the entity has reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort, that demonstrates that the credit risk has not increased significantly since initial recognition even though the contractual payments are more than 30 days past due. When an entity determines that there have been significant increases in credit risk before contractual payments are more than 30 days past due, the rebuttable presumption does not apply. |
Modified financial assets
5.5.12 | If the contractual cash flows on a financial asset have been renegotiated or modified and the financial asset was not derecognised, an entity shall assess whether there has been a significant increase in the credit risk of the financial instrument in accordance with paragraph 5.5.3 by comparing:
|
Purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets
5.5.13 | Despite paragraphs 5.5.3 and 5.5.5, at the reporting date, an entity shall only recognise the cumulative changes in lifetime expected credit losses since initial recognition as a loss allowance for purchased or originated credit‑impaired financial assets. |
5.5.14 | At each reporting date, an entity shall recognise in profit or loss the amount of the change in lifetime expected credit losses as an impairment gain or loss. An entity shall recognise favourable changes in lifetime expected credit losses as an impairment gain, even if the lifetime expected credit losses are less than the amount of expected credit losses that were included in the estimated cash flows on initial recognition. |
Simplified approach for trade receivables, contract assets and lease receivables
5.5.15 | Despite paragraphs 5.5.3 and 5.5.5, an entity shall always measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses for:
|
5.5.16 | An entity may select its accounting policy for trade receivables, lease receivables and contract assets independently of each other. |
Measurement of expected credit losses
5.5.17 | An entity shall measure expected credit losses of a financial instrument in a way that reflects:E18
|
| E18 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2022, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IFRS 16 Leases—Lessor Forgiveness of Lease Payments’ The Committee received a request about a lessor’s application of IFRS 9 and IFRS 16 in accounting for a particular rent concession. The rent concession is one for which the only change to the lease contract is the lessor’s forgiveness of lease payments due from the lessee under that contract. The fact pattern The request described a rent concession agreed by a lessor and a lessee on the date the rent concession is granted. The rent concession changes the original terms and conditions of a lease contract classified by the lessor—applying IFRS 16—as an operating lease. The lessor legally releases the lessee from its obligation to make specifically identified lease payments:
No other changes are made to the lease contract, nor are there any other negotiations between the lessor and the lessee that might affect the accounting for the rent concession. Before the date the rent concession is granted, the lessor applies the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The question The request asked:
… Applying the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable Paragraph 2.1(b)(i) of IFRS 9 states that ‘operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition and impairment requirements’ in IFRS 9. Therefore, a lessor is required to apply the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the gross carrying amount of an operating lease receivable from the date on which it recognises that receivable, taking into account applicable derecognition requirements in IFRS 9. IFRS 9 defines credit loss as ‘the difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls)…’. Paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9 states that ‘an entity shall measure expected credit losses … in a way that reflects (a) an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes; (b) the time value of money; and (c) reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort at the reporting date about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions’. Consequently, in the fact pattern described in the request, the lessor applies the impairment requirements in IFRS 9 to the operating lease receivable. The lessor estimates expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable by measuring any credit loss to reflect ‘all cash shortfalls’. These shortfalls are the difference between:
Therefore, the Committee concluded that, before the rent concession is granted, the lessor measures expected credit losses on the operating lease receivable in a way that reflects ‘an unbiased and probability-weighted amount …’, ‘the time value of money’, and ‘reasonable and supportable information …’ (as required by paragraph 5.5.17 of IFRS 9). This measurement of expected credit losses includes the lessor considering its expectations of forgiving lease payments recognised as part of that receivable. … Conclusion The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards provide an adequate basis for a lessor to determine how to apply the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9 to an operating lease receivable and account for the rent concession described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan. [The full text of the agenda decision is reproduced after paragraph 2.1 of IFRS 9.]] |
5.5.18 | When measuring expected credit losses, an entity need not necessarily identify every possible scenario. However, it shall consider the risk or probability that a credit loss occurs by reflecting the possibility that a credit loss occurs and the possibility that no credit loss occurs, even if the possibility of a credit loss occurring is very low. |
5.5.19 | The maximum period to consider when measuring expected credit losses is the maximum contractual period (including extension options) over which the entity is exposed to credit risk and not a longer period, even if that longer period is consistent with business practice. [Refer:paragraph B5.5.38] |
5.5.20 | However, some financial instruments include both a loan and an undrawn commitment component and the entity’s contractual ability to demand repayment and cancel the undrawn commitment does not limit the entity’s exposure to credit losses to the contractual notice period. For such financial instruments, and only those financial instruments, the entity shall measure expected credit losses over the period that the entity is exposed to credit risk and expected credit losses would not be mitigated by credit risk management actions, even if that period extends beyond the maximum contractual period. |
5.6 Reclassification of financial assets
5.6.1 | If an entity reclassifies financial assets in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1, it shall apply the reclassification prospectively from the reclassification date. The entity shall not restate any previously recognised gains, losses (including impairment gains or losses) or interest. Paragraphs 5.6.2–5.6.7 set out the requirements for reclassifications. |
5.6.2 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the amortised cost measurement category and into the fair value through profit or loss measurement category, its fair value is measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous amortised cost of the financial asset and fair value is recognised in profit or loss. |
5.6.3 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through profit or loss measurement category and into the amortised cost measurement category, its fair value at the reclassification date becomes its new gross carrying amount. (See paragraph B5.6.2 for guidance on determining an effective interest rate and a loss allowance at the reclassification date.) |
5.6.4 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the amortised cost measurement category and into the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, its fair value is measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous amortised cost of the financial asset and fair value is recognised in other comprehensive income. The effective interest rate and the measurement of expected credit losses are not adjusted as a result of the reclassification. (See paragraph B5.6.1.) |
5.6.5 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category and into the amortised cost measurement category, the financial asset is reclassified at its fair value at the reclassification date. However, the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is removed from equity and adjusted against the fair value of the financial asset at the reclassification date. As a result, the financial asset is measured at the reclassification date as if it had always been measured at amortised cost. This adjustment affects other comprehensive income but does not affect profit or loss and therefore is not a reclassification adjustment (see IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements). The effective interest rate and the measurement of expected credit losses are not adjusted as a result of the reclassification. (See paragraph B5.6.1.)
|
5.6.6 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through profit or loss measurement category and into the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, the financial asset continues to be measured at fair value. (See paragraph B5.6.2 for guidance on determining an effective interest rate and a loss allowance at the reclassification date.) |
5.6.7 | If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category and into the fair value through profit or loss measurement category, the financial asset continues to be measured at fair value. The cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see IAS 1) at the reclassification date. |
5.7 Gains and losses
5.7.1 | A gain or loss on a financial asset or financial liability that is measured at fair value shall be recognised in profit or loss unless:
|
5.7.1A | Dividends are recognised in profit or loss only when:
|
5.7.2 | A gain or loss on a financial asset that is measured at amortised cost and is not part of a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of IAS 39 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) shall be recognised in profit or loss when the financial asset is derecognised, reclassified in accordance with paragraph 5.6.2, through the amortisation process or in order to recognise impairment gains or losses. An entity shall apply paragraphs 5.6.2 and 5.6.4 if it reclassifies financial assets out of the amortised cost measurement category. A gain or loss on a financial liability that is measured at amortised cost and is not part of a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of IAS 39 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) shall be recognised in profit or loss when the financial liability is derecognised and through the amortisation process. (See paragraph B5.7.2 for guidance on foreign exchange gains or losses.) |
5.7.3 | A gain or loss on financial assets or financial liabilities that are hedged items in a hedging relationship shall be recognised in accordance with paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of IAS 39 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk. |
5.7.4 | If an entity recognises financial assets using settlement date accounting (see paragraphs 3.1.2, B3.1.3 and B3.1.6), any change in the fair value of the asset to be received during the period between the trade date and the settlement date is not recognised for assets measured at amortised cost. For assets measured at fair value, however, the change in fair value shall be recognised in profit or loss or in other comprehensive income, as appropriate in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1. The trade date shall be considered the date of initial recognition for the purposes of applying the impairment requirements. |
Investments in equity instruments
5.7.5 | At initial recognition, an entity may make an irrevocable election to present in other comprehensive income subsequent changes in the fair value of an investment in an equity instrument within the scope of this Standard that is neither held for trading nor contingent consideration recognised by an acquirer in a business combination to which IFRS 3 applies. (See paragraph B5.7.3 for guidance on foreign exchange gains or losses.) |
5.7.6 | If an entity makes the election in paragraph 5.7.5, it shall recognise in profit or loss dividends from that investment in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1A. [Refer:paragraph B5.7.1 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.25(a)] |
Liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss
5.7.7 | An entity shall present a gain or loss on a financial liability that is designated as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2 or paragraph 4.3.5 as follows:
unless the treatment of the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk described in (a) would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss (in which case paragraph 5.7.8 applies). Paragraphs B5.7.5–B5.7.7 and B5.7.10–B5.7.12 provide guidance on determining whether an accounting mismatch would be created or enlarged. |
5.7.8 | If the requirements in paragraph 5.7.7 would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss, an entity shall present all gains or losses on that liability (including the effects of changes in the credit risk of that liability) in profit or loss. |
5.7.9 | Despite the requirements in paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8, an entity shall present in profit or loss all gains and losses on loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts that are designated as at fair value through profit or loss. |
Assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income
5.7.10 | A gain or loss on a financial asset measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A shall be recognised in other comprehensive income, except for impairment gains or losses (see Section 5.5) [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.119] and foreign exchange gains and losses (see paragraphs B5.7.2–B5.7.2A), until the financial asset is derecognised or reclassified. When the financial asset is derecognised the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see IAS 1). If the financial asset is reclassified out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, the entity shall account for the cumulative gain or loss that was previously recognised in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraphs 5.6.5 and 5.6.7. Interest calculated using the effective interest method is recognised in profit or loss. |
5.7.11 | As described in paragraph 5.7.10, if a financial asset is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the amounts that are recognised in profit or loss are the same as the amounts that would have been recognised in profit or loss if the financial asset had been measured at amortised cost. |
Chapter 6 Hedge accounting
6.1 Objective and scope of hedge accounting
6.1.1 | The objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or other comprehensive income, in the case of investments in equity instruments for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5). This approach aims to convey the context of hedging instruments for which hedge accounting is applied in order to allow insight into their purpose and effect. |
6.1.2 | An entity may choose to designate a hedging relationship between a hedging instrument and a hedged item in accordance with paragraphs 6.2.1–6.3.7 and B6.2.1–B6.3.25. For hedging relationships that meet the qualifying criteria, an entity shall account for the gain or loss on the hedging instrument and the hedged item in accordance with paragraphs 6.5.1–6.5.14 and B6.5.1–B6.5.28. When the hedged item is a group of items, an entity shall comply with the additional requirements in paragraphs 6.6.1–6.6.6 and B6.6.1–B6.6.16. |
6.1.3 | For a fair value hedge of the interest rate exposure of a portfolio of financial assets or financial liabilities (and only for such a hedge), an entity may apply the hedge accounting requirements in IAS 39 instead of those in this Standard. In that case, the entity must also apply the specific requirements for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk and designate as the hedged item a portion that is a currency amount (see paragraphs 81A, 89A and AG114–AG132 of IAS 39). |
6.2 Hedging instruments
Qualifying instruments
6.2.1 | A derivative measured at fair value through profit or loss may be designated as a hedging instrument, except for some written options (see paragraph B6.2.4). |
6.2.2 | A non-derivative financial asset or a non-derivative financial liability measured at fair value through profit or loss may be designated as a hedging instrument unless it is a financial liability designated as at fair value through profit or loss for which the amount of its change in fair value that is attributable to changes in the credit risk of that liability is presented in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.7. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.124−BC6.139] For a hedge of foreign currency risk, the foreign currency risk component of a non-derivative financial asset or a non-derivative financial liability may be designated as a hedging instrument provided that it is not an investment in an equity instrument [Refer:paragraph B6.2.2] for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5. [Refer:paragraph B6.2.3 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC6.124] |
6.2.3 | For hedge accounting purposes, only contracts with a party external to the reporting entity (ie external to the group or individual entity that is being reported on) can be designated as hedging instruments. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.142−BC6.147] |
Designation of hedging instruments
6.2.4 | A qualifying instrument must be designated in its entirety as a hedging instrument. The only exceptions permitted are:
|
6.2.5 | An entity may view in combination, and jointly designate as the hedging instrument, any combination of the following (including those circumstances in which the risk or risks arising from some hedging instruments offset those arising from others):
|
6.2.6 | However, a derivative instrument that combines a written option and a purchased option (for example, an interest rate collar) does not qualify as a hedging instrument if it is, in effect, a net written option at the date of designation (unless it qualifies in accordance with paragraph B6.2.4). Similarly, two or more instruments (or proportions of them) may be jointly designated as the hedging instrument only if, in combination, they are not, in effect, a net written option at the date of designation (unless it qualifies in accordance with paragraph B6.2.4). |
6.3 Hedged items
Qualifying items
6.3.1 | A hedged item can be a recognised asset or liability, an unrecognised firm commitment, a forecast transaction or a net investment in a foreign operation. The hedged item can be:
A hedged item can also be a component of such an item or group of items (see paragraphs 6.3.7 and B6.3.7–B6.3.25). |
6.3.2 | The hedged item must be reliably measurable. |
6.3.3 | If a hedged item is a forecast transaction (or a component thereof), that transaction must be highly probable.E19 |
| E19 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Application of the Highly Probable Requirement when a Specific Derivative is Designated as a Hedging Instrument’ The Committee received a request about the requirement in IFRS 9 and IAS 39 that a forecast transaction must be ‘highly probable’ to qualify as a hedged item in a cash flow hedge relationship. The request asked how an entity applies that requirement when the notional amount of the derivative designated as a hedging instrument (load following swap) varies depending on the outcome of the hedged item (forecast energy sales). The responses to outreach performed on the request and those received in comment letters confirmed that the financial instrument described in the request is not common. The comment letters also confirmed the views expressed by some Committee members that the request relates to the broader matter of how uncertainty over the timing and magnitude of a forecast transaction affects the highly probable assessment applying IFRS 9 and IAS 39. The Committee observed that, in a cash flow hedge, a forecast transaction can be a hedged item if, and only if, it is highly probable (paragraphs 6.3.1 and 6.3.3 of IFRS 9 and paragraphs 86(b) and 88(c) of IAS 39). When assessing whether a forecast transaction (in the request, the forecast energy sales) is highly probable, an entity considers uncertainty over both the timing and magnitude of the forecast transaction (paragraphs F.3.7 and F.3.11 of the Implementation Guidance accompanying IAS 39). The Committee also observed that, for hedge accounting purposes, the entity must document the forecast energy sales with sufficient specificity in terms of timing and magnitude so that when such transactions occur the entity can identify whether the transaction is the hedged transaction. Consequently, the forecast energy sales cannot be specified solely as a percentage of sales during a period because that would lack the required specificity (paragraphs F.3.10 and F.3.11 of the Implementation Guidance accompanying IAS 39). In addition, the Committee observed that the terms of the hedging instrument (in the request, the load following swap) do not affect the highly probable assessment because the highly probable requirement is applicable to the hedged item. The Committee noted that the highly probable requirement in IFRS 9 is not new; IAS 39 includes the same requirement. The Board decided not to carry forward any of the hedge accounting related Implementation Guidance that accompanied IAS 39; nonetheless paragraph BC6.95 of IFRS 9 explains that not carrying forward the Implementation Guidance did not mean that the Board had rejected that guidance. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 and IAS 39 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether a forecast transaction is highly probable. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
6.3.4 | An aggregated exposure that is a combination of an exposure that could qualify as a hedged item in accordance with paragraph 6.3.1 and a derivative may be designated as a hedged item (see paragraphs B6.3.3–B6.3.4). This includes a forecast transaction of an aggregated exposure (ie uncommitted but anticipated future transactions that would give rise to an exposure and a derivative) if that aggregated exposure is highly probable and, once it has occurred and is therefore no longer forecast, is eligible as a hedged item. |
6.3.5 | For hedge accounting purposes, only assets, liabilities, firm commitments or highly probable forecast transactions with a party external to the reporting entity can be designated as hedged items. Hedge accounting can be applied to transactions between entities in the same group only in the individual or separate financial statements of those entities and not in the consolidated financial statements of the group, except for the consolidated financial statements of an investment entity, as defined in IFRS 10, where transactions between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss will not be eliminated in the consolidated financial statements. |
6.3.6 | However, as an exception to paragraph 6.3.5, the foreign currency risk of an intragroup monetary item (for example, a payable/receivable between two subsidiaries) may qualify as a hedged item in the consolidated financial statements if it results in an exposure to foreign exchange rate gains or losses that are not fully eliminated on consolidation in accordance with IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates. In accordance with IAS 21, foreign exchange rate gains and losses on intragroup monetary items are not fully eliminated on consolidation when the intragroup monetary item is transacted between two group entities that have different functional currencies. In addition, the foreign currency risk of a highly probable forecast intragroup transaction may qualify as a hedged item in consolidated financial statements provided that the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss. [Refer:paragraph B6.3.5] |
Designation of hedged items
6.3.7 | An entity may designate an item in its entirety or a component of an item as the hedged item in a hedging relationship. An entire item comprises all changes in the cash flows or fair value of an item. A component comprises less than the entire fair value change or cash flow variability of an item. In that case, an entity may designate only the following types of components (including combinations) as hedged items:
|
| E20 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Fair Value Hedge of Foreign Currency Risk on Non-financial Assets’ The Committee received two requests about fair value hedge accounting applying IFRS 9. Both requests asked whether foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset held for consumption that an entity can designate as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship. Hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9 The objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or, in some cases, other comprehensive income) (paragraph 6.1.1 of IFRS 9). If all the qualifying criteria specified in IFRS 9 are met, an entity may choose to designate a hedging relationship between a hedging instrument and a hedged item. One type of hedge accounting relationship is a fair value hedge, in which an entity hedges the exposure to changes in fair value of a hedged item that is attributable to a particular risk and could affect profit or loss. An entity may designate an item in its entirety, or a component of an item, as a hedged item. A risk component may be designated as the hedged item if, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, that risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable. In considering the request, the Committee assessed the following: Can an entity have exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption that could affect profit or loss? Paragraph 6.5.2(a) of IFRS 9 describes a fair value hedge as ‘a hedge of the exposure to changes in fair value of a recognised asset or liability or an unrecognised firm commitment, or a component of any such item, that is attributable to a particular risk and could affect profit or loss’. Therefore, in the context of a fair value hedge, foreign currency risk arises when changes in exchange rates result in changes in the fair value of the underlying item that could affect profit or loss. Depending on the particular facts and circumstances, a non-financial asset might be priced—and its fair value determined—only in one currency at a global level and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency. If the fair value of a non-financial asset is determined in a foreign currency, applying IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, the measure of fair value that could affect profit or loss is the fair value translated into an entity’s functional currency (translated fair value). The translated fair value of such a non-financial asset would change as a result of changes in the applicable exchange rate in a given period, even if the fair value (determined in the foreign currency) were to remain constant. The Committee therefore observed that in such circumstances an entity is exposed to foreign currency risk. IFRS 9 does not require changes in fair value to be expected to affect profit or loss but, rather, that those changes could affect profit or loss. The Committee observed that changes in fair value of a non-financial asset held for consumption could affect profit or loss if, for example, the entity were to sell the asset before the end of the asset’s economic life. Consequently, the Committee concluded that, depending on the particular facts and circumstances, it is possible for an entity to have exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption that could affect profit or loss. This would be the case when, at a global level, the fair value of a non-financial asset is determined only in one currency and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency. If an entity has exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset, is it a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component? Paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9 permits an entity to designate a risk component of an item as the hedged item if, ‘based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, the risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable’. Paragraph 82 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement permits the designation of non-financial items as hedged items only for a) foreign currency risks, or b) in their entirety for all risks, ‘because of the difficulty of isolating and measuring the appropriate portion of the cash flows or fair value changes attributable to specific risks other than foreign currency risks’. Paragraph BC6.176 of IFRS 9 indicates that, in developing the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9, the Board did not change its view that there are situations in which foreign currency risk can be separately identified and reliably measured. That paragraph states that the Board ‘learned from its outreach activities that there are circumstances in which entities are able to identify and measure many risk components (not only foreign currency risk) of non-financial items with sufficient reliability’. Consequently, the Committee concluded that foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset. Whether that is the case will depend on an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances within the context of the particular market structure. The Committee observed that foreign currency risk is separately identifiable and reliably measurable when the risk being hedged relates to changes in fair value arising from translation into an entity’s functional currency of fair value that, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, is determined globally only in one currency and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency. The Committee noted, however, that the fact that market transactions are commonly settled in a particular currency does not necessarily mean that this is the currency in which the non-financial asset is priced—and thus the currency in which its fair value is determined. Can the designation of foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption be consistent with an entity’s risk management activities? Paragraph 6.4.1(b) of IFRS 9 requires that, at the inception of a hedging relationship, ‘there is formal designation and documentation of the hedging relationship and the entity’s risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge’. Accordingly, the Committee observed that, applying IFRS 9, an entity can apply hedge accounting only if it is consistent with the entity’s risk management objective and strategy for managing its exposure. An entity therefore cannot apply hedge accounting solely on the grounds that it identifies items in its statement of financial position that are measured differently but are subject to the same type of risk. To the extent that an entity intends to consume a non-financial asset (rather than to sell it), the Committee observed that changes in the fair value of the non-financial asset may be of limited significance to the entity. In such cases, an entity is unlikely to be managing and using hedging instruments to hedge risk exposures on the non-financial asset and, in that case, it cannot apply hedge accounting. The Committee expects that an entity would manage and hedge exposure to foreign currency risk on the fair value of non-financial assets held for consumption only in very limited circumstances—in such circumstances, an entity would use hedging instruments to hedge only foreign currency risk exposure that it expects will affect profit or loss. This may be the case, for example, if (a) the entity expects to sell the non-financial asset (eg an item of property, plant and equipment) part-way through its economic life; (b) the expected residual value of the asset at the date of expected sale is significant; and (c) the entity manages and uses hedging instruments to hedge the foreign currency risk exposure only on the residual value of the asset. Furthermore, the Committee observed that risk management activities that aim only to reduce foreign exchange volatility arising from translating a financial liability denominated in a foreign currency applying IAS 21 are inconsistent with the designation of foreign exchange risk on a non-financial asset as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship. In such circumstances, the entity is managing the foreign currency risk exposure arising on the financial liability, rather than managing the risk exposure arising on the non-financial asset. Other considerations An entity applies all other applicable requirements in IFRS 9 in determining whether it can apply fair value hedge accounting in its particular circumstances, including requirements related to the designation of the hedged item and hedging instrument, and hedge effectiveness. For example, an entity would consider how its hedge accounting designation addresses any differences in the size, depreciation/amortisation pattern and expected sale/maturity of the hedged item and the hedging instrument. For any risk exposure for which an entity elects to apply hedge accounting, the entity also makes the disclosures required by IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures related to hedge accounting. The Committee noted, in particular, that paragraphs 22A–22C of IFRS 7 require the disclosure of information about an entity’s risk management strategy and how it is applied to manage risk. The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset held for consumption that an entity can designate as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
6.4 Qualifying criteria for hedge accounting
6.4.1 | A hedging relationship qualifies for hedge accounting only if all of the following criteria are met:
|
6.5 Accounting for qualifying hedging relationships
6.5.1 | An entity applies hedge accounting to hedging relationships that meet the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1 (which include the entity’s decision to designate the hedging relationship). |
6.5.2 | There are three types of hedging relationships:
|
6.5.3 | If the hedged item is an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5, the hedged exposure referred to in paragraph 6.5.2(a) must be one that could affect other comprehensive income. In that case, and only in that case, the recognised hedge ineffectiveness is presented in other comprehensive income. |
6.5.4 | A hedge of the foreign currency risk of a firm commitment may be accounted for as a fair value hedge or a cash flow hedge. [Refer:paragraph B6.5.3 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.272−BC6.277] |
6.5.5 | If a hedging relationship ceases to meet the hedge effectiveness requirement relating to the hedge ratio (see paragraph 6.4.1(c)(iii)) but the risk management objective for that designated hedging relationship remains the same, an entity shall adjust the hedge ratio of the hedging relationship so that it meets the qualifying criteria again (this is referred to in this Standard as ‘rebalancing’—see paragraphs B6.5.7–B6.5.21). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.300−BC6.313] |
6.5.6 | An entity shall discontinue hedge accounting prospectively [Refer:paragraphs B6.5.22 and B6.5.23] only when the hedging relationship (or a part of a hedging relationship) ceases to meet the qualifying criteria (after taking into account any rebalancing of the hedging relationship, if applicable). [Link toBasis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.314−BC6.331 for the reasons for prohibiting of voluntary discontinuation] This includes instances when the hedging instrument expires or is sold, terminated or exercised. For this purpose, the replacement or rollover of a hedging instrument into another hedging instrument is not an expiration or termination if such a replacement or rollover is part of, and consistent with, the entity’s documented risk management objective. [Refer:paragraph B6.5.24] Additionally, for this purpose there is not an expiration or termination of the hedging instrument if:
Discontinuing hedge accounting can either affect a hedging relationship in its entirety or only a part of it (in which case hedge accounting continues for the remainder of the hedging relationship). [Refer:paragraphs B6.5.25−B6.5.28] |
6.5.7 | An entity shall apply:
|
Fair value hedges
6.5.8 | As long as a fair value hedge meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, the hedging relationship shall be accounted for as follows:
|
6.5.9 | When a hedged item in a fair value hedge is a firm commitment (or a component thereof) to acquire an asset or assume a liability, the initial carrying amount of the asset or the liability that results from the entity meeting the firm commitment is adjusted to include the cumulative change in the fair value of the hedged item that was recognised in the statement of financial position. |
6.5.10 | Any adjustment arising from paragraph 6.5.8(b) shall be amortised to profit or loss if the hedged item is a financial instrument (or a component thereof) measured at amortised cost. Amortisation may begin as soon as an adjustment exists and shall begin no later than when the hedged item ceases to be adjusted for hedging gains and losses. The amortisation is based on a recalculated effective interest rate at the date that amortisation begins. In the case of a financial asset (or a component thereof) that is a hedged item and that is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, amortisation applies in the same manner but to the amount that represents the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in accordance with paragraph 6.5.8(b) instead of by adjusting the carrying amount. |
Cash flow hedges
6.5.11 | As long as a cash flow hedge meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, the hedging relationship shall be accounted for as follows:
|
6.5.12 | When an entity discontinues hedge accounting for a cash flow hedge (see paragraphs 6.5.6 and 6.5.7(b)) it shall account for the amount that has been accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve in accordance with paragraph 6.5.11(a) as follows:
|
Hedges of a net investment in a foreign operation
6.5.13 | Hedges of a net investment in a foreign operation, including a hedge of a monetary item that is accounted for as part of the net investment (see IAS 21), shall be accounted for similarly to cash flow hedges:
|
| E21 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Determining hedge effectiveness for net investment hedges’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an entity should determine hedge effectiveness when accounting for net investment hedges in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. Specifically, the submitter asked whether, when accounting for net investment hedges, an entity should apply the ‘lower of’ test required for cash flow hedges in determining the effective portion of the gains or losses arising from the hedging instrument. The Interpretations Committee observed that:
In addition, the Interpretations Committee noted the following:
In the light of 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.] |
6.5.14 | The cumulative gain or loss on the hedging instrument relating to the effective portion of the hedge that has been accumulated in the foreign currency translation reserve shall be reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see IAS 1) in accordance with paragraphs 48–49 of IAS 21 on the disposal or partial disposal of the foreign operation.
|
Accounting for the time value of options
6.5.15 | When an entity separates the intrinsic value and time value of an option contract and designates as the hedging instrument only the change in intrinsic value of the option (see paragraph 6.2.4(a)), it shall account for the time value of the option as follows (see paragraphs B6.5.29–B6.5.33):
|
Accounting for the forward element of forward contracts and foreign currency basis spreads of financial instruments
6.5.16 | When an entity separates the forward element and the spot element of a forward contract and designates as the hedging instrument only the change in the value of the spot element of the forward contract, or when an entity separates the foreign currency basis spread from a financial instrument and excludes it from the designation of that financial instrument as the hedging instrument (see paragraph 6.2.4(b)), the entity may apply paragraph 6.5.15 to the forward element of the forward contract or to the foreign currency basis spread in the same manner as it is applied to the time value of an option. In that case, the entity shall apply the application guidance in paragraphs B6.5.34–B6.5.39.
|
6.6 Hedges of a group of items
Eligibility of a group of items as the hedged item
6.6.1 | A group of items (including a group of items that constitute a net position; see paragraphs B6.6.1–B6.6.8) is an eligible hedged item only if:
|
Designation of a component of a nominal amount
6.6.2 | A component that is a proportion of an eligible group of items is an eligible hedged item provided that designation is consistent with the entity’s risk management objective. |
6.6.3 | A layer component of an overall group of items (for example, a bottom layer) is eligible for hedge accounting only if:
|
Presentation
6.6.4 | For a hedge of a group of items with offsetting risk positions (ie in a hedge of a net position) whose hedged risk affects different line items in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, any hedging gains or losses in that statement shall be presented in a separate line from those affected by the hedged items. Hence, in that statement the amount in the line item that relates to the hedged item itself (for example, revenue or cost of sales) remains unaffected. [Refer:paragraphs B6.6.13−B6.6.16 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.456−BC6.458]
|
6.6.5 | For assets and liabilities that are hedged together as a group in a fair value hedge, the gain or loss in the statement of financial position on the individual assets and liabilities shall be recognised as an adjustment of the carrying amount of the respective individual items comprising the group in accordance with paragraph 6.5.8(b). [Refer:paragraph B6.6.16 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.459−BC6.461] |
Nil net positions
6.6.6 | When the hedged item is a group that is a nil net position (ie the hedged items among themselves fully offset the risk that is managed on a group basis), an entity is permitted to designate it in a hedging relationship that does not include a hedging instrument, provided that:
|
6.7 Option to designate a credit exposure as measured at fair value through profit or loss
Eligibility of credit exposures for designation at fair value through profit or loss
6.7.1 | If an entity uses a credit derivative that is measured at fair value through profit or loss to manage the credit risk of all, or a part of, a financial instrument (credit exposure) it may designate that financial instrument to the extent that it is so managed (ie all or a proportion of it) as measured at fair value through profit or loss if:
An entity may make this designation irrespective of whether the financial instrument that is managed for credit risk is within the scope of this Standard (for example, an entity may designate loan commitments [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC6.545] that are outside the scope of this Standard). The entity may designate that financial instrument at, or subsequent to, initial recognition, or while it is unrecognised. The entity shall document the designation concurrently. [Link toBasis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.469−BC6.544 for the discussion on different approaches considered by the IASB when developing the requirements on hedging credit risk using credit derivatives]
|
Accounting for credit exposures designated at fair value through profit or loss
6.7.2 | If a financial instrument is designated in accordance with paragraph 6.7.1 as measured at fair value through profit or loss after its initial recognition, or was previously not recognised, the difference at the time of designation between the carrying amount, if any, and the fair value shall immediately be recognised in profit or loss. For financial assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income shall immediately be reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see IAS 1). |
6.7.3 | An entity shall discontinue measuring the financial instrument that gave rise to the credit risk, or a proportion of that financial instrument, at fair value through profit or loss if:
|
6.7.4 | When an entity discontinues measuring the financial instrument that gives rise to the credit risk, or a proportion of that financial instrument, at fair value through profit or loss, that financial instrument’s fair value at the date of discontinuation becomes its new carrying amount. Subsequently, the same measurement that was used before designating the financial instrument at fair value through profit or loss shall be applied (including amortisation that results from the new carrying amount). For example, a financial asset that had originally been classified as measured at amortised cost would revert to that measurement and its effective interest rate would be recalculated based on its new gross carrying amount on the date of discontinuing measurement at fair value through profit or loss. |
6.8 Temporary exceptions from applying specific hedge accounting requirements
6.8.1 | An entity shall apply paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12 and paragraphs 7.1.8 and 7.2.26(d) to all hedging relationships directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform. These paragraphs apply only to such hedging relationships. A hedging relationship is directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform only if the reform gives rise to uncertainties about:
|
6.8.2 | For the purpose of applying paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12, the term ‘interest rate benchmark reform’ refers to the market-wide reform of an interest rate benchmark, including the replacement of an interest rate benchmark with an alternative benchmark rate such as that resulting from the recommendations set out in the Financial Stability Board’s July 2014 report ‘Reforming Major Interest Rate Benchmarks’.2 |
6.8.3 | Paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12 provide exceptions only to the requirements specified in these paragraphs. An entity shall continue to apply all other hedge accounting requirements to hedging relationships directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform. |
Highly probable requirement for cash flow hedges
6.8.4 | For the purpose of determining whether a forecast transaction (or a component thereof) is highly probable as required by paragraph 6.3.3, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform. |
Reclassifying the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve
6.8.5 | For the purpose of applying the requirement in paragraph 6.5.12 in order to determine whether the hedged future cash flows are expected to occur, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform. |
Assessing the economic relationship between the hedged item and the hedging instrument
6.8.6 | For the purpose of applying the requirements in paragraphs 6.4.1(c)(i) and B6.4.4–B6.4.6, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows and/or the hedged risk (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based, or the interest rate benchmark on which the cash flows of the hedging instrument are based, is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform. |
Designating a component of an item as a hedged item
6.8.7 | Unless paragraph 6.8.8 applies, for a hedge of a non-contractually specified benchmark component of interest rate risk, an entity shall apply the requirement in paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8—that the risk component shall be separately identifiable—only at the inception of the hedging relationship. |
6.8.8 | When an entity, consistent with its hedge documentation, frequently resets (ie discontinues and restarts) a hedging relationship because both the hedging instrument and the hedged item frequently change (ie the entity uses a dynamic process in which both the hedged items and the hedging instruments used to manage that exposure do not remain the same for long), the entity shall apply the requirement in paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8—that the risk component is separately identifiable—only when it initially designates a hedged item in that hedging relationship. A hedged item that has been assessed at the time of its initial designation in the hedging relationship, whether it was at the time of the hedge inception or subsequently, is not reassessed at any subsequent redesignation in the same hedging relationship. |
End of application
6.8.9 | An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.4 to a hedged item at the earlier of:
|
6.8.10 | An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.5 at the earlier of:
|
6.8.11 | An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.6:
If the hedging relationship that the hedged item and the hedging instrument are part of is discontinued earlier than the date specified in paragraph 6.8.11(a) or the date specified in paragraph 6.8.11(b), the entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.6 to that hedging relationship at the date of discontinuation. |
6.8.12 | When designating a group of items as the hedged item, or a combination of financial instruments as the hedging instrument, an entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.6 to an individual item or financial instrument in accordance with paragraphs 6.8.9, 6.8.10, or 6.8.11, as relevant, when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the hedged risk and/or the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of that item or financial instrument. |
6.8.13 | An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraphs 6.8.7 and 6.8.8 at the earlier of:
|
6.9 Additional temporary exceptions arising from interest rate benchmark reform
6.9.1 | As and when the requirements in paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.8 cease to apply to a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.8.9–6.8.13), an entity shall amend the formal designation of that hedging relationship as previously documented to reflect the changes required by interest rate benchmark reform, ie the changes are consistent with the requirements in paragraphs 5.4.6–5.4.8. In this context, the hedge designation shall be amended only to make one or more of these changes:
|
6.9.2 | An entity also shall apply the requirement in paragraph 6.9.1(c) if these three conditions are met:
|
6.9.3 | The requirements in paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.8 may cease to apply at different times. Therefore, in applying paragraph 6.9.1, an entity may be required to amend the formal designation of its hedging relationships at different times, or may be required to amend the formal designation of a hedging relationship more than once. When, and only when, such a change is made to the hedge designation, an entity shall apply paragraphs 6.9.7–6.9.12 as applicable. An entity also shall apply paragraph 6.5.8 (for a fair value hedge) or paragraph 6.5.11 (for a cash flow hedge) to account for any changes in the fair value of the hedged item or the hedging instrument. |
6.9.4 | An entity shall amend a hedging relationship as required in paragraph 6.9.1 by the end of the reporting period during which a change required by interest rate benchmark reform is made to the hedged risk, hedged item or hedging instrument. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.612–BC6.613] For the avoidance of doubt, such an amendment to the formal designation of a hedging relationship constitutes neither the discontinuation of the hedging relationship nor the designation of a new hedging relationship. |
6.9.5 | If changes are made in addition to those changes required by interest rate benchmark reform to the financial asset or financial liability designated in a hedging relationship (as described in paragraphs 5.4.6–5.4.8) or to the designation of the hedging relationship (as required by paragraph 6.9.1), an entity shall first apply the applicable requirements in this Standard to determine if those additional changes result in the discontinuation of hedge accounting. If the additional changes do not result in the discontinuation of hedge accounting, an entity shall amend the formal designation of the hedging relationship as specified in paragraph 6.9.1. |
6.9.6 | Paragraphs 6.9.7–6.9.13 provide exceptions to the requirements specified in those paragraphs only. An entity shall apply all other hedge accounting requirements in this Standard, including the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, to hedging relationships that were directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform. |
Accounting for qualifying hedging relationships
Cash flow hedges
6.9.7 | For the purpose of applying paragraph 6.5.11, at the point when an entity amends the description of a hedged item as required in paragraph 6.9.1(b), the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve shall be deemed to be based on the alternative benchmark rate on which the hedged future cash flows are determined. |
6.9.8 | For a discontinued hedging relationship, when the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged future cash flows had been based is changed as required by interest rate benchmark reform, for the purpose of applying paragraph 6.5.12 in order to determine whether the hedged future cash flows are expected to occur, the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve for that hedging relationship shall be deemed to be based on the alternative benchmark rate on which the hedged future cash flows will be based. |
Groups of items
6.9.9 | When an entity applies paragraph 6.9.1 to groups of items designated as hedged items in a fair value or cash flow hedge, the entity shall allocate the hedged items to subgroups based on the benchmark rate being hedged and designate the benchmark rate as the hedged risk for each subgroup. For example, in a hedging relationship in which a group of items is hedged for changes in an interest rate benchmark subject to interest rate benchmark reform, the hedged cash flows or fair value of some items in the group could be changed to reference an alternative benchmark rate before other items in the group are changed. In this example, in applying paragraph 6.9.1, the entity would designate the alternative benchmark rate as the hedged risk for that relevant subgroup of hedged items. The entity would continue to designate the existing interest rate benchmark as the hedged risk for the other subgroup of hedged items until the hedged cash flows or fair value of those items are changed to reference the alternative benchmark rate or the items expire and are replaced with hedged items that reference the alternative benchmark rate. |
6.9.10 | An entity shall assess separately whether each subgroup meets the requirements in paragraph 6.6.1 to be an eligible hedged item. If any subgroup fails to meet the requirements in paragraph 6.6.1, the entity shall discontinue hedge accounting prospectively for the hedging relationship in its entirety. An entity also shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8 and 6.5.11 to account for ineffectiveness related to the hedging relationship in its entirety. |
Designation of risk components
6.9.11 | An alternative benchmark rate designated as a non-contractually specified risk component that is not separately identifiable (see paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8) at the date it is designated shall be deemed to have met that requirement at that date, if, and only if, the entity reasonably expects the alternative benchmark rate will be separately identifiable within 24 months. The 24-month period applies to each alternative benchmark rate separately and starts from the date the entity designates the alternative benchmark rate as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time (ie the 24-month period applies on a rate-by-rate basis). |
6.9.12 | If subsequently an entity reasonably expects that the alternative benchmark rate will not be separately identifiable within 24 months from the date the entity designated it as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time, the entity shall cease applying the requirement in paragraph 6.9.11 to that alternative benchmark rate and discontinue hedge accounting prospectively from the date of that reassessment for all hedging relationships in which the alternative benchmark rate was designated as a non-contractually specified risk component. |
6.9.13 | In addition to those hedging relationships specified in paragraph 6.9.1, an entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 6.9.11 and 6.9.12 to new hedging relationships in which an alternative benchmark rate is designated as a non-contractually specified risk component (see paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8) when, because of interest rate benchmark reform, that risk component is not separately identifiable at the date it is designated. |
Chapter 7 Effective date and transition
7.1 Effective date
7.1.1 | An entity shall apply this Standard for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity elects to apply this Standard early, it must disclose that fact and apply all of the requirements in this Standard at the same time (but see also paragraphs 7.1.2, 7.2.21 and 7.3.2). It shall also, at the same time, apply the amendments in Appendix C. |
7.1.2 | Despite the requirements in paragraph 7.1.1, for annual periods beginning before 1 January 2018, an entity may elect to early apply only the requirements for the presentation of gains and losses on financial liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss in paragraphs 5.7.1(c), 5.7.7–5.7.9, 7.2.14 and B5.7.5–B5.7.20 without applying the other requirements in this Standard. If an entity elects to apply only those paragraphs, it shall disclose that fact and provide on an ongoing basis the related disclosures set out in paragraphs 10–11 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures (as amended by IFRS 9 (2010)). (See also paragraphs 7.2.2 and 7.2.15.) [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC7.35–BC7.40] |
7.1.3 | Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2010–2012 Cycle, issued in December 2013, amended paragraphs 4.2.1 and 5.7.5 as a consequential amendment derived from the amendment to IFRS 3. An entity shall apply that amendment prospectively to business combinations to which the amendment to IFRS 3 applies. [Refer:IFRS 3 Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC434D] |
7.1.4 | IFRS 15, issued in May 2014, amended paragraphs 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.7.6, B3.2.13, B5.7.1, C5 and C42 and deleted paragraph C16 and its related heading. Paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.7.1A, and a definition to Appendix A, were added. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 15. |
7.1.5 | IFRS 16, issued in January 2016, amended paragraphs 2.1, 5.5.15, B4.3.8, B5.5.34 and B5.5.46. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 16. |
7.1.6 | IFRS 17, issued in May 2017, amended paragraphs 2.1, B2.1, B2.4, B2.5 and B4.1.30, and added paragraph 3.3.5. Amendments to IFRS 17, issued in June 2020, further amended paragraph 2.1 and added paragraphs 7.2.36‒7.2.42. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 17. |
7.1.7 | Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to IFRS 9), issued in October 2017, added paragraphs 7.2.29–7.2.34 and B4.1.12A and amended paragraphs B4.1.11(b) and B4.1.12(b). An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. |
7.1.8 | Interest Rate Benchmark Reform, which amended IFRS 9, IAS 39 and IFRS 7, issued in September 2019, added Section 6.8 and amended paragraph 7.2.26. An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2020. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.580–BC6.583] Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. |
7.1.9 | Annual Improvements to IFRS Standards 2018–2020, issued in May 2020, added paragraphs 7.2.35 and B3.3.6A and amended paragraph B3.3.6. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2022. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the amendment for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. |
7.1.10 | Interest Rate Benchmark Reform—Phase 2, which amended IFRS 9, IAS 39, IFRS 7, IFRS 4 and IFRS 16, issued in August 2020, added paragraphs 5.4.5–5.4.9, 6.8.13, Section 6.9 and paragraphs 7.2.43–7.2.46. An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. |
7.2 Transition
7.2.1 | An entity shall apply this Standard retrospectively, in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.4–7.2.26 and 7.2.28. This Standard shall not be applied to items that have already been derecognised at the date of initial application. |
7.2.2 | For the purposes of the transition provisions in paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.3–7.2.28 and 7.3.2, the date of initial application is the date when an entity first applies those requirements of this Standard and must be the beginning of a reporting period after the issue of this Standard. Depending on the entity’s chosen approach to applying IFRS 9, the transition can involve one or more than one date of initial application for different requirements. |
Transition for classification and measurement (Chapters 4 and 5)
7.2.3 | At the date of initial application, an entity shall assess whether a financial asset meets the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(a) or 4.1.2A(a) on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at that date. The resulting classification shall be applied retrospectively irrespective of the entity’s business model in prior reporting periods. |
7.2.4 | If, at the date of initial application, it is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8) for an entity to assess a modified time value of money element in accordance with paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset, an entity shall assess the contractual cash flow characteristics of that financial asset on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset without taking into account the requirements related to the modification of the time value of money element in paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D. (See also paragraph 42R of IFRS 7.) [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC7.53–BC7.56] |
7.2.5 | If, at the date of initial application, it is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8) for an entity to assess whether the fair value of a prepayment feature was insignificant in accordance with paragraph B4.1.12(c) on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset, an entity shall assess the contractual cash flow characteristics of that financial asset on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset without taking into account the exception for prepayment features in paragraph B4.1.12. (See also paragraph 42S of IFRS 7.) [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC7.53–BC7.56] |
7.2.6 | If an entity measures a hybrid contract at fair value in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.2A, 4.1.4 or 4.1.5 but the fair value of the hybrid contract had not been measured in comparative reporting periods, the fair value of the hybrid contract in the comparative reporting periods shall be the sum of the fair values of the components (ie the non-derivative host and the embedded derivative) at the end of each comparative reporting period if the entity restates prior periods (see paragraph 7.2.15). |
7.2.7 | If an entity has applied paragraph 7.2.6 then at the date of initial application the entity shall recognise any difference between the fair value of the entire hybrid contract at the date of initial application and the sum of the fair values of the components of the hybrid contract at the date of initial application in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.
|
7.2.8 | At the date of initial application an entity may designate:
Such a designation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. |
7.2.9 | At the date of initial application an entity:
Such a revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC7.19] |
7.2.10 | At the date of initial application, an entity:
Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. |
7.2.11 | If it is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8) for an entity to apply retrospectively the effective interest method, the entity shall treat:
|
7.2.12 | If an entity previously accounted at cost (in accordance with IAS 39), for an investment in an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (or for a derivative asset that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an equity instrument) it shall measure that instrument at fair value at the date of initial application. Any difference between the previous carrying amount and the fair value shall be recognised in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.
|
7.2.13 | If an entity previously accounted for a derivative liability that is linked to, and must be settled by, delivery of an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) at cost in accordance with IAS 39, it shall measure that derivative liability at fair value at the date of initial application. Any difference between the previous carrying amount and the fair value shall be recognised in the opening retained earnings of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.
|
7.2.14 | At the date of initial application, an entity shall determine whether the treatment in paragraph 5.7.7 would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. This Standard shall be applied retrospectively on the basis of that determination. |
7.2.14A | At the date of initial application, an entity is permitted to make the designation in paragraph 2.5 for contracts that already exist on the date but only if it designates all similar contracts. The change in the net assets resulting from such designations shall be recognised in retained earnings at the date of initial application. |
7.2.15 | Despite the requirement in paragraph 7.2.1, an entity that adopts the classification and measurement requirements of this Standard (which include the requirements related to amortised cost measurement for financial assets and impairment in Sections 5.4 and 5.5) shall provide the disclosures set out in paragraphs 42L–42O of IFRS 7 but need not restate prior periods. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application. However, if an entity restates prior periods, the restated financial statements must reflect all of the requirements in this Standard. If an entity’s chosen approach to applying IFRS 9 results in more than one date of initial application for different requirements, this paragraph applies at each date of initial application (see paragraph 7.2.2). This would be the case, for example, if an entity elects to early apply only the requirements for the presentation of gains and losses on financial liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 7.1.2 before applying the other requirements in this Standard.
|
7.2.16 | If an entity prepares interim financial reports in accordance with IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting the entity need not apply the requirements in this Standard to interim periods prior to the date of initial application if it is impracticable (as defined in IAS 8). |
Impairment (Section 5.5)
7.2.17 | An entity shall apply the impairment requirements in Section 5.5 retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8 subject to paragraphs 7.2.15 and 7.2.18–7.2.20. |
7.2.18 | At the date of initial application, an entity shall use reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort to determine the credit risk at the date that a financial instrument was initially recognised (or for loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts at the date that the entity became a party to the irrevocable commitment in accordance with paragraph 5.5.6) and compare that to the credit risk at the date of initial application of this Standard. |
7.2.19 | When determining whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition, an entity may apply:
|
7.2.20 | If, at the date of initial application, determining whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition would require undue cost or effort, an entity shall recognise a loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses at each reporting date until that financial instrument is derecognised (unless that financial instrument is low credit risk at a reporting date, in which case paragraph 7.2.19(a) applies). |
Transition for hedge accounting (Chapter 6)
7.2.21 | When an entity first applies this Standard, it may choose as its accounting policy to continue to apply the hedge accounting requirements of IAS 39 instead of the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard. An entity shall apply that policy to all of its hedging relationships. An entity that chooses that policy shall also apply IFRIC 16 Hedges of a Net Investment in a Foreign Operation without the amendments that conform that Interpretation to the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard. |
7.2.22 | Except as provided in paragraph 7.2.26, an entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard prospectively. |
7.2.23 | To apply hedge accounting from the date of initial application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, all qualifying criteria must be met as at that date. |
7.2.24 | Hedging relationships that qualified for hedge accounting in accordance with IAS 39 that also qualify for hedge accounting in accordance with the criteria of this Standard (see paragraph 6.4.1), after taking into account any rebalancing of the hedging relationship on transition (see paragraph 7.2.25(b)), shall be regarded as continuing hedging relationships.E22 |
| E22 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Transition issues relating to hedging’ The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance in respect of two issues pertaining to hedge designation and hedge accounting in situations in which an entity makes the transition from IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement to IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. More specifically, the Interpretations Committee has been asked to consider:
In relation to Issue 1, the Interpretations Committee noted that when an entity changes the hedged item in a hedging relationship from an entire non-financial item to a component of the non-financial item upon transition to IFRS 9, it is required to do so on a prospective basis as described in paragraph 7.2.22 of IFRS 9. The Interpretations Committee also noted that changing the hedged item while continuing the original hedge relationship would be equivalent to the retrospective application of the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9, which is prohibited except in the limited circumstances described in paragraph 7.2.26 of IFRS 9. The Interpretations Committee observed that in the example presented in Issue 1, the exceptions in paragraph 7.2.26 do not apply and therefore the original hedge relationship could not be treated as a continuing hedge relationship on transition to IFRS 9. In relation to Issue 2, the Interpretations Committee observed that:
As a result, the Interpretations Committee noted that hedge designations of an entire non-financial item could continue on transition to IFRS 9 as long as they meet the qualifying criteria in IFRS 9. In the light of existing IFRS requirements, 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.] |
7.2.25 | On initial application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, an entity:
|
7.2.26 | As an exception to prospective application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, an entity:
|
Entities that have applied IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) or IFRS 9 (2013) early
7.2.27 | An entity shall apply the transition requirements in paragraphs 7.2.1–7.2.26 at the relevant date of initial application. An entity shall apply each of the transition provisions in paragraphs 7.2.3–7.2.14A and 7.2.17–7.2.26 only once (ie if an entity chooses an approach of applying IFRS 9 that involves more than one date of initial application, it cannot apply any of those provisions again if they were already applied at an earlier date). (See paragraphs 7.2.2 and 7.3.2.) |
7.2.28 | An entity that applied IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) or IFRS 9 (2013) and subsequently applies this Standard:
Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application of this Standard. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. |
Transition for Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation
7.2.29 | An entity shall apply Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to IFRS 9) retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.30–7.2.34. |
7.2.30 | An entity that first applies these amendments at the same time it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.1–7.2.28 instead of paragraphs 7.2.31–7.2.34. |
7.2.31 | An entity that first applies these amendments after it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.32–7.2.34. The entity shall also apply the other transition requirements in this Standard necessary for applying these amendments. For that purpose, references to the date of initial application shall be read as referring to the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies these amendments (date of initial application of these amendments). |
7.2.32 | With regard to designating a financial asset or financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss, an entity:
Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application of these amendments. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. |
7.2.33 | An entity is not required to restate prior periods to reflect the application of these amendments. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight and the restated financial statements reflect all the requirements in this Standard. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments.
|
7.2.34 | In the reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments, the entity shall disclose the following information as at that date of initial application for each class of financial assets and financial liabilities that were affected by these amendments:
|
Transition for Annual Improvements to IFRS Standards
7.2.35 | An entity shall apply Annual Improvements to IFRS Standards 2018–2020 to financial liabilities that are modified or exchanged on or after the beginning of the annual reporting period in which the entity first applies the amendment. |
Transition for IFRS 17 as amended in June 2020
7.2.36 | An entity shall apply the amendments to IFRS 9 made by IFRS 17 as amended in June 2020 retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.37–7.2.42. |
7.2.37 | An entity that first applies IFRS 17 as amended in June 2020 at the same time it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.1–7.2.28 instead of paragraphs 7.2.38–7.2.42. |
7.2.38 | An entity that first applies IFRS 17 as amended in June 2020 after it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.39–7.2.42. The entity shall also apply the other transition requirements in this Standard necessary for applying these amendments. For that purpose, references to the date of initial application shall be read as referring to the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies these amendments (date of initial application of these amendments). |
7.2.39 | With regard to designating a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss, an entity:
Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application of these amendments. That classification shall be applied retrospectively. |
7.2.40 | An entity is not required to restate prior periods to reflect the application of these amendments. The entity may restate prior periods only if it is possible to do so without the use of hindsight. If an entity restates prior periods, the restated financial statements must reflect all the requirements in this Standard for the affected financial instruments. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments.
|
7.2.41 | In the reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments, an entity is not required to present the quantitative information required by paragraph 28(f) of IAS 8. |
7.2.42 | In the reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments, the entity shall disclose the following information as at that date of initial application for each class of financial assets and financial liabilities that was affected by these amendments:
|
Transition for Interest Rate Benchmark Reform—Phase 2
7.2.43 | An entity shall apply Interest Rate Benchmark Reform—Phase 2 retrospectively in accordance with IAS 8, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.44–7.2.46. |
7.2.44 | An entity shall designate a new hedging relationship (for example, as described in paragraph 6.9.13) only prospectively (ie an entity is prohibited from designating a new hedge accounting relationship in prior periods). However, an entity shall reinstate a discontinued hedging relationship if, and only if, these conditions are met:
|
7.2.45 | If, in applying paragraph 7.2.44, an entity reinstates a discontinued hedging relationship, the entity shall read references in paragraphs 6.9.11 and 6.9.12 to the date the alternative benchmark rate is designated as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time as referring to the date of initial application of these amendments (ie the 24-month period for that alternative benchmark rate designated as a non-contractually specified risk component begins from the date of initial application of these amendments). |
7.2.46 | An entity is not required to restate prior periods to reflect the application of these amendments. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments.
|
7.3 Withdrawal of IFRIC 9, IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) and IFRS 9 (2013)
7.3.1 | This Standard supersedes IFRIC 9 Reassessment of Embedded Derivatives. The requirements added to IFRS 9 in October 2010 incorporated the requirements previously set out in paragraphs 5 and 7 of IFRIC 9. As a consequential amendment, IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards incorporated the requirements previously set out in paragraph 8 of IFRIC 9. |
7.3.2 | This Standard supersedes IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) and IFRS 9 (2013). However, for annual periods beginning before 1 January 2018, an entity may elect to apply those earlier versions of IFRS 9 instead of applying this Standard if, and only if, the entity’s relevant date of initial application is before 1 February 2015. |
Appendices
Appendix A Defined terms
This appendix is an integral part of the Standard.
- 12‑month expected credit losses
-
The portion of lifetime expected credit losses that represent the expected credit losses that result from default events on a financial instrument that are possible within the 12 months after the reporting date.
- amortised cost of a financial asset or financial liability
-
The amount at which the financial asset or financial liability is measured at initial recognition minus the principal repayments, plus or minus the cumulative amortisation using the effective interest method of any difference between that initial amount and the maturity amount and, for financial assets, adjusted for any loss allowance.
[Refer:paragraph 5.4.1] - contract assets
-
Those rights that IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers specifies are accounted for in accordance with this Standard for the purposes of recognising and measuring impairment gains or losses.
- credit-impaired financial asset
-
A financial asset is credit-impaired when one or more events that have a detrimental impact on the estimated future cash flows of that financial asset have occurred. Evidence that a financial asset is credit-impaired include observable data about the following events:
(a)
significant financial difficulty of the issuer or the borrower;
(b)
a breach of contract, such as a default or past due event;
(c)
the lender(s) of the borrower, for economic or contractual reasons relating to the borrower’s financial difficulty, having granted to the borrower a concession(s) that the lender(s) would not otherwise consider;
(d)
it is becoming probable that the borrower will enter bankruptcy or other financial reorganisation;
(e)
the disappearance of an active market for that financial asset because of financial difficulties; or
(f)
the purchase or origination of a financial asset at a deep discount that reflects the incurred credit losses.
It may not be possible to identify a single discrete event—instead, the combined effect of several events may have caused financial assets to become credit-impaired.
- credit loss
-
The difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls), discounted at the original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets). An entity shall estimate cash flows by considering all contractual terms of the financial instrument (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) through the expected life of that financial instrument. The cash flows that are considered shall include cash flows from the sale of collateral held or other credit enhancements that are integral to the contractual terms. There is a presumption that the expected life of a financial instrument can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the expected life of a financial instrument, the entity shall use the remaining contractual term of the financial instrument.
- credit-adjusted effective interest rate
-
The rate that exactly discounts the estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the financial asset to the amortised cost of a financial asset that is a purchased or originated credit‑impaired financial asset. When calculating the credit-adjusted effective interest rate, an entity shall estimate the expected cash flows by considering all contractual terms of the financial asset (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) and expected credit losses. The calculation includes all fees and points paid or received between parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest rate (see paragraphs B5.4.1–B5.4.3), transaction costs, and all other premiums or discounts. There is a presumption that the cash flows and the expected life of a group of similar financial instruments can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the cash flows or the remaining life of a financial instrument (or group of financial instruments), the entity shall use the contractual cash flows over the full contractual term of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments).
[Refer:paragraphs 5.4.1(a), B5.4.6, B5.4.7 and B5.5.45
Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.214, BC5.268 and BC5.271]
- derecognition
-
The removal of a previously recognised financial asset or financial liability from an entity’s statement of financial position.
- derivative
-
A financial instrument or other contract within the scope of this Standard with all three of the following characteristics.E23
(a)
its value changes in response to the change in a specified interest rate, financial instrument price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index of prices or rates, credit rating or credit index, or other variable, provided in the case of a non‑financial variable that the variable is not specific to a party to the contract (sometimes called the ‘underlying’).E24
(b)
it requires no initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors.
(c)
it is settled at a future date.
-
whether the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract applies only to insurance contracts
-
whether EBITDA or revenue is a financial or nonfinancial variable.
-
the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract is not restricted to insurance contracts, on the basis of the current drafting of the standard; and
-
although IAS 39 is unclear whether revenue or EBITDA is a financial or non-financial variable, the IFRIC would not take this issue onto its agenda because it was unlikely to reach a consensus on a timely basis.
- dividends
-
Distributions of profits to holders of equity instruments in proportion to their holdings of a particular class of capital.
- effective interest method
-
The method that is used in the calculation of the amortised cost of a financial asset or a financial liability and in the allocation and recognition of the interest revenue or interest expense in profit or loss over the relevant period.
- effective interest rate
-
The rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the financial asset or financial liability to the gross carrying amount of a financial asset or to the amortised cost of a financial liability. When calculating the effective interest rate, an entity shall estimate the expected cash flows by considering all the contractual terms of the financial instrument (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) but shall not consider the expected credit losses. The calculation includes all fees and points paid or received between parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest rate (see paragraphs B5.4.1–B5.4.3), transaction costs, and all other premiums or discounts. There is a presumption that the cash flows and the expected life of a group of similar financial instruments can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the cash flows or the expected life of a financial instrument (or group of financial instruments), the entity shall use the contractual cash flows over the full contractual term of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments).
- expected credit losses
-
The weighted average of credit losses with the respective risks of a default occurring as the weights.
- financial guarantee contract
-
A contract that requires the issuer to make specified payments to reimburse the holder for a loss it incurs because a specified debtor fails to make payment when due in accordance with the original or modified terms of a debt instrument.
- financial liability at fair value through profit or loss
-
A financial liability that meets one of the following conditions:
(a)
it meets the definition of held for trading.
(b)
upon initial recognition it is designated by the entity as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2 or 4.3.5.
(c)
it is designated either upon initial recognition or subsequently as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 6.7.1.
- firm commitment
-
A binding agreement for the exchange of a specified quantity of resources at a specified price on a specified future date or dates.
- forecast transaction
-
An uncommitted but anticipated future transaction.
- gross carrying amount of a financial asset
-
The amortised cost of a financial asset, before adjusting for any loss allowance.
- hedge ratio
-
The relationship between the quantity of the hedging instrument and the quantity of the hedged item in terms of their relative weighting.
- held for trading
-
A financial asset or financial liability that:
(a)
is acquired or incurred principally for the purpose of selling or repurchasing it in the near term;E25
(b)
on initial recognition is part of a portfolio of identified financial instruments that are managed together and for which there is evidence of a recent actual pattern of short-term profit-taking; or
(c)
is a derivative (except for a derivative that is a financial guarantee contract or a designated and effective hedging instrument).
- impairment gain or loss
-
Gains or losses that are recognised in profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 5.5.8 and that arise from applying the impairment requirements in Section 5.5.
- lifetime expected credit losses
-
The expected credit losses that result from all possible default events over the expected life of a financial instrument.
- loss allowance
-
The allowance for expected credit losses on financial assets measured in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2, lease receivables and contract assets, the accumulated impairment amount for financial assets measured in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A and the provision for expected credit losses on loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts.
[Refer:paragraph 5.5.1] - modification gain or loss
-
The amount arising from adjusting the gross carrying amount of a financial asset to reflect the renegotiated or modified contractual cash flows. The entity recalculates the gross carrying amount of a financial asset as the present value of the estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the renegotiated or modified financial asset that are discounted at the financial asset’s original effective interest rate (or the original credit‑adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. When estimating the expected cash flows of a financial asset, an entity shall consider all contractual terms of the financial asset (for example, prepayment, call and similar options) but shall not consider the expected credit losses, unless the financial asset is a purchased or originated credit‑impaired financial asset, in which case an entity shall also consider the initial expected credit losses that were considered when calculating the original credit‑adjusted effective interest rate.
[Refer:paragraph 5.4.3] - past due
-
A financial asset is past due when a counterparty has failed to make a payment when that payment was contractually due.
- purchased or originated credit‑impaired financial asset
-
Purchased or originated financial asset(s) that are credit‑impaired on initial recognition.
[Refer:paragraph 5.5.13] - reclassification date
-
The first day of the first reporting period following the change in business model that results in an entity reclassifying financial assets.
- regular way purchase or sale
-
A purchase or sale of a financial asset under a contract whose terms require delivery of the asset within the time frame established generally by regulation or convention in the marketplace concerned.
- transaction costs
-
Incremental costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition, issue or disposal of a financial asset or financial liability (see paragraph B5.4.8). An incremental cost is one that would not have been incurred if the entity had not acquired, issued or disposed of the financial instrument.
| E23 | [IFRIC® Update, July 2007, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Gaming transactions’ The IFRIC considered a submission relating to the accounting for wagers received by a gaming institution. The IFRIC noted the definitions of financial assets and financial liabilities in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation, and the application guidance in paragraph AG8 of IAS 32. It noted that when a gaming institution takes a position against a customer, the resulting unsettled wager is a financial instrument that is likely to meet the definition of a derivative financial instrument and should be accounted for under IAS 39 [The definition of derivative in IFRS 9 is the same as that in IAS 39]. In other situations, a gaming institution does not take positions against customers but instead provides services to manage the organisation of games between two or more gaming parties. The gaming institution earns a commission for such services regardless of the outcome of the wager. The IFRIC noted that such a commission was likely to meet the definition of revenue and would be recognised when the conditions in IAS 18 Revenue were met. The IFRIC did not consider that there was widespread divergence in practice in this area and therefore decided not to take the issue on to its agenda.] |
| E24 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2007, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Definition of a derivative: Indexation on own EBITDA or own revenue’ In July 2006 the IFRIC published a tentative agenda decision that explained why it had decided not to issue guidance on whether a contract that is indexed to an entity’s own revenue or own earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EDITDA) is (or might contain) a derivative. [The definition of derivative in IFRS 9 is the same as that in IAS 39] The tentative agenda decision addressed two issues: The tentative agenda decision concluded that: At the January 2007 meeting, the IFRIC decided to withdraw the tentative agenda decision. Having reconsidered the issue, the IFRIC noted that taking no action would allow continued significant diversity in practice regarding how financial and non-financial variables were determined. Consequently, the IFRIC directed the staff to refer the issue to the Board. The IFRIC recommended that the Board should amend IAS 39 (possibly as part of the annual improvements process) to limit to insurance contracts the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract.] |
| E25 | [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‑16 are 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‑16 was superseded by IAS 32 (as revised in December 2003).]] |
The following terms are defined in paragraph 11 of IAS 32, Appendix A of IFRS 7, Appendix A of IFRS 13 or Appendix A of IFRS 15 and are used in this Standard with the meanings specified in IAS 32, IFRS 7, IFRS 13 or IFRS 15:
(a) | credit risk;3 [Refer:IFRS 7 Appendix A (definition of credit risk)] |
(b) | equity instrument; [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11] |
(c) | fair value; [Refer:IFRS 13 paragraph 9] |
(d) | financial asset; [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11] |
(e) | financial instrument; [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11] [Refer:IFRS 9 Implementation Guidance question B.1] |
(f) | financial liability; [Refer:IAS 32 paragraph 11] |
(g) | transaction price. [Refer:IFRS 15 Appendix A (definition of transaction price)] |
Appendix B Application guidance
This appendix is an integral part of the Standard.
Scope (Chapter 2)
B2.1 | Some contracts require a payment based on climatic, geological or other physical variables. (Those based on climatic variables are sometimes referred to as ‘weather derivatives’.) If those contracts are not within the scope of IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts, they are within the scope of this Standard. |
B2.2 | This Standard does not change the requirements relating to employee benefit plans that comply with IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans and royalty agreements based on the volume of sales or service revenues that are accounted for under IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. |
B2.3 | Sometimes, an entity makes what it views as a ‘strategic investment’ in equity instruments issued by another entity, with the intention of establishing or maintaining a long‑term operating relationship with the entity in which the investment is made. The investor or joint venturer entity uses IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures to determine whether the equity method of accounting shall be applied to such an investment. |
B2.4 | This Standard applies to the financial assets and financial liabilities of insurers, other than rights and obligations that paragraph 2.1(e) excludes because they arise under contracts within the scope of IFRS 17. |
B2.5 | Financial guarantee contracts may have various legal forms, such as a guarantee, some types of letter of credit, a credit default contract or an insurance contract. Their accounting treatment does not depend on their legal form. The following are examples of the appropriate treatment (see paragraph 2.1(e)):
|
B2.6 | Assertions that an issuer regards contracts as insurance contracts are typically found throughout the issuer’s communications with customers and regulators, contracts, business documentation and financial statements. Furthermore, insurance contracts are often subject to accounting requirements that are distinct from the requirements for other types of transaction, such as contracts issued by banks or commercial companies. In such cases, an issuer’s financial statements typically include a statement that the issuer has used those accounting requirements. [Refer:paragraph 2.1(e)]
|
Recognition and derecognition (Chapter 3)
Initial recognition (Section 3.1)
B3.1.1 | As a consequence of the principle in paragraph 3.1.1, an entity recognises all of its contractual rights and obligations under derivatives in its statement of financial position as assets and liabilities, respectively, except for derivatives that prevent a transfer of financial assets from being accounted for as a sale (see paragraph B3.2.14). If a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferee does not recognise the transferred asset as its asset (see paragraph B3.2.15). |
B3.1.2 | The following are examples of applying the principle in paragraph 3.1.1:
|
Regular way purchase or sale of financial assets
B3.1.3 | A regular way purchase or sale of financial assets is recognised using either trade date accounting or settlement date accounting as described in paragraphs B3.1.5 and B3.1.6.E26 An entity shall apply the same method consistently for all purchases and sales of financial assets that are classified in the same way in accordance with this Standard. For this purpose assets that are mandatorily measured at fair value through profit or loss form a separate classification from assets designated as measured at fair value through profit or loss. In addition, investments in equity instruments accounted for using the option provided in paragraph 5.7.5 form a separate classification. |
| E26 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2007, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Short trading’ The IFRIC received a submission regarding the accounting for short sales of securities when the terms of the short sales require delivery of the securities within the time frame established generally by regulation or convention in the marketplace concerned. A fixed price commitment between trade date and settlement date of a short sale contract meets the definition of a derivative according to IAS 39 paragraph 9 [now in Appendix A to IFRS 9]. However, the submission noted that entities that enter into regular way purchase or sales of financial assets are allowed to choose trade date or settlement date accounting in accordance with IAS 39 paragraph 38 [now replaced by paragraph 3.1.2 of IFRS 9]. Therefore, the issue was whether short sales of securities should be eligible for the regular way exceptions (ie whether entities that enter into short sales are permitted to choose trade date or settlement date accounting). The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG55 and AG56 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraphs B3.1.5 and B3.1.6 of IFRS 9] address the recognition and derecognition of financial assets traded under regular way purchases and regular way sales of long positions. If the regular way exceptions are not applicable to short sales of securities, such short sales should be accounted for as derivatives and be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss. The IFRIC received several comment letters explaining an interpretation of IAS 39 that is commonly used in practice. Under that interpretation, entities that enter into short sales of securities are allowed to choose trade date or settlement date accounting. Specifically, practice recognises the short sales as financial liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss. Under the industry practice, the same profit or loss amount is recognised as would have been recognised if short sales of securities were accounted for as derivatives but the securities are presented differently on the balance sheet. The IFRIC acknowledged that requiring entities to account for the short positions as derivatives might create considerable practical problems for their accounting systems and controls with little, if any, improvement to the quality of the financial information presented. For these reasons and because there was little diversity in practice, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to the agenda.] |
B3.1.4 | A contract that requires or permits net settlement of the change in the value of the contract is not a regular way contract. Instead, such a contract is accounted for as a derivative in the period between the trade date and the settlement date. |
B3.1.5 | The trade date is the date that an entity commits itself to purchase or sell an asset. Trade date accounting refers to (a) the recognition of an asset to be received and the liability to pay for it on the trade date, and (b) derecognition of an asset that is sold, recognition of any gain or loss on disposal and the recognition of a receivable from the buyer for payment on the trade date. Generally, interest does not start to accrue on the asset and corresponding liability until the settlement date when title passes.
|
B3.1.6 | The settlement date is the date that an asset is delivered to or by an entity. Settlement date accounting refers to (a) the recognition of an asset on the day it is received by the entity, and (b) the derecognition of an asset and recognition of any gain or loss on disposal on the day that it is delivered by the entity. When settlement date accounting is applied an entity accounts for any change in the fair value of the asset to be received during the period between the trade date and the settlement date in the same way as it accounts for the acquired asset. In other words, the change in value is not recognised for assets measured at amortised cost; it is recognised in profit or loss for assets classified as financial assets measured at fair value through profit or loss; and it is recognised in other comprehensive income for financial assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A and for investments in equity instruments accounted for in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5. |
Derecognition of financial assets (Section 3.2)
B3.2.1 | The following flow chart illustrates the evaluation of whether and to what extent a financial asset is derecognised.  |
Arrangements under which an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset, but assumes a contractual obligation to pay the cash flows to one or more recipients (paragraph 3.2.4(b))
B3.2.2 | The situation described in paragraph 3.2.4(b) (when an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset, but assumes a contractual obligation to pay the cash flows to one or more recipients) occurs, for example, if the entity is a trust, and issues to investors beneficial interests in the underlying financial assets that it owns and provides servicing of those financial assets. In that case, the financial assets qualify for derecognition if the conditions in paragraphs 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 are met. |
B3.2.3 | In applying paragraph 3.2.5, the entity could be, for example, the originator of the financial asset, or it could be a group that includes a subsidiary that has acquired the financial asset and passes on cash flows to unrelated third party investors. |
Evaluation of the transfer of risks and rewards of ownership (paragraph 3.2.6)
B3.2.4 | Examples of when an entity has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are:
|
B3.2.5 | Examples of when an entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are:
[Refer:paragraphs 3.2.6 and 3.2.7]
|
B3.2.6 | If an entity determines that as a result of the transfer, it has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, it does not recognise the transferred asset again in a future period, unless it reacquires the transferred asset in a new transaction. |
Evaluation of the transfer of control
B3.2.7 | An entity has not retained control of a transferred asset if the transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset. An entity has retained control of a transferred asset if the transferee does not have the practical ability to sell the transferred asset. A transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset if it is traded in an active market because the transferee could repurchase the transferred asset in the market if it needs to return the asset to the entity. For example, a transferee may have the practical ability to sell a transferred asset if the transferred asset is subject to an option that allows the entity to repurchase it, but the transferee can readily obtain the transferred asset in the market if the option is exercised. A transferee does not have the practical ability to sell the transferred asset if the entity retains such an option and the transferee cannot readily obtain the transferred asset in the market if the entity exercises its option. |
B3.2.8 | The transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset only if the transferee can sell the transferred asset in its entirety to an unrelated third party and is able to exercise that ability unilaterally and without imposing additional restrictions on the transfer. The critical question is what the transferee is able to do in practice, not what contractual rights the transferee has concerning what it can do with the transferred asset or what contractual prohibitions exist. In particular:
|
B3.2.9 | That the transferee is unlikely to sell the transferred asset does not, of itself, mean that the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset. However, if a put option or guarantee constrains the transferee from selling the transferred asset, then the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset. For example, if a put option or guarantee is sufficiently valuable it constrains the transferee from selling the transferred asset because the transferee would, in practice, not sell the transferred asset to a third party without attaching a similar option or other restrictive conditions. Instead, the transferee would hold the transferred asset so as to obtain payments under the guarantee or put option. Under these circumstances the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset. |
Transfers that qualify for derecognition
B3.2.10 | An entity may retain the right to a part of the interest payments on transferred assets as compensation for servicing those assets. The part of the interest payments that the entity would give up upon termination or transfer of the servicing contract is allocated to the servicing asset or servicing liability. The part of the interest payments that the entity would not give up is an interest‑only strip receivable. For example, if the entity would not give up any interest upon termination or transfer of the servicing contract, the entire interest spread is an interest‑only strip receivable. For the purposes of applying paragraph 3.2.13, the fair values of the servicing asset and interest‑only strip receivable are used to allocate the carrying amount of the receivable between the part of the asset that is derecognised and the part that continues to be recognised. If there is no servicing fee specified or the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity adequately for performing the servicing, a liability for the servicing obligation is recognised at fair value. |
B3.2.11 | When measuring the fair values of the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised for the purposes of applying paragraph 3.2.13, an entity applies the fair value measurement requirements in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement in addition to paragraph 3.2.14. |
Transfers that do not qualify for derecognition
B3.2.12 | The following is an application of the principle outlined in paragraph 3.2.15. If a guarantee provided by the entity for default losses on the transferred asset prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised because the entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, the transferred asset continues to be recognised in its entirety and the consideration received is recognised as a liability. [Refer:paragraph 3.2.6(b)]
|
Continuing involvement in transferred assets
B3.2.13 | The following are examples of how an entity measures a transferred asset and the associated liability under paragraph 3.2.16. |
All assets
(a) | If a guarantee provided by an entity to pay for default losses on a transferred asset prevents the transferred asset from being derecognised to the extent of the continuing involvement, the transferred asset at the date of the transfer is measured at the lower of (i) the carrying amount of the asset and (ii) the maximum amount of the consideration received in the transfer that the entity could be required to repay (‘the guarantee amount’). The associated liability is initially measured at the guarantee amount plus the fair value of the guarantee (which is normally the consideration received for the guarantee). Subsequently, the initial fair value of the guarantee is recognised in profit or loss when (or as) the obligation is satisfied (in accordance with the principles of IFRS 15) and the carrying value of the asset is reduced by any loss allowance. |
Assets measured at amortised cost
(b) | If a put option obligation written by an entity or call option right held by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at amortised cost, the associated liability is measured at its cost (ie the consideration received) adjusted for the amortisation of any difference between that cost and the gross carrying amount of the transferred asset at the expiration date of the option. For example, assume that the gross carrying amount of the asset on the date of the transfer is CU98 and that the consideration received is CU95. The gross carrying amount of the asset on the option exercise date will be CU100. The initial carrying amount of the associated liability is CU95 and the difference between CU95 and CU100 is recognised in profit or loss using the effective interest method. If the option is exercised, any difference between the carrying amount of the associated liability and the exercise price is recognised in profit or loss. |
Assets measured at fair value
(c) | If a call option right retained by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at fair value, the asset continues to be measured at its fair value. The associated liability is measured at (i) the option exercise price less the time value of the option if the option is in or at the money, or (ii) the fair value of the transferred asset less the time value of the option if the option is out of the money. The adjustment to the measurement of the associated liability ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the call option right. For example, if the fair value of the underlying asset is CU80, the option exercise price is CU95 and the time value of the option is CU5, the carrying amount of the associated liability is CU75 (CU80 – CU5) and the carrying amount of the transferred asset is CU80 (ie its fair value). |
(d) | If a put option written by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at fair value, the associated liability is measured at the option exercise price plus the time value of the option. The measurement of the asset at fair value is limited to the lower of the fair value and the option exercise price because the entity has no right to increases in the fair value of the transferred asset above the exercise price of the option. This ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the put option obligation. For example, if the fair value of the underlying asset is CU120, the option exercise price is CU100 and the time value of the option is CU5, the carrying amount of the associated liability is CU105 (CU100 + CU5) and the carrying amount of the asset is CU100 (in this case the option exercise price). |
(e) | If a collar, in the form of a purchased call and written put, prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the asset at fair value, it continues to measure the asset at fair value. The associated liability is measured at (i) the sum of the call exercise price and fair value of the put option less the time value of the call option, if the call option is in or at the money, or (ii) the sum of the fair value of the asset and the fair value of the put option less the time value of the call option if the call option is out of the money. The adjustment to the associated liability ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the options held and written by the entity. For example, assume an entity transfers a financial asset that is measured at fair value while simultaneously purchasing a call with an exercise price of CU120 and writing a put with an exercise price of CU80. Assume also that the fair value of the asset is CU100 at the date of the transfer. The time value of the put and call are CU1 and CU5 respectively. In this case, the entity recognises an asset of CU100 (the fair value of the asset) and a liability of CU96 [(CU100 + CU1) – CU5]. This gives a net asset value of CU4, which is the fair value of the options held and written by the entity. |
All transfers
B3.2.14 | To the extent that a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferor’s contractual rights or obligations related to the transfer are not accounted for separately as derivatives if recognising both the derivative and either the transferred asset or the liability arising from the transfer would result in recognising the same rights or obligations twice. For example, a call option retained by the transferor may prevent a transfer of financial assets from being accounted for as a sale. In that case, the call option is not separately recognised as a derivative asset. |
B3.2.15 | To the extent that a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferee does not recognise the transferred asset as its asset.E27 The transferee derecognises the cash or other consideration paid and recognises a receivable from the transferor. If the transferor has both a right and an obligation to reacquire control of the entire transferred asset for a fixed amount (such as under a repurchase agreement), the transferee may measure its receivable at amortised cost if it meets the criteria in paragraph 4.1.2. |
| E27 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2017, Agenda Decision, ‘Commodity loans’ The Committee received a request on how to account for a commodity loan transaction. Specifically, the transaction is one in which a bank borrows gold from a third party (Contract 1) and then lends that gold to a different third party for the same term and for a higher fee (Contract 2). The bank enters into the two contracts in contemplation of each other, but the contracts are not linked—ie the bank negotiates the contracts independently of each other. In each contract, the borrower obtains legal title to the gold at inception and has an obligation to return, at the end of the contract, gold of the same quality and quantity as that received. In exchange for the loan of gold, each borrower pays a fee to the respective lender over the term of the contract but there are no cash flows at inception of the contract. The Committee was asked whether, for the term of the two contracts, the bank that borrows and then lends the gold recognises:
The Committee observed that the particular transaction in the submission might not be clearly captured within the scope of any IFRS Standard. [The Committee observed, however, that particular IFRS Standards would apply to other transactions involving commodities (for example, the purchase of commodities for use in an entity’s production process, or the sale of commodities to customers).] In the absence of a Standard that specifically applies to a transaction, an entity applies paragraphs 10 and 11 of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors in developing and applying an accounting policy to the transaction. In doing so, paragraph 11 of IAS 8 requires an entity to consider:
The Committee noted that, applying paragraph 10 of IAS 8, the accounting policy developed must result in information that is (i) relevant to the economic decision-making needs of users of financial statements; and (ii) reliable—ie represents faithfully the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the entity; reflects the economic substance; and is neutral, prudent and complete in all material respects. The Committee observed that, in considering the requirements that deal with similar and related issues, an entity considers all the requirements dealing with those similar and related issues, including relevant disclosure requirements. The Committee also observed that the requirements in paragraph 112(c) of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements are relevant if an entity develops an accounting policy applying paragraphs 10 and 11 of IAS 8 for a commodity loan transaction such as that described in the submission. In applying these requirements, an entity considers whether additional disclosures are needed to provide information relevant to an understanding of the accounting for, and risks associated with, such commodity loan transactions. The Committee concluded that it would be unable to resolve the question asked efficiently within the confines of existing IFRS Standards. The wide range of transactions involving commodities means that any narrow-scope standard-setting activity would be of limited benefit to entities and would have a high risk of unintended consequences. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
Examples
B3.2.16 | The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard.
|
B3.2.17 | This paragraph illustrates the application of the continuing involvement approach when the entity’s continuing involvement is in a part of a financial asset [Refer:paragraphs 3.2.16 and 3.2.20].
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Derecognition of financial liabilities (Section 3.3)
B3.3.1 | A financial liability (or part of it) is extinguished when the debtor either:
|
B3.3.2 | If an issuer of a debt instrument repurchases that instrument, the debt is extinguished even if the issuer is a market maker in that instrument or intends to resell it in the near term. [Refer:paragraph 3.3.1]
|
B3.3.3 | Payment to a third party, including a trust (sometimes called ‘in‑substance defeasance’), does not, by itself, relieve the debtor of its primary obligation to the creditor, in the absence of legal release. [Refer:paragraph 3.3.1]
|
B3.3.4 | If a debtor pays a third party to assume an obligation and notifies its creditor that the third party has assumed its debt obligation, the debtor does not derecognise the debt obligation unless the condition in paragraph B3.3.1(b) is met. If the debtor pays a third party to assume an obligation and obtains a legal release from its creditor, the debtor has extinguished the debt. However, if the debtor agrees to make payments on the debt to the third party or direct to its original creditor, the debtor recognises a new debt obligation to the third party. [Refer:paragraph 3.3.1]
|
B3.3.5 | Although legal release, whether judicially or by the creditor, results in derecognition of a liability, the entity may recognise a new liability if the derecognition criteria in paragraphs 3.2.1–3.2.23 are not met for the financial assets transferred. If those criteria are not met, the transferred assets are not derecognised, and the entity recognises a new liability relating to the transferred assets. [Refer:paragraph 3.3.1]
|
B3.3.6 | For the purpose of paragraph 3.3.2, the terms are substantially different if the discounted present value of the cash flows under the new terms, including any fees paid net of any fees received and discounted using the original effective interest rate, is at least 10 per cent different from the discounted present value of the remaining cash flows of the original financial liability. In determining those fees paid net of fees received, a borrower includes only fees paid or received between the borrower and the lender, including fees paid or received by either the borrower or lender on the other’s behalf. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC3.33 and BC3.34] |
B3.3.6A | If an exchange of debt instruments or modification of terms is accounted for as an extinguishment, any costs or fees incurred are recognised as part of the gain or loss on the extinguishment. If the exchange or modification is not accounted for as an extinguishment, any costs or fees incurred adjust the carrying amount of the liability and are amortised over the remaining term of the modified liability. |
B3.3.7 | In some cases, a creditor releases a debtor from its present obligation to make payments, but the debtor assumes a guarantee obligation to pay if the party assuming primary responsibility defaults. In these circumstances the debtor:
|
Classification (Chapter 4)
Classification of financial assets (Section 4.1)
The entity’s business model for managing financial assets
B4.1.1 | Paragraph 4.1.1(a) requires an entity to classify financial assets on the basis of the entity’s business model for managing the financial assets, unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies. An entity assesses whether its financial assets meet the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(a) or the condition in paragraph 4.1.2A(a) on the basis of the business model as determined by the entity’s key management personnel (as defined in IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures). [Refer:IAS 24 paragraph 9] |
B4.1.2 | An entity’s business model is determined at a level that reflects how groups of financial assets are managed together to achieve a particular business objective. The entity’s business model does not depend on management’s intentions for an individual instrument. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC4.20–BC4.21] Accordingly, this condition is not an instrument‑by‑instrument approach to classification and should be determined on a higher level of aggregation. However, a single entity may have more than one business model for managing its financial instruments. Consequently, classification need not be determined at the reporting entity level. For example, an entity may hold a portfolio of investments that it manages in order to collect contractual cash flows and another portfolio of investments that it manages in order to trade to realise fair value changes. Similarly, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate to separate a portfolio of financial assets into subportfolios in order to reflect the level at which an entity manages those financial assets. For example, that may be the case if an entity originates or purchases a portfolio of mortgage loans and manages some of the loans with an objective of collecting contractual cash flows and manages the other loans with an objective of selling them. |
B4.1.2A | An entity’s business model refers to how an entity manages its financial assets in order to generate cash flows. That is, the entity’s business model determines whether cash flows will result from collecting contractual cash flows, selling financial assets or both. Consequently, this assessment is not performed on the basis of scenarios that the entity does not reasonably expect to occur, such as so-called ‘worst case’ or ‘stress case’ scenarios. For example, if an entity expects that it will sell a particular portfolio of financial assets only in a stress case scenario, that scenario would not affect the entity’s assessment of the business model for those assets if the entity reasonably expects that such a scenario will not occur. If cash flows are realised in a way that is different from the entity’s expectations at the date that the entity assessed the business model (for example, if the entity sells more or fewer financial assets than it expected when it classified the assets), that does not give rise to a prior period error in the entity’s financial statements (see IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors) nor does it change the classification of the remaining financial assets held in that business model (ie those assets that the entity recognised in prior periods and still holds) as long as the entity considered all relevant information that was available at the time that it made the business model assessment. However, when an entity assesses the business model for newly originated or newly purchased financial assets, it must consider information about how cash flows were realised in the past, along with all other relevant information. |
B4.1.2B | An entity’s business model for managing financial assets is a matter of fact and not merely an assertion. It is typically observable through the activities that the entity undertakes to achieve the objective of the business model. An entity will need to use judgement when it assesses its business model for managing financial assets and that assessment is not determined by a single factor or activity. Instead, the entity must consider all relevant evidence that is available at the date of the assessment. Such relevant evidence includes, but is not limited to:
|
A business model whose objective is to hold assets in order to collect contractual cash flows
B4.1.2C | Financial assets that are held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets in order to collect contractual cash flows are managed to realise cash flows by collecting contractual payments over the life of the instrument. That is, the entity manages the assets held within the portfolio to collect those particular contractual cash flows (instead of managing the overall return on the portfolio by both holding and selling assets). In determining whether cash flows are going to be realised by collecting the financial assets’ contractual cash flows, it is necessary to consider the frequency, value and timing of sales in prior periods, the reasons for those sales and expectations about future sales activity. However sales in themselves do not determine the business model and therefore cannot be considered in isolation. Instead, information about past sales and expectations about future sales provide evidence related to how the entity’s stated objective for managing the financial assets is achieved and, specifically, how cash flows are realised. An entity must consider information about past sales within the context of the reasons for those sales and the conditions that existed at that time as compared to current conditions. |
B4.1.3 | Although the objective of an entity’s business model may be to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows, the entity need not hold all of those instruments until maturity. Thus an entity’s business model can be to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows even when sales of financial assets occur or are expected to occur in the future. |
B4.1.3A | The business model may be to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows even if the entity sells financial assets when there is an increase in the assets’ credit risk. To determine whether there has been an increase in the assets’ credit risk, the entity considers reasonable and supportable information, including forward looking information. Irrespective of their frequency and value, sales due to an increase in the assets’ credit risk are not inconsistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows because the credit quality of financial assets is relevant to the entity’s ability to collect contractual cash flows. Credit risk management activities that are aimed at minimising potential credit losses due to credit deterioration are integral to such a business model. Selling a financial asset because it no longer meets the credit criteria specified in the entity’s documented investment policy is an example of a sale that has occurred due to an increase in credit risk. However, in the absence of such a policy, the entity may demonstrate in other ways that the sale occurred due to an increase in credit risk. |
B4.1.3B | Sales that occur for other reasons, such as sales made to manage credit concentration risk (without an increase in the assets’ credit risk), may also be consistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows. In particular, such sales may be consistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows if those sales are infrequent (even if significant in value) or insignificant in value both individually and in aggregate (even if frequent). If more than an infrequent number of such sales are made out of a portfolio and those sales are more than insignificant in value (either individually or in aggregate), the entity needs to assess whether and how such sales are consistent with an objective of collecting contractual cash flows. Whether a third party imposes the requirement to sell the financial assets, or that activity is at the entity’s discretion, is not relevant to this assessment. An increase in the frequency or value of sales in a particular period is not necessarily inconsistent with an objective to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows, if an entity can explain the reasons for those sales and demonstrate why those sales do not reflect a change in the entity’s business model. In addition, sales may be consistent with the objective of holding financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows if the sales are made close to the maturity of the financial assets and the proceeds from the sales approximate the collection of the remaining contractual cash flows. |
B4.1.4 | The following are examples of when the objective of an entity’s business model may be to hold financial assets to collect the contractual cash flows. [Refer:paragraph 4.1.2(a)] This list of examples is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the examples are not intended to discuss all factors that may be relevant to the assessment of the entity’s business model nor specify the relative importance of the factors.
|
A business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets
B4.1.4A | An entity may hold financial assets in a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. In this type of business model, the entity’s key management personnel have made a decision that both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets are integral to achieving the objective of the business model. There are various objectives that may be consistent with this type of business model. For example, the objective of the business model may be to manage everyday liquidity needs, to maintain a particular interest yield profile or to match the duration of the financial assets to the duration of the liabilities that those assets are funding. To achieve such an objective, the entity will both collect contractual cash flows and sell financial assets. |
B4.1.4B | Compared to a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows, this business model will typically involve greater frequency and value of sales. This is because selling financial assets is integral to achieving the business model's objective instead of being only incidental to it. However, there is no threshold for the frequency or value of sales that must occur in this business model because both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets are integral to achieving its objective. |
B4.1.4C | The following are examples of when the objective of the entity’s business model may be achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. This list of examples is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the examples are not intended to describe all the factors that may be relevant to the assessment of the entity’s business model nor specify the relative importance of the factors.
|
Other business models
B4.1.5 | Financial assets are measured at fair value through profit or loss if they are not held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows or within a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets (but see also paragraph 5.7.5). One business model that results in measurement at fair value through profit or loss is one in which an entity manages the financial assets with the objective of realising cash flows through the sale of the assets. The entity makes decisions based on the assets’ fair values and manages the assets to realise those fair values. In this case, the entity’s objective will typically result in active buying and selling. Even though the entity will collect contractual cash flows while it holds the financial assets, the objective of such a business model is not achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. This is because the collection of contractual cash flows is not integral to achieving the business model’s objective; instead, it is incidental to it. |
B4.1.6 | A portfolio of financial assets that is managed and whose performance is evaluated on a fair value basis (as described in paragraph 4.2.2(b)) is neither held to collect contractual cash flows nor held both to collect contractual cash flows and to sell financial assets. The entity is primarily focused on fair value information and uses that information to assess the assets’ performance and to make decisions. In addition, a portfolio of financial assets that meets the definition of held for trading is not held to collect contractual cash flows or held both to collect contractual cash flows and to sell financial assets. For such portfolios, the collection of contractual cash flows is only incidental to achieving the business model’s objective. Consequently, such portfolios of financial assets must be measured at fair value [Refer:IFRS 13] through profit or loss. |
Contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding
B4.1.7 | Paragraph 4.1.1(b) requires an entity to classify a financial asset on the basis of its contractual cash flow characteristics if the financial asset is held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows or within a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets, unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies. To do so, the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) requires an entity to determine whether the asset’s contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. |
B4.1.7A | Contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding are consistent with a basic lending arrangement. In a basic lending arrangement, consideration for the time value of money (see paragraphs B4.1.9A–B4.1.9E) and credit risk are typically the most significant elements of interest. However, in such an arrangement, interest can also include consideration for other basic lending risks (for example, liquidity risk) and costs (for example, administrative costs) associated with holding the financial asset for a particular period of time. In addition, interest can include a profit margin that is consistent with a basic lending arrangement. In extreme economic circumstances, interest can be negative if, for example, the holder of a financial asset either explicitly or implicitly pays for the deposit of its money for a particular period of time (and that fee exceeds the consideration that the holder receives for the time value of money, credit risk and other basic lending risks and costs). However, contractual terms that introduce exposure to risks or volatility in the contractual cash flows that is unrelated to a basic lending arrangement, such as exposure to changes in equity prices or commodity prices, do not give rise to contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. An originated or a purchased financial asset can be a basic lending arrangement irrespective of whether it is a loan in its legal form. |
B4.1.7B | In accordance with paragraph 4.1.3(a), principal is the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition. However that principal amount may change over the life of the financial asset (for example, if there are repayments of principal). |
B4.1.8 | An entity shall assess whether contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding for the currency in which the financial asset is denominated.E28 |
| E28 | [IFRIC® Update, September 2018, Agenda Decision, ‘Classification of a particular type of dual currency bond (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments)’ The Committee received a request about how a holder would classify a particular financial asset applying IFRS 9. The submitter described a ‘dual currency bond’ with a par amount denominated in one currency and fixed interest coupon payments denominated in another currency. The fixed interest payments are paid annually and the par amount is repaid at a stated maturity date. The submitter asked whether such a financial instrument has contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding applying paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) of IFRS 9. On the basis of the responses to outreach performed on the request and those received in comment letters, the Committee observed that the financial instrument described in the request is not common. Therefore, the Committee has not obtained evidence that the matter has widespread effect. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
B4.1.9 | Leverage is a contractual cash flow characteristic of some financial assets. Leverage increases the variability of the contractual cash flows with the result that they do not have the economic characteristics of interest. Stand‑alone option, forward and swap contracts are examples of financial assets that include such leverage. Thus, such contracts do not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) and cannot be subsequently measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income. |
Consideration for the time value of money
B4.1.9A | Time value of money is the element of interest that provides consideration for only the passage of time. That is, the time value of money element does not provide consideration for other risks or costs associated with holding the financial asset. In order to assess whether the element provides consideration for only the passage of time, an entity applies judgement and considers relevant factors such as the currency in which the financial asset is denominated and the period for which the interest rate is set. |
B4.1.9B | However, in some cases, the time value of money element may be modified (ie imperfect). That would be the case, for example, if a financial asset’s interest rate is periodically reset but the frequency of that reset does not match the tenor of the interest rate (for example, the interest rate resets every month to a one‑year rate) or if a financial asset’s interest rate is periodically reset to an average of particular short‑ and long‑term interest rates. In such cases, an entity must assess the modification to determine whether the contractual cash flows represent solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. In some circumstances, the entity may be able to make that determination by performing a qualitative assessment of the time value of money element whereas, in other circumstances, it may be necessary to perform a quantitative assessment. |
B4.1.9C | When assessing a modified time value of money element, the objective is to determine how different the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows could be from the (undiscounted) cash flows that would arise if the time value of money element was not modified (the benchmark cash flows). For example, if the financial asset under assessment contains a variable interest rate that is reset every month to a one-year interest rate, the entity would compare that financial asset to a financial instrument with identical contractual terms and the identical credit risk except the variable interest rate is reset monthly to a one-month interest rate. If the modified time value of money element could result in contractual (undiscounted) cash flows that are significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). To make this determination, the entity must consider the effect of the modified time value of money element in each reporting period and cumulatively over the life of the financial instrument. The reason for the interest rate being set in this way is not relevant to the analysis. If it is clear, with little or no analysis, whether the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows on the financial asset under the assessment could (or could not) be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, an entity need not perform a detailed assessment. |
B4.1.9D | When assessing a modified time value of money element, an entity must consider factors that could affect future contractual cash flows. For example, if an entity is assessing a bond with a five-year term and the variable interest rate is reset every six months to a five‑year rate, the entity cannot conclude that the contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding simply because the interest rate curve at the time of the assessment is such that the difference between a five-year interest rate and a six‑month interest rate is not significant. Instead, the entity must also consider whether the relationship between the five-year interest rate and the six‑month interest rate could change over the life of the instrument such that the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows over the life of the instrument could be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows. However, an entity must consider only reasonably possible scenarios instead of every possible scenario. If an entity concludes that the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows could be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) and therefore cannot be measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income. |
B4.1.9E | In some jurisdictions, the government or a regulatory authority sets interest rates. For example, such government regulation of interest rates may be part of a broad macroeconomic policy or it may be introduced to encourage entities to invest in a particular sector of the economy. In some of these cases, the objective of the time value of money element is not to provide consideration for only the passage of time. However, despite paragraphs B4.1.9A–B4.1.9D, a regulated interest rate shall be considered a proxy for the time value of money element for the purpose of applying the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) if that regulated interest rate provides consideration that is broadly consistent with the passage of time and does not provide exposure to risks or volatility in the contractual cash flows that are inconsistent with a basic lending arrangement. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC4.179–BC4.180] |
Contractual terms that change the timing or amount of contractual cash flows
B4.1.10 | If a financial asset contains a contractual term that could change the timing or amount of contractual cash flows (for example, if the asset can be prepaid before maturity or its term can be extended), the entity must determine whether the contractual cash flows that could arise over the life of the instrument due to that contractual term are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. To make this determination, the entity must assess the contractual cash flows that could arise both before, and after, the change in contractual cash flows. The entity may also need to assess the nature of any contingent event (ie the trigger) that would change the timing or amount of the contractual cash flows. While the nature of the contingent event in itself is not a determinative factor in assessing whether the contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest, it may be an indicator. For example, compare a financial instrument with an interest rate that is reset to a higher rate if the debtor misses a particular number of payments to a financial instrument with an interest rate that is reset to a higher rate if a specified equity index reaches a particular level. It is more likely in the former case that the contractual cash flows over the life of the instrument will be solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding because of the relationship between missed payments and an increase in credit risk. (See also paragraph B4.1.18.) |
B4.1.11 | The following are examples of contractual terms that result in contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding:
|
B4.1.12 | Despite paragraph B4.1.10, a financial asset that would otherwise meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) but does not do so only as a result of a contractual term that permits (or requires) the issuer to prepay a debt instrument or permits (or requires) the holder to put a debt instrument back to the issuer before maturity is eligible to be measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income (subject to meeting the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(a) or the condition in paragraph 4.1.2A(a)) if:
|
B4.1.12A | For the purpose of applying paragraphs B4.1.11(b) and B4.1.12(b), irrespective of the event or circumstance that causes the early termination of the contract, a party may pay or receive reasonable compensation for that early termination. For example, a party may pay or receive reasonable compensation when it chooses to terminate the contract early (or otherwise causes the early termination to occur). |
B4.1.13 | The following examples illustrate contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. [Refer:paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b)] This list of examples is not exhaustive.
|
B4.1.14 | The following examples illustrate contractual cash flows that are not solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. This list of examples is not exhaustive.
|
B4.1.15 | In some cases a financial asset may have contractual cash flows that are described as principal and interest but those cash flows do not represent the payment of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding as described in paragraphs 4.1.2(b), 4.1.2A(b) and 4.1.3 of this Standard. |
B4.1.16 | This may be the case if the financial asset represents an investment in particular assets or cash flows and hence the contractual cash flows are not solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. For example, if the contractual terms stipulate that the financial asset’s cash flows increase as more automobiles use a particular toll road, those contractual cash flows are inconsistent with a basic lending arrangement. As a result, the instrument would not satisfy the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). This could be the case when a creditor’s claim is limited to specified assets of the debtor or the cash flows from specified assets (for example, a ‘non‑recourse’ financial asset). |
B4.1.17 | However, the fact that a financial asset is non‑recourse does not in itself necessarily preclude the financial asset from meeting the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). In such situations, the creditor is required to assess (‘look through to’) the particular underlying assets or cash flows to determine whether the contractual cash flows of the financial asset being classified are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. If the terms of the financial asset give rise to any other cash flows or limit the cash flows in a manner inconsistent with payments representing principal and interest, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). Whether the underlying assets are financial assets or non‑financial assets does not in itself affect this assessment. |
B4.1.18 | A contractual cash flow characteristic does not affect the classification of the financial asset if it could have only a de minimis effect on the contractual cash flows of the financial asset. To make this determination, an entity must consider the possible effect of the contractual cash flow characteristic in each reporting period and cumulatively over the life of the financial instrument. In addition, if a contractual cash flow characteristic could have an effect on the contractual cash flows that is more than de minimis (either in a single reporting period or cumulatively) but that cash flow characteristic is not genuine, it does not affect the classification of a financial asset. A cash flow characteristic is not genuine if it affects the instrument’s contractual cash flows only on the occurrence of an event that is extremely rare, highly abnormal and very unlikely to occur. |
B4.1.19 | In almost every lending transaction the creditor’s instrument is ranked relative to the instruments of the debtor’s other creditors. An instrument that is subordinated to other instruments may have contractual cash flows that are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding if the debtor’s non‑payment is a breach of contract and the holder has a contractual right to unpaid amounts of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding even in the event of the debtor’s bankruptcy. For example, a trade receivable that ranks its creditor as a general creditor would qualify as having payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. This is the case even if the debtor issued loans that are collateralised, which in the event of bankruptcy would give that loan holder priority over the claims of the general creditor in respect of the collateral but does not affect the contractual right of the general creditor to unpaid principal and other amounts due. |
Contractually linked instruments
B4.1.20 | In some types of transactions, an issuer may prioritise payments to the holders of financial assets using multiple contractually linked instruments that create concentrations of credit risk (tranches). Each tranche has a subordination ranking that specifies the order in which any cash flows generated by the issuer are allocated to the tranche. In such situations, the holders of a tranche have the right to payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding only if the issuer generates sufficient cash flows to satisfy higher‑ranking tranches. |
B4.1.21 | In such transactions, a tranche has cash flow characteristics that are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding only if:
|
B4.1.22 | An entity must look through until it can identify the underlying pool of instruments that are creating (instead of passing through) the cash flows. This is the underlying pool of financial instruments. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC4.33] |
B4.1.23 | The underlying pool must contain one or more instruments that have contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. |
B4.1.24 | The underlying pool of instruments may also include instruments that:
|
B4.1.25 | If any instrument in the pool does not meet the conditions in either paragraph B4.1.23 or paragraph B4.1.24, the condition in paragraph B4.1.21(b) is not met. In performing this assessment, a detailed instrument-by-instrument analysis of the pool may not be necessary. However, an entity must use judgement and perform sufficient analysis to determine whether the instruments in the pool meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24. (See also paragraph B4.1.18 for guidance on contractual cash flow characteristics that have only a de minimis effect.) |
B4.1.26 | If the holder cannot assess the conditions in paragraph B4.1.21 at initial recognition, the tranche must be measured at fair value through profit or loss. If the underlying pool of instruments can change after initial recognition in such a way that the pool may not meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24, the tranche does not meet the conditions in paragraph B4.1.21 and must be measured at fair value through profit or loss. However, if the underlying pool includes instruments that are collateralised by assets that do not meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24, the ability to take possession of such assets shall be disregarded for the purposes of applying this paragraph unless the entity acquired the tranche with the intention of controlling the collateral. |
Option to designate a financial asset or financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss (Sections 4.1 and 4.2)
paragraphs 4.1.5, 4.2.2 and 4.3.5
Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC4.77–BC4.82 and BC4.210–BC4.211]
B4.1.27 | Subject to the conditions in paragraphs 4.1.5 and 4.2.2, this Standard allows an entity to designate a financial asset, a financial liability, or a group of financial instruments (financial assets, financial liabilities or both) as at fair value through profit or loss provided that doing so results in more relevant information. |
B4.1.28 | The decision of an entity to designate a financial asset or financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss is similar to an accounting policy choice (although, unlike an accounting policy choice, it is not required to be applied consistently to all similar transactions). When an entity has such a choice, paragraph 14(b) of IAS 8 requires the chosen policy to result in the financial statements providing reliable and more relevant information about the effects of transactions, other events and conditions on the entity’s financial position, financial performance or cash flows. For example, in the case of designation of a financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss, paragraph 4.2.2 sets out the two circumstances when the requirement for more relevant information will be met. Accordingly, to choose such designation in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2, the entity needs to demonstrate that it falls within one (or both) of these two circumstances. |
Designation eliminates or significantly reduces an accounting mismatch
B4.1.29 | Measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and classification of recognised changes in its value are determined by the item’s classification and whether the item is part of a designated hedging relationship. Those requirements can create a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) when, for example, in the absence of designation as at fair value through profit or loss, a financial asset would be classified as subsequently measured at fair value through profit or loss and a liability the entity considers related would be subsequently measured at amortised cost (with changes in fair value not recognised). In such circumstances, an entity may conclude that its financial statements would provide more relevant information if both the asset and the liability were measured as at fair value through profit or loss. |
B4.1.30 | The following examples show when this condition could be met. In all cases, an entity may use this condition to designate financial assets or financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss only if it meets the principle in paragraph 4.1.5 or 4.2.2(a):
|
B4.1.31 | In cases such as those described in the preceding paragraph, to designate, at initial recognition, the financial assets and financial liabilities not otherwise so measured as at fair value through profit or loss may eliminate or significantly reduce the measurement or recognition inconsistency and produce more relevant information. For practical purposes, the entity need not enter into all of the assets and liabilities giving rise to the measurement or recognition inconsistency at exactly the same time. A reasonable delay is permitted provided that each transaction is designated as at fair value through profit or loss at its initial recognition and, at that time, any remaining transactions are expected to occur. |
B4.1.32 | It would not be acceptable to designate only some of the financial assets and financial liabilities giving rise to the inconsistency as at fair value through profit or loss if to do so would not eliminate or significantly reduce the inconsistency and would therefore not result in more relevant information. However, it would be acceptable to designate only some of a number of similar financial assets or similar financial liabilities if doing so achieves a significant reduction (and possibly a greater reduction than other allowable designations) in the inconsistency. For example, assume an entity has a number of similar financial liabilities that sum to CU100 and a number of similar financial assets that sum to CU50 but are measured on a different basis. The entity may significantly reduce the measurement inconsistency by designating at initial recognition all of the assets but only some of the liabilities (for example, individual liabilities with a combined total of CU45) as at fair value through profit or loss. However, because designation as at fair value through profit or loss can be applied only to the whole of a financial instrument, the entity in this example must designate one or more liabilities in their entirety. It could not designate either a component of a liability (eg changes in value attributable to only one risk, such as changes in a benchmark interest rate) or a proportion (ie percentage) of a liability. |
A group of financial liabilities or financial assets and financial liabilities is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis
B4.1.33 | An entity may manage and evaluate the performance of a group of financial liabilities or financial assets and financial liabilities in such a way that measuring that group at fair value through profit or loss results in more relevant information. The focus in this instance is on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance, instead of on the nature of its financial instruments. |
B4.1.34 | For example, an entity may use this condition to designate financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss if it meets the principle in paragraph 4.2.2(b) and the entity has financial assets and financial liabilities that share one or more risks and those risks are managed and evaluated on a fair value basis in accordance with a documented policy of asset and liability management. An example could be an entity that has issued ‘structured products’ containing multiple embedded derivatives and manages the resulting risks on a fair value basis using a mix of derivative and non‑derivative financial instruments. |
B4.1.35 | As noted above, this condition relies on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance of the group of financial instruments under consideration. Accordingly, (subject to the requirement of designation at initial recognition) an entity that designates financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss on the basis of this condition shall so designate all eligible financial liabilities that are managed and evaluated together. |
B4.1.36 | Documentation of the entity’s strategy need not be extensive but should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 4.2.2(b). Such documentation is not required for each individual item, but may be on a portfolio basis. For example, if the performance management system for a department—as approved by the entity’s key management personnel—clearly demonstrates that its performance is evaluated on this basis, no further documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 4.2.2(b). |
Embedded derivatives (Section 4.3)
B4.3.1 | When an entity becomes a party to a hybrid contract with a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, paragraph 4.3.3 requires the entity to identify any embedded derivative, assess whether it is required to be separated from the host contract and, for those that are required to be separated, measure the derivatives at fair value at initial recognition and subsequently at fair value through profit or loss. |
B4.3.2 | If a host contract has no stated or predetermined maturity and represents a residual interest in the net assets of an entity, then its economic characteristics and risks are those of an equity instrument, and an embedded derivative would need to possess equity characteristics related to the same entity to be regarded as closely related. If the host contract is not an equity instrument and meets the definition of a financial instrument, then its economic characteristics and risks are those of a debt instrument. |
B4.3.3 | An embedded non‑option derivative (such as an embedded forward or swap) is separated from its host contract on the basis of its stated or implied substantive terms, so as to result in it having a fair value of zero at initial recognition. An embedded option‑based derivative (such as an embedded put, call, cap, floor or swaption) is separated from its host contract on the basis of the stated terms of the option feature. The initial carrying amount of the host instrument is the residual amount after separating the embedded derivative. |
B4.3.4 | Generally, multiple embedded derivatives in a single hybrid contract are treated as a single compound embedded derivative. However, embedded derivatives that are classified as equity (see IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation) are accounted for separately from those classified as assets or liabilities. In addition, if a hybrid contract has more than one embedded derivative and those derivatives relate to different risk exposures and are readily separable and independent of each other, they are accounted for separately from each other. |
B4.3.5 | The economic characteristics and risks of an embedded derivative are not closely related to the host contract (paragraph 4.3.3(a)) in the following examples. In these examples, assuming the conditions in paragraph 4.3.3(b) and (c) are met, an entity accounts for the embedded derivative separately from the host contract.
|
B4.3.6 | An example of a hybrid contract is a financial instrument that gives the holder a right to put the financial instrument back to the issuer in exchange for an amount of cash or other financial assets that varies on the basis of the change in an equity or commodity index that may increase or decrease (a ‘puttable instrument’). Unless the issuer on initial recognition designates the puttable instrument as a financial liability at fair value through profit or loss, it is required to separate an embedded derivative (ie the indexed principal payment) under paragraph 4.3.3 because the host contract is a debt instrument under paragraph B4.3.2 and the indexed principal payment is not closely related to a host debt instrument under paragraph B4.3.5(a). Because the principal payment can increase and decrease, the embedded derivative is a non‑option derivative whose value is indexed to the underlying variable. |
B4.3.7 | In the case of a puttable instrument that can be put back at any time for cash equal to a proportionate share of the net asset value of an entity (such as units of an open‑ended mutual fund or some unit‑linked investment products), the effect of separating an embedded derivative and accounting for each component is to measure the hybrid contract at the redemption amount that is payable at the end of the reporting period if the holder exercised its right to put the instrument back to the issuer. |
B4.3.8 | The economic characteristics and risks of an embedded derivative are closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract in the following examples. In these examples, an entity does not account for the embedded derivative separately from the host contract.
|
| E29 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2016, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Separation of an embedded floor from a floating rate host contract’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the application of the embedded derivative requirements of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement in a negative interest rate environment. Specifically, the Interpretations Committee considered:
The Interpretations Committee observed that:
In making these observations, the Interpretations Committee noted the following:
The Interpretations Committee also observed that paragraphs B4.3.8(b) and B5.1.1 of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replicate the requirements of paragraphs AG33(b) and AG64 of IAS 39 respectively. Consequently, the observations noted in this agenda decision would be equally applicable to financial liabilities accounted for in accordance with IFRS 9. In the light of the existing IFRS requirements, 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.] |
| E30 | [IFRIC® Update, January 2015, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—accounting for embedded foreign currency derivatives in host contracts’ The Interpretations Committee received a request related to the ‘closely related’ criterion in paragraph 11 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement to determine whether an embedded derivative should be separated from a host contract and accounted for as a derivative in accordance with IAS 39. More specifically, the Interpretations Committee was asked to consider whether an embedded foreign currency derivative in a licence agreement is closely related to the economic characteristics of the host contract, on the basis that the currency in which the licence agreement is denominated is the currency in which commercial transactions in that type of licence agreement are routinely denominated around the world (ie the ‘routinely-denominated’ criterion in paragraph AG33(d)(ii) of IAS 39 [paragraph B4.3.8(d)(ii) of IFRS 9]). The Interpretations Committee noted that the issue related to a contract for a specific type of item and observed that an assessment of the routinely-denominated criterion is based on evidence of whether or not such commercial transactions are denominated in that currency all around the world and not merely in one local area. The Interpretations Committee further observed that the assessment of the routinely-denominated criterion is a question of fact and is based on an assessment of available evidence. On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and 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.] |
Instruments containing embedded derivatives
B4.3.9 | As noted in paragraph B4.3.1, when an entity becomes a party to a hybrid contract with a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard and with one or more embedded derivatives, paragraph 4.3.3 requires the entity to identify any such embedded derivative, assess whether it is required to be separated from the host contract and, for those that are required to be separated, measure the derivatives at fair value at initial recognition and subsequently. These requirements can be more complex, or result in less reliable measures, than measuring the entire instrument at fair value through profit or loss. For that reason this Standard permits the entire hybrid contract to be designated as at fair value through profit or loss. |
B4.3.10 | Such designation may be used whether paragraph 4.3.3 requires the embedded derivatives to be separated from the host contract or prohibits such separation. However, paragraph 4.3.5 would not justify designating the hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss in the cases set out in paragraph 4.3.5(a) and (b) because doing so would not reduce complexity or increase reliability. |
Reassessment of embedded derivatives
B4.3.11 | In accordance with paragraph 4.3.3, an entity shall assess whether an embedded derivative is required to be separated from the host contract and accounted for as a derivative when the entity first becomes a party to the contract. Subsequent reassessment is prohibited unless there is a change in the terms of the contract that significantly modifies the cash flows that otherwise would be required under the contract, in which case reassessment is required. An entity determines whether a modification to cash flows is significant by considering the extent to which the expected future cash flows associated with the embedded derivative, the host contract or both have changed and whether the change is significant relative to the previously expected cash flows on the contract. |
B4.3.12 | Paragraph B4.3.11 does not apply to embedded derivatives in contracts acquired in:
or their possible reassessment at the date of acquisition.4 |
Reclassification of financial assets (Section 4.4)
Reclassification of financial assets
B4.4.1 | Paragraph 4.4.1 requires an entity to reclassify financial assets if the entity changes its business model for managing those financial assets. Such changes are expected to be very infrequent. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC4.116] Such changes are determined by the entity’s senior management as a result of external or internal changes and must be significant to the entity’s operations and demonstrable to external parties. Accordingly, a change in an entity’s business model will occur only when an entity either begins or ceases to perform an activity that is significant to its operations; for example, when the entity has acquired, disposed of or terminated a business line. Examples of a change in business model include the following:
|
B4.4.2 | A change in the objective of the entity’s business model must be effected before the reclassification date. For example, if a financial services firm decides on 15 February to shut down its retail mortgage business and hence must reclassify all affected financial assets on 1 April (ie the first day of the entity’s next reporting period), the entity must not accept new retail mortgage business or otherwise engage in activities consistent with its former business model after 15 February. |
B4.4.3 | The following are not changes in business model:
|
Measurement (Chapter 5)
Initial measurement (Section 5.1)
B5.1.1 | The fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also paragraph B5.1.2A and IFRS 13 [Refer:IFRS 13 paragraphs 57–59]). However, if part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial instrument, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial instrument. For example, the fair value of a long‑term loan or receivable that carries no interest can be measured as the present value of all future cash receipts discounted using the prevailing market rate(s) of interest for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate and other factors) with a similar credit rating. Any additional amount lent is an expense or a reduction of income unless it qualifies for recognition as some other type of asset. |
B5.1.2 | If an entity originates a loan that bears an off‑market interest rate (eg 5 per cent when the market rate for similar loans is 8 per cent), and receives an upfront fee as compensation, the entity recognises the loan at its fair value, ie net of the fee it receives. [Refer:paragraph 5.1.1] |
B5.1.2A | The best evidence of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also IFRS 13). If an entity determines that the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price as mentioned in paragraph 5.1.1A, the entity shall account for that instrument at that date as follows:
[Refer:paragraph B5.2.2A]
|
Subsequent measurement (Sections 5.2 and 5.3)
B5.2.1 | If a financial instrument that was previously recognised as a financial asset is measured at fair value through profit or loss and its fair value decreases below zero, it is a financial liability measured in accordance with paragraph 4.2.1. However, hybrid contracts with hosts that are assets within the scope of this Standard are always measured in accordance with paragraph 4.3.2. |
B5.2.2 | The following example illustrates the accounting for transaction costs on the initial and subsequent measurement of a financial asset measured at fair value with changes through other comprehensive income in accordance with either paragraph 5.7.5 or 4.1.2A. An entity acquires a financial asset for CU100 plus a purchase commission of CU2. Initially, the entity recognises the asset at CU102. The reporting period ends one day later, when the quoted market price of the asset is CU100. If the asset were sold, a commission of CU3 would be paid. On that date, the entity measures the asset at CU100 (without regard to the possible commission on sale) and recognises a loss of CU2 in other comprehensive income. If the financial asset is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the transaction costs are amortised to profit or loss using the effective interest method. |
B5.2.2A | The subsequent measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and the subsequent recognition of gains and losses described in paragraph B5.1.2A shall be consistent with the requirements of this Standard. |
Investments in equity instruments and contracts on those investments
B5.2.3 | All investments in equity instruments and contracts on those instruments must be measured at fair value. However, in limited circumstances, cost may be an appropriate estimate of fair value. That may be the case if insufficient more recent information is available to measure fair value, or if there is a wide range of possible fair value measurements and cost represents the best estimate of fair value within that range. |
B5.2.4 | Indicators that cost might not be representative of fair value include:
|
B5.2.5 | The list in paragraph B5.2.4 is not exhaustive. An entity shall use all information about the performance and operations of the investee that becomes available after the date of initial recognition. To the extent that any such relevant factors exist, they may indicate that cost might not be representative of fair value. In such cases, the entity must measure fair value. |
B5.2.6 | Cost is never the best estimate of fair value for investments in quoted equity instruments (or contracts on quoted equity instruments). |
Amortised cost measurement (Section 5.4)
Effective interest methodE31
| E31 | [IFRIC® Update, May 2009, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Participation rights and calculation of the effective interest rate’ The IFRIC was asked for guidance on how an issuer should account for a financial liability that contains participation rights by which the instrument holder shares in the net income and losses of the issuer. The holder receives a percentage of the issuer’s net income and is allocated a proportional share of the issuer’s losses. Losses are applied to the nominal value of the instrument to be repaid on maturity. Losses allocated to the holder in one period can be offset by profits in subsequent periods. The IFRIC considered the issue without reconsidering the assumptions described in the request, namely that the financial liability:
The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG6 and AG8 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraphs B5.4.4 and B5.4.6 of IFRS 9] provide the relevant application guidance for measuring financial liabilities at amortised cost using the effective interest rate method. The IFRIC also noted that it is inappropriate to analogise to the derecognition guidance in IAS 39 because the liability has not been extinguished. Because specific application guidance already exists, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
B5.4.1 | In applying the effective interest method, an entity identifies fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument. The description of fees for financial services may not be indicative of the nature and substance of the services provided. Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument are treated as an adjustment to the effective interest rate, unless the financial instrument is measured at fair value, with the change in fair value being recognised in profit or loss. In those cases, the fees are recognised as revenue or expense when the instrument is initially recognised. |
B5.4.2 | Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument include:
|
B5.4.3 | Fees that are not an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument and are accounted for in accordance with IFRS 15 include:
|
B5.4.4 | When applying the effective interest method, an entity generally amortises any fees, points paid or received, transaction costs and other premiums or discounts that are included in the calculation of the effective interest rate over the expected life of the financial instrument. However, a shorter period is used if this is the period to which the fees, points paid or received, transaction costs, premiums or discounts relate. This will be the case when the variable to which the fees, points paid or received, transaction costs, premiums or discounts relate is repriced to market rates before the expected maturity of the financial instrument. In such a case, the appropriate amortisation period is the period to the next such repricing date. For example, if a premium or discount on a floating-rate financial instrument reflects the interest that has accrued on that financial instrument since the interest was last paid, or changes in the market rates since the floating interest rate was reset to the market rates, it will be amortised to the next date when the floating interest is reset to market rates. This is because the premium or discount relates to the period to the next interest reset date because, at that date, the variable to which the premium or discount relates (ie interest rates) is reset to the market rates. If, however, the premium or discount results from a change in the credit spread over the floating rate specified in the financial instrument, or other variables that are not reset to the market rates, it is amortised over the expected life of the financial instrument. |
B5.4.5 | For floating-rate financial assets and floating-rate financial liabilities, periodic re-estimation of cash flows to reflect the movements in the market rates of interest alters the effective interest rate. If a floating-rate financial asset or a floating-rate financial liability is recognised initially at an amount equal to the principal receivable or payable on maturity, re-estimating the future interest payments normally has no significant effect on the carrying amount of the asset or the liability.E32,E33 |
| E32 | [IFRIC® Update, July 2008, Agenda Decision, ‘Application of the effective interest rate method’ The IFRIC was asked for guidance on the application of the effective interest rate method to a financial instrument whose cash flows are linked to changes in an inflation index. The submission suggested three possible approaches. The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG6–AG8 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement [now replaced by paragraphs B5.4.4–B5.4.6 of IFRS 9] provide the relevant application guidance. Judgement is required to determine whether an instrument is a floating rate instrument within the scope of paragraph AG7 or an instrument within the scope of paragraph AG8. In view of the existing application guidance in IAS 39, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda. However, the IFRIC referred the issue to the Board with a recommendation that the Board should consider clarifying or expanding that application guidance.] |
| E33 | [IFRIC® Update, February 2022, Agenda Decision, IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance—TLTRO III Transactions’ The Committee received a request about how to account for the third programme of the targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The TLTROs link the amount a participating bank can borrow and the interest rate the bank pays on each tranche of the operation to the volume and amount of loans it makes to non-financial corporations and households. The request asks:
Applying the requirements in IFRS Accounting Standards The Committee observed that IFRS 9 is the starting point for the borrowing bank to decide how to account for TLTRO III transactions because each financial liability arising from the bank’s participation in a TLTRO III tranche is within the scope of IFRS 9. The bank:
The Committee noted that the request did not ask about the existence of an embedded derivative and, therefore, this agenda decision does not discuss the requirements in IFRS 9 regarding the separation of embedded derivatives. Initial recognition and measurement of the financial liability Applying paragraph 5.1.1 of IFRS 9, at initial recognition a bank measures each TLTRO III tranche at fair value plus or minus transaction costs, if the financial liability is not measured at fair value through profit or loss. A bank therefore measures the fair value of the liability using the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the financial liability as required by IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The fair value of a financial liability at initial recognition is normally the transaction price—that is, the fair value of the consideration received (paragraphs B5.1.1 and B5.1.2A of IFRS 9). If the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, paragraph B5.1.1 requires a bank to determine whether a part of the consideration received is for something other than the financial liability. The Committee observed that determining whether an interest rate is a below-market rate requires judgement based on the specific facts and circumstances of the relevant financial liability. A difference between the fair value of a financial liability at initial recognition and the transaction price might indicate that the interest rate on the financial liability is a below-market rate. If a bank determines that the fair value of a TLTRO III tranche at initial recognition differs from the transaction price and that the consideration received is for only the financial liability, the bank applies paragraph B5.1.2A of IFRS 9 to account for that difference. If a bank determines that the fair value of a TLTRO III tranche at initial recognition differs from the transaction price and that the consideration received is for more than just the financial liability, the bank assesses whether that difference represents the benefit of a government loan at a below-market rate of interest (treated as a government grant in IAS 20). An entity assesses this difference only at initial recognition of the TLTRO III tranche. The Committee noted that if the difference is treated as a government grant, paragraph 10A of IAS 20 applies only to that difference. The bank applies IFRS 9 to account for the financial liability, both on initial recognition and subsequently. … Calculating the effective interest rate at initial recognition of the financial liability Appendix A to IFRS 9 defines both the amortised cost of a financial liability and the effective interest rate. Calculating the effective interest rate requires an entity to estimate the expected cash flows through the expected life of the financial liability by considering all the contractual terms of the financial instrument. In calculating the effective interest rate for a TLTRO III tranche at initial recognition, the question arises as to what to consider in estimating the expected future cash flows and, specifically, how to reflect uncertainty that arises from conditionality related to the contractual interest rate. The Committee noted that the question of what to consider in estimating the expected future cash flows to calculate the effective interest rate is also relevant for fact patterns other than that described in the request. The Committee therefore concluded that considering how to reflect conditionality in the contractual interest rate when calculating the effective interest rate is a broader matter, which it should not analyse solely in the context of TLTRO III tranches. Such an analysis could have unintended consequences for other financial instruments, the measurement of which involves similar questions about applying IFRS Accounting Standards. The Committee is therefore of the view that the IASB should consider this matter as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9, together with similar matters already identified in the first phase of that review. Subsequent measurement of the financial liability at amortised cost The original effective interest rate is calculated based on estimated future cash flows at initial recognition as required by IFRS 9. The Committee noted that whether a bank alters the effective interest rate over the life of a TLTRO III tranche depends on the contractual terms of the financial liability and the applicable requirements in IFRS 9. The contractual terms of TLTRO III tranches require interest to be settled in arrears on maturity or on early repayment of each tranche. There is therefore only one cash outflow over the life of the tranche. Paragraphs B5.4.5 and B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 specify requirements for how an entity accounts for changes in estimated contractual cash flows. For floating-rate financial instruments, paragraph B5.4.5 of IFRS 9 specifies that the periodic re-estimation of cash flows to reflect the movements in the market rates of interest alters the effective interest rate. IFRS 9 does not define what a floating rate is. Paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 applies to changes in estimated contractual cash flows of financial liabilities other than those addressed in paragraph B5.4.5, irrespective of whether the change arises from revisions of estimated contractual cash flows or from a modification of the contractual terms of the liability. However, when changes in contractual cash flows arise from a modification of the contractual terms, an entity assesses whether those changes result in the derecognition of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability by applying paragraphs 3.3.2 and B3.3.6 of IFRS 9. The Committee also noted that the application of paragraph B5.4.6 of IFRS 9 depends on a bank’s estimates of expected future cash flows in calculating the effective interest rate at initial recognition of the financial liability because paragraph B5.4.6 requires the use of the original effective interest rate to discount the revised cash flows. The Committee observed that the question of how conditionality related to the contractual interest rate is reflected in the estimates of expected future cash flows when applying the effective interest method affects both initial and subsequent measurement. As this question is part of a broader matter, the Committee considered that it should not be analysed solely in the context of TLTRO III tranches. The Committee is therefore of the view that the IASB should consider this matter as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9, together with similar matters already identified in the first phase of that review. Disclosure … Given the judgements required and the risks arising from the TLTRO III tranches, a bank also needs to consider the requirements in paragraphs 117, 122 and 125 of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, as well as paragraphs 7, 21 and 31 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. These paragraphs require a bank to disclose information that includes its significant accounting policies and management’s assumptions and judgements in applying its accounting policies that have the most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements. Conclusion … Regarding the question of how conditionality related to the contractual interest rate is reflected in the estimates of expected future cash flows when calculating the effective interest rate at initial recognition or in the revisions of estimated future cash flows on subsequent measurement of the financial liability, the Committee concluded that the matters described in the request are part of a broader matter that, in isolation, are not possible to address in a cost-effective manner and should be reported to the IASB. The IASB should consider this matter as part of the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9. For these reasons, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.] |
B5.4.6 | If an entity revises its estimates of payments or receipts (excluding modifications in accordance with paragraph 5.4.3 and changes in estimates of expected credit losses), it shall adjust the gross carrying amount of the financial asset or amortised cost of a financial liability (or group of financial instruments) to reflect actual and revised estimated contractual cash flows. The entity recalculates the gross carrying amount of the financial asset or amortised cost of the financial liability as the present value of the estimated future contractual cash flows that are discounted at the financial instrument’s original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit‑impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. The adjustment is recognised in profit or loss as income or expense. |
B5.4.7 | In some cases a financial asset is considered credit-impaired at initial recognition because the credit risk is very high, and in the case of a purchase it is acquired at a deep discount.E34 An entity is required to include the initial expected credit losses in the estimated cash flows when calculating the credit-adjusted effective interest rate for financial assets that are considered to be purchased or originated credit-impaired at initial recognition. However, this does not mean that a credit-adjusted effective interest rate should be applied solely because the financial asset has high credit risk at initial recognition. [Refer:paragraph 5.4.1(a)]
|
| E34 | [IFRIC® Update, November 2012, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement—Scope of paragraph AG5’ The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on several accounting issues that resulted from the restructuring of Greek government bonds (GGBs) in 2012. At its September 2012 meeting, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the GGBs surrendered in March 2012 should be derecognised, which means the new GGBs received as part of the debt restructuring are recognised as new assets. At the July 2012 and November 2012 meetings, the Interpretations Committee addressed the particular request to consider whether paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraph B5.4.7 of IFRS 9] could apply when determining the effective interest rate on initial recognition of those new GGBs. Applying paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 means that the effective interest rate would be determined at initial recognition using estimated cash flows that take into account incurred credit losses. The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 applies to acquired assets, which includes both purchased and originated assets. The Interpretations Committee also noted that even though an origination of a debt instrument with an incurred loss is rather unusual, there are situations in which such transactions occur. For example, within the context of significant financial difficulty of an obligor, transactions can arise that involve originations of debt instruments that are outside the normal underwriting process but are instead forced upon already existing lenders by a restructuring process. This could include situations in which modifications of debt instruments result in derecognition of the original financial asset and the recognition of a new financial asset under IFRSs. In circumstances such as these, new financial assets could be recognised that have incurred losses on initial recognition. The Interpretations Committee noted that whether an incurred loss exists on initial recognition of an asset is a factual matter and that the assessment requires judgement. The Interpretations Committee also noted that the circumstances leading to the recognition of an asset with an incurred loss on initial recognition need not be limited to those in which debt instruments are effectively forced upon existing lenders, but could also arise in other transactions. The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing requirements of IAS 39 an interpretation was not necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.] |
Transaction costs
B5.4.8 | Transaction costs include fees and commission paid to agents (including employees acting as selling agents), advisers, brokers and dealers, levies by regulatory agencies and security exchanges, and transfer taxes and duties. Transaction costs do not include debt premiums or discounts, financing costs or internal administrative or holding costs. |
Write-off
B5.4.9 | Write-offs can relate to a financial asset in its entirety or to a portion of it. For example, an entity plans to enforce the collateral on a financial asset and expects to recover no more than 30 per cent of the financial asset from the collateral. If the entity has no reasonable prospects of recovering any further cash flows from the financial asset, it should write off the remaining 70 per cent of the financial asset. |
Impairment (Section 5.5)
Collective and individual assessment basis
B5.5.1 | In order to meet the objective of recognising lifetime expected credit losses for significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition, it may be necessary to perform the assessment of significant increases in credit risk on a collective basis by considering information that is indicative of significant increases in credit risk on, for example, a group or sub-group of financial instruments. This is to ensure that an entity meets the objective of recognising lifetime expected credit losses when there are significant increases in credit risk, even if evidence of such significant increases in credit risk at the individual instrument level is not yet available. |
B5.5.2 | Lifetime expected credit losses are generally expected to be recognised before a financial instrument becomes past due. Typically, credit risk increases significantly before a financial instrument becomes past due or other lagging borrower-specific factors (for example, a modification or restructuring) are observed. Consequently when reasonable and supportable information that is more forward-looking than past due information is available without undue cost or effort, it must be used to assess changes in credit risk. |
B5.5.3 | However, depending on the nature of the financial instruments and the credit risk information available for particular groups of financial instruments, an entity may not be able to identify significant changes in credit risk for individual financial instruments before the financial instrument becomes past due. This may be the case for financial instruments such as retail loans for which there is little or no updated credit risk information that is routinely obtained and monitored on an individual instrument until a customer breaches the contractual terms. If changes in the credit risk for individual financial instruments are not captured before they become past due, a loss allowance based only on credit information at an individual financial instrument level would not faithfully represent the changes in credit risk since initial recognition. |
B5.5.4 | In some circumstances an entity does not have reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort to measure lifetime expected credit losses on an individual instrument basis. In that case, lifetime expected credit losses shall be recognised on a collective basis that considers comprehensive credit risk information. This comprehensive credit risk information must incorporate not only past due information but also all relevant credit information, including forward-looking macroeconomic information, in order to approximate the result of recognising lifetime expected credit losses when there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition on an individual instrument level. |
B5.5.5 | For the purpose of determining significant increases in credit risk and recognising a loss allowance on a collective basis, an entity can group financial instruments on the basis of shared credit risk characteristics with the objective of facilitating an analysis that is designed to enable significant increases in credit risk to be identified on a timely basis. The entity should not obscure this information by grouping financial instruments with different risk characteristics. Examples of shared credit risk characteristics may include, but are not limited to, the:
|
B5.5.6 | Paragraph 5.5.4 requires that lifetime expected credit losses are recognised on all financial instruments for which there has been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. In order to meet this objective, if an entity is not able to group financial instruments for which the credit risk is considered to have increased significantly since initial recognition based on shared credit risk characteristics, the entity should recognise lifetime expected credit losses on a portion of the financial assets for which credit risk is deemed to have increased significantly. The aggregation of financial instruments to assess whether there are changes in credit risk on a collective basis may change over time as new information becomes available on groups of, or individual, financial instruments. |
Timing of recognising lifetime expected credit losses
B5.5.7 | The assessment of whether lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised is based on significant increases in the likelihood or risk of a default occurring since initial recognition (irrespective of whether a financial instrument has been repriced to reflect an increase in credit risk) instead of on evidence of a financial asset being credit-impaired at the reporting date or an actual default occurring. Generally, there will be a significant increase in credit risk before a financial asset becomes credit-impaired or an actual default occurs. |
B5.5.8 | For loan commitments, an entity considers changes in the risk of a default occurring on the loan to which a loan commitment relates. For financial guarantee contracts, an entity considers the changes in the risk that the specified debtor will default on the contract. |
B5.5.9 | The significance of a change in the credit risk since initial recognition depends on the risk of a default occurring as at initial recognition. Thus, a given change, in absolute terms, in the risk of a default occurring will be more significant for a financial instrument with a lower initial risk of a default occurring compared to a financial instrument with a higher initial risk of a default occurring. |
B5.5.10 | The risk of a default occurring on financial instruments that have comparable credit risk is higher the longer the expected life of the instrument; for example, the risk of a default occurring on an AAA-rated bond with an expected life of 10 years is higher than that on an AAA-rated bond with an expected life of five years. |
B5.5.11 | Because of the relationship between the expected life and the risk of a default occurring, the change in credit risk cannot be assessed simply by comparing the change in the absolute risk of a default occurring over time. For example, if the risk of a default occurring for a financial instrument with an expected life of 10 years at initial recognition is identical to the risk of a default occurring on that financial instrument when its expected life in a subsequent period is only five years, that may indicate an increase in credit risk. This is because the risk of a default occurring over the expected life usually decreases as time passes if the credit risk is unchanged and the financial instrument is closer to maturity. However, for financial instruments that only have significant payment obligations close to the maturity of the financial instrument the risk of a default occurring may not necessarily decrease as time passes. In such a case, an entity should also consider other qualitative factors that would demonstrate whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition. |
B5.5.12 | An entity may apply various approaches when assessing whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.156–BC5.157, BC5.161 and BC5.168 and Illustrative Examples, examples 6 and 7] or when measuring expected credit losses. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.242 and BC5.266] An entity may apply different approaches for different financial instruments. An approach that does not include an explicit probability of default as an input per se, such as a credit loss rate approach, can be consistent with the requirements in this Standard, provided that an entity is able to separate the changes in the risk of a default occurring from changes in other drivers of expected credit losses, such as collateral, and considers the following when making the assessment:
[Refer:For a discussion on approaches for determining significant increases in credit risk considered and rejected refer: Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.159−BC5.168]
|
B5.5.13 | The methods used to determine whether credit risk has increased significantly on a financial instrument since initial recognition should consider the characteristics of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments) and the default patterns in the past for comparable financial instruments. Despite the requirement in paragraph 5.5.9, for financial instruments for which default patterns are not concentrated at a specific point during the expected life of the financial instrument, changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months may be a reasonable approximation of the changes in the lifetime risk of a default occurring. In such cases, an entity may use changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months to determine whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition, unless circumstances indicate that a lifetime assessment is necessary. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.176−BC5.179 and Illustrative Examples, example 8] |
B5.5.14 | However, for some financial instruments, or in some circumstances, it may not be appropriate to use changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months to determine whether lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised. For example, the change in the risk of a default occurring in the next 12 months may not be a suitable basis for determining whether credit risk has increased on a financial instrument with a maturity of more than 12 months when:
|
Determining whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition
B5.5.15 | When determining whether the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses is required, an entity shall consider reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that may affect the credit risk on a financial instrument in accordance with paragraph 5.5.17(c). An entity need not undertake an exhaustive search for information when determining whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition. |
B5.5.16 | Credit risk analysis is a multifactor and holistic analysis; whether a specific factor is relevant, and its weight compared to other factors, will depend on the type of product, characteristics of the financial instruments and the borrower as well as the geographical region. An entity shall consider reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that is relevant for the particular financial instrument being assessed. However, some factors or indicators may not be identifiable on an individual financial instrument level. In such a case, the factors or indicators should be assessed for appropriate portfolios, groups of portfolios or portions of a portfolio of financial instruments to determine whether the requirement in paragraph 5.5.3 for the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses has been met. |
B5.5.17 | The following non-exhaustive list of information may be relevant in assessing changes in credit risk:
|
B5.5.18 | In some cases, the qualitative and non-statistical quantitative information available may be sufficient to determine that a financial instrument has met the criterion for the recognition of a loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses. That is, the information does not need to flow through a statistical model or credit ratings process in order to determine whether there has been a significant increase in the credit risk of the financial instrument. In other cases, an entity may need to consider other information, including information from its statistical models or credit ratings processes. Alternatively, the entity may base the assessment on both types of information, ie qualitative factors that are not captured through the internal ratings process and a specific internal rating category at the reporting date, taking into consideration the credit risk characteristics at initial recognition, if both types of information are relevant. |
More than 30 days past due rebuttable presumption
B5.5.19 | The rebuttable presumption in paragraph 5.5.11 is not an absolute indicator that lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised, but is presumed to be the latest point at which lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised even when using forward-looking information (including macroeconomic factors on a portfolio level). |
B5.5.20 | An entity can rebut this presumption. However, it can do so only when it has reasonable and supportable information available that demonstrates that even if contractual payments become more than 30 days past due, this does not represent a significant increase in the credit risk of a financial instrument. For example when non‑payment was an administrative oversight, instead of resulting from financial difficulty of the borrower, or the entity has access to historical evidence that demonstrates that there is no correlation between significant increases in the risk of a default occurring and financial assets on which payments are more than 30 days past due, but that evidence does identify such a correlation when payments are more than 60 days past due. [Refer:IFRS 13] |
B5.5.21 | An entity cannot align the timing of significant increases in credit risk and the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses to when a financial asset is regarded as credit-impaired or an entity’s internal definition of default. |
Financial instruments that have low credit risk at the reporting date
B5.5.22 | The credit risk on a financial instrument is considered low for the purposes of paragraph 5.5.10, if the financial instrument has a low risk of default, the borrower has a strong capacity to meet its contractual cash flow obligations in the near term and adverse changes in economic and business conditions in the longer term may, but will not necessarily, reduce the ability of the borrower to fulfil its contractual cash flow obligations. Financial instruments are not considered to have low credit risk when they are regarded as having a low risk of loss simply because of the value of collateral and the financial instrument without that collateral would not be considered low credit risk. Financial instruments are also not considered to have low credit risk simply because they have a lower risk of default than the entity’s other financial instruments or relative to the credit risk of the jurisdiction within which an entity operates. |
B5.5.23 | To determine whether a financial instrument has low credit risk, an entity may use its internal credit risk ratings or other methodologies that are consistent with a globally understood definition of low credit risk and that consider the risks and the type of financial instruments that are being assessed. An external rating of ‘investment grade’ is an example of a financial instrument that may be considered as having low credit risk. However, financial instruments are not required to be externally rated to be considered to have low credit risk. They should, however, be considered to have low credit risk from a market participant perspective taking into account all of the terms and conditions of the financial instrument. |
B5.5.24 | Lifetime expected credit losses are not recognised on a financial instrument simply because it was considered to have low credit risk in the previous reporting period and is not considered to have low credit risk at the reporting date. In such a case, an entity shall determine whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition and thus whether lifetime expected credit losses are required to be recognised in accordance with paragraph 5.5.3. |
Modifications
B5.5.25 | In some circumstances, the renegotiation or modification of the contractual cash flows of a financial asset can lead to the derecognition of the existing financial asset in accordance with this Standard. When the modification of a financial asset results in the derecognition of the existing financial asset and the subsequent recognition of the modified financial asset, the modified asset is considered a ‘new’ financial asset for the purposes of this Standard. |
B5.5.26 | Accordingly the date of the modification shall be treated as the date of initial recognition of that financial asset when applying the impairment requirements to the modified financial asset. This typically means measuring the loss allowance at an amount equal to 12‑month expected credit losses until the requirements for the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses in paragraph 5.5.3 are met. However, in some unusual circumstances following a modification that results in derecognition of the original financial asset, there may be evidence that the modified financial asset is credit-impaired at initial recognition, and thus, the financial asset should be recognised as an originated credit‑impaired financial asset. [Refer:paragraphs 5.4.1(a) and 5.5.13−5.5.14 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.214−BC5.220] This might occur, for example, in a situation in which there was a substantial modification of a distressed asset that resulted in the derecognition of the original financial asset [Refer:Section 3.2]. In such a case, it may be possible for the modification to result in a new financial asset which is credit‑impaired at initial recognition. |
B5.5.27 | If the contractual cash flows on a financial asset have been renegotiated or otherwise modified, but the financial asset is not derecognised, that financial asset is not automatically considered to have lower credit risk. An entity shall assess whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition on the basis of all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort. This includes historical and forward-looking information and an assessment of the credit risk over the expected life of the financial asset, which includes information about the circumstances that led to the modification. Evidence that the criteria for the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses are no longer met may include a history of up‑to‑date and timely payment performance against the modified contractual terms. Typically a customer would need to demonstrate consistently good payment behaviour over a period of time before the credit risk is considered to have decreased. For example, a history of missed or incomplete payments would not typically be erased by simply making one payment on time following a modification of the contractual terms. |
Measurement of expected credit losses
Expected credit losses
B5.5.28 | Expected credit losses are a probability-weighted estimate of credit losses (ie the present value of all cash shortfalls) over the expected life of the financial instrument. A cash shortfall is the difference between the cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and the cash flows that the entity expects to receive. Because expected credit losses consider the amount and timing of payments, a credit loss arises even if the entity expects to be paid in full but later than when contractually due. |
B5.5.29 | For financial assets, a credit loss is the present value of the difference between:
|
B5.5.30 | For undrawn loan commitments, a credit loss is the present value of the difference between:
|
B5.5.31 | An entity’s estimate of expected credit losses on loan commitments shall be consistent with its expectations of drawdowns on that loan commitment, ie it shall consider the expected portion of the loan commitment that will be drawn down within 12 months of the reporting date when estimating 12‑month expected credit losses, and the expected portion of the loan commitment that will be drawn down over the expected life of the loan commitment when estimating lifetime expected credit losses. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.244−BC5.247] |
B5.5.32 | For a financial guarantee contract, the entity is required to make payments only in the event of a default by the debtor in accordance with the terms of the instrument that is guaranteed. Accordingly, cash shortfalls are the expected payments to reimburse the holder for a credit loss that it incurs less any amounts that the entity expects to receive from the holder, the debtor or any other party. If the asset is fully guaranteed, the estimation of cash shortfalls for a financial guarantee contract would be consistent with the estimations of cash shortfalls for the asset subject to the guarantee. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.244] |
B5.5.33 | For a financial asset that is credit-impaired at the reporting date, but that is not a purchased or originated credit-impaired financial asset, an entity shall measure the expected credit losses as the difference between the asset’s gross carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows discounted at the financial asset’s original effective interest rate. Any adjustment is recognised in profit or loss as an impairment gain or loss. |
B5.5.34 | When measuring a loss allowance for a lease receivable, the cash flows used for determining the expected credit losses should be consistent with the cash flows used in measuring the lease receivable in accordance with IFRS 16 Leases. [Refer:paragraph B5.5.46 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.132] |
B5.5.35 | An entity may use practical expedients when measuring expected credit losses if they are consistent with the principles in paragraph 5.5.17 [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.266]. An example of a practical expedient is the calculation of the expected credit losses on trade receivables using a provision matrix. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.225 and Illustrative Examples, example 12] The entity would use its historical credit loss experience (adjusted as appropriate in accordance with paragraphs B5.5.51–B5.5.52) for trade receivables to estimate the 12‑month expected credit losses or the lifetime expected credit losses on the financial assets as relevant. A provision matrix might, for example, specify fixed provision rates depending on the number of days that a trade receivable is past due (for example, 1 per cent if not past due, 2 per cent if less than 30 days past due, 3 per cent if more than 30 days but less than 90 days past due, 20 per cent if 90–180 days past due etc). Depending on the diversity of its customer base, the entity would use appropriate groupings if its historical credit loss experience shows significantly different loss patterns for different customer segments. Examples of criteria that might be used to group assets include geographical region, product type, customer rating, collateral or trade credit insurance and type of customer (such as wholesale or retail). |
Definition of default
B5.5.36 | Paragraph 5.5.9 requires that when determining whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly, an entity shall consider the change in the risk of a default occurring since initial recognition. |
B5.5.37 | When defining default for the purposes of determining the risk of a default occurring, an entity shall apply a default definition that is consistent with the definition used for internal credit risk management purposes for the relevant financial instrument and consider qualitative indicators (for example, financial covenants) when appropriate. However, there is a rebuttable presumption that default does not occur later than when a financial asset is 90 days past due unless an entity has reasonable and supportable information to demonstrate that a more lagging default criterion is more appropriate. The definition of default used for these purposes shall be applied consistently to all financial instruments unless information becomes available that demonstrates that another default definition is more appropriate for a particular financial instrument. |
Period over which to estimate expected credit losses
B5.5.38 | In accordance with paragraph 5.5.19, the maximum period over which expected credit losses shall be measured is the maximum contractual period over which the entity is exposed to credit risk. For loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts, this is the maximum contractual period over which an entity has a present contractual obligation to extend credit. |
B5.5.39 | However, in accordance with paragraph 5.5.20, some financial instruments include both a loan and an undrawn commitment component and the entity’s contractual ability to demand repayment and cancel the undrawn commitment does not limit the entity’s exposure to credit losses to the contractual notice period. For example, revolving credit facilities, such as credit cards and overdraft facilities, can be contractually withdrawn by the lender with as little as one day’s notice. However, in practice lenders continue to extend credit for a longer period and may only withdraw the facility after the credit risk of the borrower increases, which could be too late to prevent some or all of the expected credit losses. These financial instruments generally have the following characteristics as a result of the nature of the financial instrument, the way in which the financial instruments are managed, and the nature of the available information about significant increases in credit risk:
|
B5.5.40 | When determining the period over which the entity is expected to be exposed to credit risk, but for which expected credit losses would not be mitigated by the entity’s normal credit risk management actions, an entity should consider factors such as historical information and experience about:
|
Probability-weighted outcome
B5.5.41 | The purpose of estimating expected credit losses is neither to estimate a worst-case scenario nor to estimate the best-case scenario. Instead, an estimate of expected credit losses shall always reflect the possibility that a credit loss occurs and the possibility that no credit loss occurs even if the most likely outcome is no credit loss. |
B5.5.42 | Paragraph 5.5.17(a) requires the estimate of expected credit losses to reflect an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes. In practice, this may not need to be a complex analysis. In some cases, relatively simple modelling may be sufficient, without the need for a large number of detailed simulations of scenarios. For example, the average credit losses of a large group of financial instruments with shared risk characteristics may be a reasonable estimate of the probability-weighted amount. In other situations, the identification of scenarios that specify the amount and timing of the cash flows for particular outcomes and the estimated probability of those outcomes will probably be needed. In those situations, the expected credit losses shall reflect at least two outcomes in accordance with paragraph 5.5.18. |
B5.5.43 | For lifetime expected credit losses, an entity shall estimate the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument during its expected life. 12‑month expected credit losses are a portion of the lifetime expected credit losses and represent the lifetime cash shortfalls that will result if a default occurs in the 12 months after the reporting date (or a shorter period if the expected life of a financial instrument is less than 12 months), weighted by the probability of that default occurring. Thus, 12‑month expected credit losses are neither the lifetime expected credit losses that an entity will incur on financial instruments that it predicts will default in the next 12 months nor the cash shortfalls that are predicted over the next 12 months. [Refer:paragraph 5.5.5 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.195–BC5.199] |
Time value of money
B5.5.44 | Expected credit losses shall be discounted to the reporting date, not to the expected default or some other date, using the effective interest rate determined at initial recognition or an approximation thereof. If a financial instrument has a variable interest rate, expected credit losses shall be discounted using the current effective interest rate determined in accordance with paragraph B5.4.5. |
B5.5.45 | For purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets, [Refer:paragraphs 5.4.1(a), 5.5.13−5.5.14 and B5.5.26 and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.214−BC5.220 and BC5.230] expected credit losses shall be discounted using the credit-adjusted effective interest rate determined at initial recognition. |
B5.5.46 | Expected credit losses on lease receivables shall be discounted using the same discount rate used in the measurement of the lease receivable in accordance with IFRS 16. [Refer:paragraph B5.5.34 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.132] |
B5.5.47 | The expected credit losses on a loan commitment shall be discounted using the effective interest rate, or an approximation thereof, that will be applied when recognising the financial asset resulting from the loan commitment. This is because for the purpose of applying the impairment requirements, a financial asset that is recognised following a draw down on a loan commitment shall be treated as a continuation of that commitment instead of as a new financial instrument. The expected credit losses on the financial asset shall therefore be measured considering the initial credit risk of the loan commitment from the date that the entity became a party to the irrevocable commitment. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC5.276−BC5.279] |
B5.5.48 | Expected credit losses on financial guarantee contracts or on loan commitments for which the effective interest rate cannot be determined shall be discounted by applying a discount rate that reflects the current market assessment of the time value of money and the risks that are specific to the cash flows but only if, and to the extent that, the risks are taken into account by adjusting the discount rate instead of adjusting the cash shortfalls being discounted. |
Reasonable and supportable information
B5.5.49 | For the purpose of this Standard, reasonable and supportable information is that which is reasonably available at the reporting date without undue cost or effort, including information about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions. Information that is available for financial reporting purposes is considered to be available without undue cost or effort. |
B5.5.50 | An entity is not required to incorporate forecasts of future conditions over the entire expected life of a financial instrument. The degree of judgement that is required to estimate expected credit losses depends on the availability of detailed information. As the forecast horizon increases, the availability of detailed information decreases and the degree of judgement required to estimate expected credit losses increases. The estimate of expected credit losses does not require a detailed estimate for periods that are far in the future—for such periods, an entity may extrapolate projections from available, detailed information. |
B5.5.51 | An entity need not undertake an exhaustive search for information but shall consider all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that is relevant to the estimate of expected credit losses, including the effect of expected prepayments. The information used shall include factors that are specific to the borrower, general economic conditions and an assessment of both the current as well as the forecast direction of conditions at the reporting date. An entity may use various sources of data, that may be both internal (entity-specific) and external. Possible data sources include internal historical credit loss experience, internal ratings, credit loss experience of other entities and external ratings, reports and statistics. Entities that have no, or insufficient, sources of entity-specific data may use peer group experience for the comparable financial instrument (or groups of financial instruments). |
B5.5.52 | Historical information is an important anchor or base from which to measure expected credit losses. However, an entity shall adjust historical data, such as credit loss experience, on the basis of current observable data to reflect the effects of the current conditions and its forecasts of future conditions that did not affect the period on which the historical data is based, and to remove the effects of the conditions in the historical period that are not relevant to the future contractual cash flows. In some cases, the best reasonable and supportable information could be the unadjusted historical information, depending on the nature of the historical information and when it was calculated, compared to circumstances at the reporting date and the characteristics of the financial instrument being considered. Estimates of changes in expected credit losses should reflect, and be directionally consistent with, changes in related observable data from period to period (such as changes in unemployment rates, property prices, commodity prices, payment status or other factors that are indicative of credit losses on the financial instrument or in the group of financial instruments and in the magnitude of those changes). An entity shall regularly review the methodology and assumptions used for estimating expected credit losses to reduce any differences between estimates and actual credit loss experience. |
B5.5.53 | When using historical credit loss experience in estimating expected credit losses, it is important that information about historical credit loss rates is applied to groups that are defined in a manner that is consistent with the groups for which the historical credit loss rates were observed. Consequently, the method used shall enable each group of financial assets to be associated with information about past credit loss experience in groups of financial assets with similar risk characteristics and with relevant observable data that reflects current conditions. |
B5.5.54 | Expected credit losses reflect an entity’s own expectations of credit losses. However, when considering all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort in estimating expected credit losses, an entity should also consider observable market information about the credit risk of the particular financial instrument or similar financial instruments. |
Collateral
B5.5.55 | For the purposes of measuring expected credit losses, the estimate of expected cash shortfalls shall reflect the cash flows expected from collateral and other credit enhancements that are part of the contractual terms and are not recognised separately by the entity. The estimate of expected cash shortfalls on a collateralised financial instrument reflects the amount and timing of cash flows that are expected from foreclosure on the collateral less the costs of obtaining and selling the collateral, irrespective of whether foreclosure is probable (ie the estimate of expected cash flows considers the probability of a foreclosure and the cash flows that would result from it). Consequently, any cash flows that are expected from the realisation of the collateral beyond the contractual maturity of the contract should be included in this analysis. Any collateral obtained as a result of foreclosure is not recognised as an asset that is separate from the collateralised financial instrument unless it meets the relevant recognition criteria for an asset in this or other Standards.E35 |
| E35 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2019, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Credit Enhancement in the Measurement of Expected Credit Losses’ The Committee received a request about the effect of a credit enhancement on the measurement of expected credit losses when applying the impairment requirements in IFRS 9. The request asked whether the cash flows expected from a financial guarantee contract or any other credit enhancement can be included in the measurement of expected credit losses if the credit enhancement is required to be recognised separately applying IFRS Standards. For the purposes of measuring expected credit losses, paragraph B5.5.55 of IFRS 9 requires the estimate of expected cash shortfalls to ‘reflect the cash flows expected from collateral and other credit enhancements that are part of the contractual terms and are not recognised separately by the entity.’ Accordingly, the Committee observed that the cash flows expected from a credit enhancement are included in the measurement of expected credit losses if the credit enhancement is both:
The Committee concluded that, if a credit enhancement is required to be recognised separately by IFRS Standards, an entity cannot include the cash flows expected from it in the measurement of expected credit losses. An entity applies the applicable IFRS Standard to determine whether it is required to recognise a credit enhancement separately. Paragraph B5.5.55 of IFRS 9 does not provide an exemption from applying the separate recognition requirements in IFRS 9 or other IFRS Standards. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to include the cash flows expected from a credit enhancement in the measurement of expected credit losses in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.] |
Reclassification of financial assets (Section 5.6)
B5.6.1 | If an entity reclassifies financial assets in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1, paragraph 5.6.1 requires that the reclassification is applied prospectively from the reclassification date. Both the amortised cost measurement category and the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category require that the effective interest rate is determined at initial recognition. Both of those measurement categories also require that the impairment requirements are applied in the same way. Consequently, when an entity reclassifies a financial asset between the amortised cost measurement category and the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category:
|
B5.6.2 | However, an entity is not required to separately recognise interest revenue or impairment gains or losses for a financial asset measured at fair value through profit or loss. Consequently, when an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through profit or loss measurement category, the effective interest rate is determined on the basis of the fair value of the asset at the reclassification date. In addition, for the purposes of applying Section 5.5 to the financial asset from the reclassification date, the date of the reclassification is treated as the date of initial recognition. |
Gains and losses (Section 5.7)
B5.7.1 | Paragraph 5.7.5 permits an entity to make an irrevocable election to present in other comprehensive income changes in the fair value of an investment in an equity instrument that is not held for trading. This election is made on an instrument-by-instrument (ie share-by-share) basis. Amounts presented in other comprehensive income shall not be subsequently transferred to profit or loss. However, the entity may transfer the cumulative gain or loss within equity. Dividends on such investments are recognised in profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 5.7.6 unless the dividend clearly represents a recovery of part of the cost of the investment. [Refer:paragraphs 5.7.1A and 5.7.6 and Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.25(a)] |
B5.7.1A | Unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies, paragraph 4.1.2A requires that a financial asset is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income if the contractual terms of the financial asset give rise to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding and the asset is held in a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. This measurement category recognises information in profit or loss as if the financial asset is measured at amortised cost, while the financial asset is measured in the statement of financial position at fair value. Gains or losses, other than those that are recognised in profit or loss in accordance with paragraphs 5.7.10–5.7.11, are recognised in other comprehensive income. When these financial assets are derecognised, cumulative gains or losses previously recognised in other comprehensive income are reclassified to profit or loss. This reflects the gain or loss that would have been recognised in profit or loss upon derecognition if the financial asset had been measured at amortised cost. |
B5.7.2 | An entity applies IAS 21 to financial assets and financial liabilities that are monetary items in accordance with IAS 21 and denominated in a foreign currency. IAS 21 requires any foreign exchange gains and losses on monetary assets and monetary liabilities to be recognised in profit or loss. An exception is a monetary item that is designated as a hedging instrument in a cash flow hedge (see paragraph 6.5.11), a hedge of a net investment (see paragraph 6.5.13) or a fair value hedge of an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5 (see paragraph 6.5.8). |
B5.7.2A | For the purpose of recognising foreign exchange gains and losses under IAS 21, a financial asset measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A is treated as a monetary item. Accordingly, such a financial asset is treated as an asset measured at amortised cost in the foreign currency. Exchange differences on the amortised cost are recognised in profit or loss and other changes in the carrying amount are recognised in accordance with paragraph 5.7.10. |
B5.7.3 | Paragraph 5.7.5 permits an entity to make an irrevocable election to present in other comprehensive income subsequent changes in the fair value of particular investments in equity instruments. Such an investment is not a monetary item. Accordingly, the gain or loss that is presented in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5 includes any related foreign exchange component. |
B5.7.4 | If there is a hedging relationship between a non‑derivative monetary asset and a non‑derivative monetary liability, changes in the foreign currency component of those financial instruments are presented in profit or loss. |
Liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss
B5.7.5 | When an entity designates a financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss, it must determine whether presenting in other comprehensive income the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss. An accounting mismatch would be created or enlarged if presenting the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk in other comprehensive income would result in a greater mismatch in profit or loss than if those amounts were presented in profit or loss. |
B5.7.6 | To make that determination, an entity must assess whether it expects that the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk will be offset in profit or loss by a change in the fair value of another financial instrument measured at fair value through profit or loss. Such an expectation must be based on an economic relationship between the characteristics of the liability and the characteristics of the other financial instrument. |
B5.7.7 | That determination is made at initial recognition and is not reassessed. For practical purposes the entity need not enter into all of the assets and liabilities giving rise to an accounting mismatch at exactly the same time. A reasonable delay is permitted provided that any remaining transactions are expected to occur. An entity must apply consistently its methodology for determining whether presenting in other comprehensive income the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss. However, an entity may use different methodologies when there are different economic relationships between the characteristics of the liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss and the characteristics of the other financial instruments. IFRS 7 requires an entity to provide qualitative disclosures in the notes to the financial statements about its methodology for making that determination. |
B5.7.8 | If such a mismatch would be created or enlarged, the entity is required to present all changes in fair value (including the effects of changes in the credit risk of the liability) in profit or loss. [Refer:paragraph 5.7.8] If such a mismatch would not be created or enlarged, the entity is required to present the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk in other comprehensive income. [Refer:paragraph 5.7.7(a)]
|
B5.7.9 | Amounts presented in other comprehensive income shall not be subsequently transferred to profit or loss. However, the entity may transfer the cumulative gain or loss within equity. |
B5.7.10 | The following example describes a situation in which an accounting mismatch would be created in profit or loss if the effects of changes in the credit risk of the liability were presented in other comprehensive income. A mortgage bank provides loans to customers and funds those loans by selling bonds with matching characteristics (eg amount outstanding, repayment profile, term and currency) in the market. The contractual terms of the loan permit the mortgage customer to prepay its loan (ie satisfy its obligation to the bank) by buying the corresponding bond at fair value in the market and delivering that bond to the mortgage bank. As a result of that contractual prepayment right, if the credit quality of the bond worsens (and, thus, the fair value of the mortgage bank’s liability decreases), the fair value of the mortgage bank’s loan asset also decreases. The change in the fair value of the asset reflects the mortgage customer’s contractual right to prepay the mortgage loan by buying the underlying bond at fair value (which, in this example, has decreased) and delivering the bond to the mortgage bank. Consequently, the effects of changes in the credit risk of the liability (the bond) will be offset in profit or loss by a corresponding change in the fair value of a financial asset (the loan). If the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk were presented in other comprehensive income there would be an accounting mismatch in profit or loss. Consequently, the mortgage bank is required to present all changes in fair value of the liability (including the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk) in profit or loss. |
B5.7.11 | In the example in paragraph B5.7.10, there is a contractual linkage between the effects of changes in the credit risk of the liability and changes in the fair value of the financial asset (ie as a result of the mortgage customer’s contractual right to prepay the loan by buying the bond at fair value and delivering the bond to the mortgage bank). However, an accounting mismatch may also occur in the absence of a contractual linkage. |
B5.7.12 | For the purposes of applying the requirements in paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8, an accounting mismatch is not caused solely by the measurement method that an entity uses to determine the effects of changes in a liability’s credit risk. An accounting mismatch in profit or loss would arise only when the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk (as defined in IFRS 7) are expected to be offset by changes in the fair value of another financial instrument. A mismatch that arises solely as a result of the measurement method (ie because an entity does not isolate changes in a liability’s credit risk from some other changes in its fair value) does not affect the determination required by paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8. For example, an entity may not isolate changes in a liability’s credit risk from changes in liquidity risk. If the entity presents the combined effect of both factors in other comprehensive income, a mismatch may occur because changes in liquidity risk may be included in the fair value measurement of the entity’s financial assets and the entire fair value change of those assets is presented in profit or loss. However, such a mismatch is caused by measurement imprecision, not the offsetting relationship described in paragraph B5.7.6 and, therefore, does not affect the determination required by paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8. |
The meaning of ‘credit risk’ (paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8)
B5.7.13 | IFRS 7 defines credit risk as ‘the risk that one party to a financial instrument will cause a financial loss for the other party by failing to discharge an obligation’. The requirement in paragraph 5.7.7(a) relates to the risk that the issuer will fail to perform on that particular liability. It does not necessarily relate to the creditworthiness of the issuer. For example, if an entity issues a collateralised liability and a non‑collateralised liability that are otherwise identical, the credit risk of those two liabilities will be different, even though they are issued by the same entity. The credit risk on the collateralised liability will be less than the credit risk of the non‑collateralised liability. The credit risk for a collateralised liability may be close to zero. |
B5.7.14 | For the purposes of applying the requirement in paragraph 5.7.7(a), credit risk is different from asset‑specific performance risk. Asset‑specific performance risk is not related to the risk that an entity will fail to discharge a particular obligation but instead it is related to the risk that a single asset or a group of assets will perform poorly (or not at all). |
B5.7.15 | The following are examples of asset‑specific performance risk:
|
Determining the effects of changes in credit risk
B5.7.16 | For the purposes of applying the requirement in paragraph 5.7.7(a), an entity shall determine the amount of change in the fair value of the financial liability that is attributable to changes in the credit risk of that liability either:
|
B5.7.17 | Changes in market conditions that give rise to market risk include changes in a benchmark interest rate, the price of another entity’s financial instrument, a commodity price, a foreign exchange rate or an index of prices or rates. |
B5.7.18 | If the only significant relevant changes in market conditions for a liability are changes in an observed (benchmark) interest rate, the amount in paragraph B5.7.16(a) can be estimated as follows: [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC5.64]
|
B5.7.19 | The example in paragraph B5.7.18 assumes that changes in fair value arising from factors other than changes in the instrument’s credit risk or changes in observed (benchmark) interest rates are not significant. This method would not be appropriate if changes in fair value arising from other factors are significant. In those cases, an entity is required to use an alternative method that more faithfully measures the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk (see paragraph B5.7.16(b)). For example, if the instrument in the example contains an embedded derivative, the change in fair value of the embedded derivative is excluded in determining the amount to be presented in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.7(a). |
B5.7.20 | As with all fair value measurements, an entity’s measurement method for determining the portion of the change in the liability’s fair value that is attributable to changes in its credit risk must make maximum use of relevant observable inputs and minimum use of unobservable inputs. [Refer:IFRS 13] |
Hedge accounting (Chapter 6)
Hedging instruments (Section 6.2)
Qualifying instruments
B6.2.1 | Derivatives that are embedded in hybrid contracts, but that are not separately accounted for, cannot be designated as separate hedging instruments. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.117−BC6.122] |
B6.2.2 | An entity’s own equity instruments are not financial assets or financial liabilities of the entity and therefore cannot be designated as hedging instruments. [Refer:paragraph 6.2.2] |
B6.2.3 | For hedges of foreign currency risk, the foreign currency risk component of a non‑derivative financial instrument is determined in accordance with IAS 21. |
Written options
B6.2.4 | This Standard does not restrict the circumstances in which a derivative that is measured at fair value through profit or loss may be designated as a hedging instrument, except for some written options. A written option does not qualify as a hedging instrument unless it is designated as an offset to a purchased option, including one that is embedded in another financial instrument (for example, a written call option used to hedge a callable liability). |
Designation of hedging instruments
B6.2.5 | For hedges other than hedges of foreign currency risk, when an entity designates a non‑derivative financial asset or a non‑derivative financial liability measured at fair value through profit or loss as a hedging instrument, it may only designate the non‑derivative financial instrument in its entirety or a proportion of it. [Refer:paragraph 6.2.4(c)] |
B6.2.6 | A single hedging instrument may be designated as a hedging instrument of more than one type of risk, provided that there is a specific designation of the hedging instrument and of the different risk positions as hedged items. Those hedged items can be in different hedging relationships. |
Hedged items (Section 6.3)
Qualifying items
B6.3.1 | A firm commitment to acquire a business in a business combination cannot be a hedged item, except for foreign currency risk, because the other risks being hedged cannot be specifically identified and measured. Those other risks are general business risks. |
B6.3.2 | An equity method investment cannot be a hedged item in a fair value hedge. This is because the equity method recognises in profit or loss the investor’s share of the investee’s profit or loss, instead of changes in the investment’s fair value. For a similar reason, an investment in a consolidated subsidiary cannot be a hedged item in a fair value hedge. This is because consolidation recognises in profit or loss the subsidiary’s profit or loss, instead of changes in the investment’s fair value. A hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation is different because it is a hedge of the foreign currency exposure, not a fair value hedge of the change in the value of the investment. |
B6.3.3 | Paragraph 6.3.4 permits an entity to designate as hedged items aggregated exposures that are a combination of an exposure and a derivative. When designating such a hedged item, an entity assesses whether the aggregated exposure combines an exposure with a derivative so that it creates a different aggregated exposure that is managed as one exposure for a particular risk (or risks). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.160−BC6.162] In that case, the entity may designate the hedged item on the basis of the aggregated exposure. For example:
|
B6.3.4 | When designating the hedged item on the basis of the aggregated exposure, an entity considers the combined effect of the items that constitute the aggregated exposure for the purpose of assessing hedge effectiveness and measuring hedge ineffectiveness. However, the items that constitute the aggregated exposure remain accounted for separately. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.163−BC6.166] This means that, for example:
|
B6.3.5 | Paragraph 6.3.6 states that in consolidated financial statements the foreign currency risk of a highly probable forecast intragroup transaction may qualify as a hedged item in a cash flow hedge, provided that the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and that the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss. For this purpose an entity can be a parent, subsidiary, associate, joint arrangement or branch. If the foreign currency risk of a forecast intragroup transaction does not affect consolidated profit or loss, the intragroup transaction cannot qualify as a hedged item. This is usually the case for royalty payments, interest payments or management charges between members of the same group, unless there is a related external transaction. However, when the foreign currency risk of a forecast intragroup transaction will affect consolidated profit or loss, the intragroup transaction can qualify as a hedged item. An example is forecast sales or purchases of inventories between members of the same group if there is an onward sale of the inventory to a party external to the group. Similarly, a forecast intragroup sale of plant and equipment from the group entity that manufactured it to a group entity that will use the plant and equipment in its operations may affect consolidated profit or loss. This could occur, for example, because the plant and equipment will be depreciated by the purchasing entity and the amount initially recognised for the plant and equipment may change if the forecast intragroup transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the purchasing entity. |
B6.3.6 | If a hedge of a forecast intragroup transaction qualifies for hedge accounting, any gain or loss is recognised in, and taken out of, other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 6.5.11. The relevant period or periods during which the foreign currency risk of the hedged transaction affects profit or loss is when it affects consolidated profit or loss. |
Designation of hedged items
B6.3.7 | A component is a hedged item that is less than the entire item. Consequently, a component reflects only some of the risks of the item of which it is a part or reflects the risks only to some extent (for example, when designating a proportion of an item). |
Risk components
B6.3.8 | To be eligible for designation as a hedged item, a risk component must be a separately identifiable component of the financial or the non-financial item, and the changes in the cash flows or the fair value of the item attributable to changes in that risk component must be reliably measurable. [Link toBasis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.169−BC6.191 for the reasons for qualifying of risk components of non-financial items as hedged items] |
B6.3.9 | When identifying what risk components qualify for designation as a hedged item, an entity assesses such risk components within the context of the particular market structure to which the risk or risks relate and in which the hedging activity takes place. Such a determination requires an evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances, which differ by risk and market. |
B6.3.10 | When designating risk components as hedged items, an entity considers whether the risk components are explicitly specified in a contract (contractually specified risk components) [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC6.174] or whether they are implicit in the fair value or the cash flows of an item of which they are a part (non-contractually specified risk components). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.175 and BC6.176] Non‑contractually specified risk components can relate to items that are not a contract (for example, forecast transactions) or contracts that do not explicitly specify the component (for example, a firm commitment that includes only one single price instead of a pricing formula that references different underlyings). For example:
|
B6.3.11 | When designating a risk component as a hedged item, the hedge accounting requirements apply to that risk component in the same way as they apply to other hedged items that are not risk components. For example, the qualifying criteria apply, including that the hedging relationship must meet the hedge effectiveness requirements, and any hedge ineffectiveness [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.187−BC6.190] must be measured and recognised. |
B6.3.12 | An entity can also designate only changes in the cash flows or fair value of a hedged item above or below a specified price or other variable (a ‘one-sided risk’). The intrinsic value of a purchased option hedging instrument (assuming that it has the same principal terms as the designated risk), but not its time value, reflects a one-sided risk in a hedged item. For example, an entity can designate the variability of future cash flow outcomes resulting from a price increase of a forecast commodity purchase. In such a situation, the entity designates only cash flow losses that result from an increase in the price above the specified level. The hedged risk does not include the time value of a purchased option, because the time value is not a component of the forecast transaction that affects profit or loss. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.194−BC6.196] |
B6.3.13 | There is a rebuttable presumption that unless inflation risk is contractually specified, it is not separately identifiable and reliably measurable and hence cannot be designated as a risk component of a financial instrument. However, in limited cases, it is possible to identify a risk component for inflation risk that is separately identifiable and reliably measurable because of the particular circumstances of the inflation environment and the relevant debt market.E36 [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.192 and BC6.193] |
| E36 | [IFRIC® Update, April 2021, Agenda Decision, ‘IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Hedging Variability in Cash Flows due to Real Interest Rates’ The Committee received a request about applying the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9 when the risk management objective is to ‘fix’ the cash flows in real terms. The request asked whether a hedge of the variability in cash flows arising from changes in the real interest rate, rather than the nominal interest rate, could be accounted for as a cash flow hedge. More specifically, the request describes a fact pattern in which an entity with a floating rate instrument referenced to an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, enters into an inflation swap (which swaps the variable interest cash flows of the floating rate instrument for variable cash flows based on an inflation index). The request asked whether the entity can designate the swap in a cash flow hedging relationship to hedge changes in the variable interest payments for changes in the real interest rate. Hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9 Paragraph 6.1.1 of IFRS 9 states that the objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or other comprehensive income). Paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9 sets out the qualifying criteria for hedge accounting. One type of hedging relationship described in paragraph 6.5.2 of IFRS 9 is a cash flow hedge in which an entity hedges the exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to a particular risk associated with all, or a component of, a recognised asset or liability and could affect profit or loss. Paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9 specifies that an entity may designate an item in its entirety, or a component of an item, as a hedged item. A risk component may be designated as the hedged item if, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, the risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable. With respect to inflation risk, paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 states ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that unless inflation risk is contractually specified, it is not separately identifiable and reliably measurable and hence cannot be designated as a risk component of a financial instrument’. Paragraph B6.3.14 of IFRS 9 states that an entity cannot simply impute the terms and conditions of an inflation hedging instrument by projecting its term and conditions onto a nominal interest rate debt instrument. This is because, when developing IFRS 9, the Board specifically considered inflation risk and put in place restrictions to address its concern that entities might impute the terms and conditions of a hedging instrument onto the hedged item ‘without proper application of the criteria for designating risk components’ as a hedged item (paragraph BC6.193 of IFRS 9). To appropriately account for hedge (in)effectiveness, paragraph B6.5.5 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to measure the (present) value of the hedged item independently of the measurement of the value of the hedging instrument. Given that the request asked whether the real interest rate component could be designated as a risk component in a cash flow hedge, the Committee’s analysis focused on whether a non-contractually specified real interest rate risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable in the context of the proposed cash flow hedging relationship described in the request. Can a non-contractually specified real interest rate risk component be designated as the hedged item in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship? When considering the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9, the Committee observed that for cash flow hedge accounting to be applied in the fact pattern described in the request, it would be necessary to determine:
The Committee noted that, to designate a risk component in a hedging relationship, the risk component must be separately identifiable and reliably measurable within the context of each individual hedging relationship. The Committee also noted that it is the market structure—in which a floating rate instrument is issued and in which hedging activity will take place—that needs to support the eligibility of a real interest rate risk component as a non-contractually specified risk component as required by paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9. For the market structure to support the eligibility of that risk component in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship, the real interest rate must represent an identifiable pricing element in setting the floating benchmark interest rate, thereby creating separately identifiable and reliably measurable cash flow variability in the floating rate instrument. Although the rebuttable presumption in paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 applies to both fair value hedges and cash flow hedges, the example in paragraph B6.3.14 of IFRS 9 illustrates a rebuttal of the presumption in a fair value hedge. The Committee therefore concluded that, because nominal rates generally do not change as a direct result of changes in real interest rates, the existence in the relevant debt market of a term structure of zero-coupon real interest rates does not, in itself, overcome the rebuttable presumption in paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship. The Committee noted that cash flows as defined by paragraph 6 of IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows are, by nature, denominated in nominal terms. The Committee also noted that the interest rate for floating rate financial instruments is defined in nominal terms for a given currency. Therefore, to meet the requirements in IFRS 9 for a cash flow hedge designation, the variability in the cash flows of the floating rate instrument attributable to the designated risk component needs to be assessed in nominal terms. A nominal interest rate (such as LIBOR) may be influenced by expected inflation and the real interest rate in the long term. However, nominal interest rates do not change as a direct result of changes in inflation or the real interest rate (that is, they are not identifiable pricing elements in setting nominal rates). The Committee therefore concluded that there is no exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to changes in the real interest rate in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship and, thus, the requirements in paragraph 6.3.7 and paragraph 6.5.2(b) of IFRS 9 are not met. Consequently, the real interest rate risk component in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship does not meet the requirements in IFRS 9 to be designated as an eligible hedged item as required by paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9. The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether a hedge of the variability in cash flows arising from changes in the real interest rate, rather than the nominal interest rate, could be accounted for as a cash flow hedge. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.] |
B6.3.14 | For example, an entity issues debt in an environment in which inflation-linked bonds have a volume and term structure that results in a sufficiently liquid market that allows constructing a term structure of zero-coupon real interest rates. This means that for the respective currency, inflation is a relevant factor that is separately considered by the debt markets. In those circumstances the inflation risk component could be determined by discounting the cash flows of the hedged debt instrument using the term structure of zero-coupon real interest rates (ie in a manner similar to how a risk‑free (nominal) interest rate component can be determined). Conversely, in many cases an inflation risk component is not separately identifiable and reliably measurable. For example, an entity issues only nominal interest rate debt in an environment with a market for inflation-linked bonds that is not sufficiently liquid to allow a term structure of zero-coupon real interest rates to be constructed. In this case the analysis of the market structure and of the facts and circumstances does not support the entity concluding that inflation is a relevant factor that is separately considered by the debt markets. Hence, the entity cannot overcome the rebuttable presumption that inflation risk that is not contractually specified is not separately identifiable and reliably measurable. Consequently, an inflation risk component would not be eligible for designation as the hedged item. This applies irrespective of any inflation hedging instrument that the entity has actually entered into. In particular, the entity cannot simply impute the terms and conditions of the actual inflation hedging instrument by projecting its terms and conditions onto the nominal interest rate debt. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.192 and BC6.193] |
B6.3.15 | A contractually specified inflation risk component of the cash flows of a recognised inflation-linked bond (assuming that there is no requirement to account for an embedded derivative separately) is separately identifiable and reliably measurable, as long as other cash flows of the instrument are not affected by the inflation risk component. |
Components of a nominal amount
B6.3.16 | There are two types of components of nominal amounts that can be designated as the hedged item in a hedging relationship: a component that is a proportion of an entire item or a layer component. The type of component changes the accounting outcome. An entity shall designate the component for accounting purposes consistently with its risk management objective. |
B6.3.17 | An example of a component that is a proportion is 50 per cent of the contractual cash flows of a loan. |
B6.3.18 | A layer component may be specified from a defined, but open, population, or from a defined nominal amount. Examples include:
|
B6.3.19 | If a layer component is designated in a fair value hedge, an entity shall specify it from a defined nominal amount. To comply with the requirements for qualifying fair value hedges, an entity shall remeasure the hedged item for fair value changes (ie remeasure the item for fair value changes attributable to the hedged risk). The fair value hedge adjustment must be recognised in profit or loss no later than when the item is derecognised. Consequently, it is necessary to track the item to which the fair value hedge adjustment relates. For a layer component in a fair value hedge, this requires an entity to track the nominal amount from which it is defined. For example, in paragraph B6.3.18(d), the total defined nominal amount of CU100 million must be tracked in order to track the bottom layer of CU20 million or the top layer of CU30 million. |
B6.3.20 | A layer component that includes a prepayment option is not eligible to be designated as a hedged item in a fair value hedge if the prepayment option’s fair value is affected by changes in the hedged risk, unless the designated layer includes the effect of the related prepayment option when determining the change in the fair value of the hedged item. |
Relationship between components and the total cash flows of an item
B6.3.21 | If a component of the cash flows of a financial or a non-financial item is designated as the hedged item, that component must be less than or equal to the total cash flows of the entire item. However, all of the cash flows of the entire item may be designated as the hedged item and hedged for only one particular risk (for example, only for those changes that are attributable to changes in LIBOR or a benchmark commodity price). |
B6.3.22 | For example, in the case of a financial liability whose effective interest rate is below LIBOR, an entity cannot designate:
|
B6.3.23 | However, in the case of a fixed-rate financial liability whose effective interest rate is (for example) 100 basis points below LIBOR, an entity can designate as the hedged item the change in the value of that entire liability (ie principal plus interest at LIBOR minus 100 basis points) that is attributable to changes in LIBOR. If a fixed-rate financial instrument is hedged some time after its origination and interest rates have changed in the meantime, the entity can designate a risk component equal to a benchmark rate that is higher than the contractual rate paid on the item. The entity can do so provided that the benchmark rate is less than the effective interest rate calculated on the assumption that the entity had purchased the instrument on the day when it first designates the hedged item. For example, assume that an entity originates a fixed-rate financial asset of CU100 that has an effective interest rate of 6 per cent at a time when LIBOR is 4 per cent. It begins to hedge that asset some time later when LIBOR has increased to 8 per cent and the fair value of the asset has decreased to CU90. The entity calculates that if it had purchased the asset on the date it first designates the related LIBOR interest rate risk as the hedged item, the effective yield of the asset based on its then fair value of CU90 would have been 9.5 per cent. Because LIBOR is less than this effective yield, the entity can designate a LIBOR component of 8 per cent that consists partly of the contractual interest cash flows and partly of the difference between the current fair value (ie CU90) and the amount repayable on maturity (ie CU100). |
B6.3.24 | If a variable-rate financial liability bears interest of (for example) three-month LIBOR minus 20 basis points (with a floor at zero basis points), an entity can designate as the hedged item the change in the cash flows of that entire liability (ie three-month LIBOR minus 20 basis points—including the floor) that is attributable to changes in LIBOR. Hence, as long as the three-month LIBOR forward curve for the remaining life of that liability does not fall below 20 basis points, the hedged item has the same cash flow variability as a liability that bears interest at three-month LIBOR with a zero or positive spread. However, if the three-month LIBOR forward curve for the remaining life of that liability (or a part of it) falls below 20 basis points, the hedged item has a lower cash flow variability than a liability that bears interest at three-month LIBOR with a zero or positive spread. |
B6.3.25 | A similar example of a non-financial item is a specific type of crude oil from a particular oil field that is priced off the relevant benchmark crude oil. If an entity sells that crude oil under a contract using a contractual pricing formula that sets the price per barrel at the benchmark crude oil price minus CU10 with a floor of CU15, the entity can designate as the hedged item the entire cash flow variability under the sales contract that is attributable to the change in the benchmark crude oil price. However, the entity cannot designate a component that is equal to the full change in the benchmark crude oil price. Hence, as long as the forward price (for each delivery) does not fall below CU25, the hedged item has the same cash flow variability as a crude oil sale at the benchmark crude oil price (or with a positive spread). However, if the forward price for any delivery falls below CU25, the hedged item has a lower cash flow variability than a crude oil sale at the benchmark crude oil price (or with a positive spread). |
Qualifying criteria for hedge accounting (Section 6.4)
Hedge effectiveness
B6.4.1 | Hedge effectiveness is the extent to which changes in the fair value or the cash flows of the hedging instrument offset changes in the fair value or the cash flows of the hedged item (for example, when the hedged item is a risk component, the relevant change in fair value or cash flows of an item is the one that is attributable to the hedged risk). Hedge ineffectiveness is the extent to which the changes in the fair value or the cash flows of the hedging instrument are greater or less than those on the hedged item. |
B6.4.2 | When designating a hedging relationship and on an ongoing basis, an entity shall analyse the sources of hedge ineffectiveness that are expected to affect the hedging relationship during its term. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC6.241] This analysis (including any updates in accordance with paragraph B6.5.21 arising from rebalancing a hedging relationship) is the basis for the entity’s assessment of meeting the hedge effectiveness requirements. |
B6.4.3 | For the avoidance of doubt, the effects of replacing the original counterparty with a clearing counterparty and making the associated changes as described in paragraph 6.5.6 shall be reflected in the measurement of the hedging instrument and therefore in the assessment of hedge effectiveness and the measurement of hedge effectiveness. |
Economic relationship between the hedged item and the hedging instrument
B6.4.4 | The requirement that an economic relationship exists means that the hedging instrument and the hedged item have values that generally move in the opposite direction because of the same risk, which is the hedged risk. Hence, there must be an expectation that the value of the hedging instrument and the value of the hedged item will systematically change in response to movements in either the same underlying or underlyings that are economically related in such a way that they respond in a similar way to the risk that is being hedged (for example, Brent and WTI crude oil). |
B6.4.5 | If the underlyings are not the same but are economically related, there can be situations in which the values of the hedging instrument and the hedged item move in the same direction, for example, because the price differential between the two related underlyings changes while the underlyings themselves do not move significantly. That is still consistent with an economic relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item if the values of the hedging instrument and the hedged item are still expected to typically move in the opposite direction when the underlyings move. |
B6.4.6 | The assessment of whether an economic relationship exists includes an analysis of the possible behaviour of the hedging relationship during its term to ascertain whether it can be expected to meet the risk management objective. The mere existence of a statistical correlation between two variables does not, by itself, support a valid conclusion that an economic relationship exists. |
The effect of credit risk
B6.4.7 | Because the hedge accounting model is based on a general notion of offset between gains and losses on the hedging instrument and the hedged item, hedge effectiveness is determined not only by the economic relationship between those items (ie the changes in their underlyings) but also by the effect of credit risk on the value of both the hedging instrument and the hedged item. The effect of credit risk means that even if there is an economic relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item, the level of offset might become erratic. This can result from a change in the credit risk of either the hedging instrument or the hedged item that is of such a magnitude that the credit risk dominates the value changes that result from the economic relationship (ie the effect of the changes in the underlyings). A level of magnitude that gives rise to dominance is one that would result in the loss (or gain) from credit risk frustrating the effect of changes in the underlyings on the value of the hedging instrument or the hedged item, even if those changes were significant. Conversely, if during a particular period there is little change in the underlyings, the fact that even small credit risk‑related changes in the value of the hedging instrument or the hedged item might affect the value more than the underlyings does not create dominance. |
B6.4.8 | An example of credit risk dominating a hedging relationship is when an entity hedges an exposure to commodity price risk using an uncollateralised derivative. If the counterparty to that derivative experiences a severe deterioration in its credit standing, the effect of the changes in the counterparty’s credit standing might outweigh the effect of changes in the commodity price on the fair value of the hedging instrument, whereas changes in the value of the hedged item depend largely on the commodity price changes. |
Hedge ratio
B6.4.9 | In accordance with the hedge effectiveness requirements, the hedge ratio of the hedging relationship must be the same as that resulting from the quantity of the hedged item that the entity actually hedges and the quantity of the hedging instrument that the entity actually uses to hedge that quantity of hedged item. Hence, if an entity hedges less than 100 per cent of the exposure on an item, such as 85 per cent, it shall designate the hedging relationship using a hedge ratio that is the same as that resulting from 85 per cent of the exposure and the quantity of the hedging instrument that the entity actually uses to hedge those 85 per cent. Similarly, if, for example, an entity hedges an exposure using a nominal amount of 40 units of a financial instrument, it shall designate the hedging relationship using a hedge ratio that is the same as that resulting from that quantity of 40 units (ie the entity must not use a hedge ratio based on a higher quantity of units that it might hold in total or a lower quantity of units) and the quantity of the hedged item that it actually hedges with those 40 units. |
B6.4.10 | However, the designation of the hedging relationship using the same hedge ratio as that resulting from the quantities of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that the entity actually uses shall not reflect an imbalance between the weightings of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that would in turn create hedge ineffectiveness (irrespective of whether recognised or not) that could result in an accounting outcome that would be inconsistent with the purpose of hedge accounting. Hence, for the purpose of designating a hedging relationship, an entity must adjust the hedge ratio that results from the quantities of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that the entity actually uses if that is needed to avoid such an imbalance. |
B6.4.11 | Examples of relevant considerations in assessing whether an accounting outcome is inconsistent with the purpose of hedge accounting are:
|
Frequency of assessing whether the hedge effectiveness requirements are met
B6.4.12 | An entity shall assess at the inception of the hedging relationship, and on an ongoing basis, whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements. At a minimum, an entity shall perform the ongoing assessment at each reporting date or upon a significant change in the circumstances affecting the hedge effectiveness requirements, whichever comes first. The assessment relates to expectations about hedge effectiveness and is therefore only forward-looking. |
Methods for assessing whether the hedge effectiveness requirements are met
B6.4.13 | This Standard does not specify a method for assessing whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements. However, an entity shall use a method that captures the relevant characteristics of the hedging relationship including the sources of hedge ineffectiveness. Depending on those factors, the method can be a qualitative or a quantitative assessment. |
B6.4.14 | For example, when the critical terms (such as the nominal amount, maturity and underlying) of the hedging instrument and the hedged item match or are closely aligned, it might be possible for an entity to conclude on the basis of a qualitative assessment of those critical terms that the hedging instrument and the hedged item have values that will generally move in the opposite direction because of the same risk and hence that an economic relationship exists between the hedged item and the hedging instrument (see paragraphs B6.4.4–B6.4.6). |
B6.4.15 | The fact that a derivative is in or out of the money when it is designated as a hedging instrument does not in itself mean that a qualitative assessment is inappropriate. It depends on the circumstances whether hedge ineffectiveness arising from that fact could have a magnitude that a qualitative assessment would not adequately capture. |
B6.4.16 | Conversely, if the critical terms of the hedging instrument and the hedged item are not closely aligned, there is an increased level of uncertainty about the extent of offset. Consequently, the hedge effectiveness during the term of the hedging relationship is more difficult to predict. In such a situation it might only be possible for an entity to conclude on the basis of a quantitative assessment that an economic relationship exists between the hedged item and the hedging instrument (see paragraphs B6.4.4–B6.4.6). In some situations a quantitative assessment might also be needed to assess whether the hedge ratio used for designating the hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements (see paragraphs B6.4.9–B6.4.11). An entity can use the same or different methods for those two different purposes. |
B6.4.17 | If there are changes in circumstances that affect hedge effectiveness, an entity may have to change the method for assessing whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements in order to ensure that the relevant characteristics of the hedging relationship, including the sources of hedge ineffectiveness, are still captured. |
B6.4.18 | An entity’s risk management is the main source of information to perform the assessment of whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements. This means that the management information (or analysis) used for decision‑making purposes can be used as a basis for assessing whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements. |
B6.4.19 | An entity’s documentation of the hedging relationship includes how it will assess the hedge effectiveness requirements, including the method or methods used. The documentation of the hedging relationship shall be updated for any changes to the methods (see paragraph B6.4.17). |
Accounting for qualifying hedging relationships (Section 6.5)
B6.5.1 | An example of a fair value hedge is a hedge of exposure to changes in the fair value of a fixed-rate debt instrument arising from changes in interest rates. Such a hedge could be entered into by the issuer or by the holder. |
B6.5.2 | The purpose of a cash flow hedge is to defer the gain or loss on the hedging instrument to a period or periods in which the hedged expected future cash flows affect profit or loss. An example of a cash flow hedge is the use of a swap to change floating rate debt (whether measured at amortised cost or fair value) to fixed-rate debt (ie a hedge of a future transaction in which the future cash flows being hedged are the future interest payments). Conversely, a forecast purchase of an equity instrument that, once acquired, will be accounted for at fair value through profit or loss, is an example of an item that cannot be the hedged item in a cash flow hedge, because any gain or loss on the hedging instrument that would be deferred could not be appropriately reclassified to profit or loss during a period in which it would achieve offset. For the same reason, a forecast purchase of an equity instrument that, once acquired, will be accounted for at fair value with changes in fair value presented in other comprehensive income also cannot be the hedged item in a cash flow hedge. |
B6.5.3 | A hedge of a firm commitment (for example, a hedge of the change in fuel price relating to an unrecognised contractual commitment by an electric utility to purchase fuel at a fixed price) is a hedge of an exposure to a change in fair value. Accordingly, such a hedge is a fair value hedge. However, in accordance with paragraph 6.5.4, a hedge of the foreign currency risk of a firm commitment could alternatively be accounted for as a cash flow hedge. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.272−BC6.277] |
Measurement of hedge ineffectiveness
B6.5.4 | When measuring hedge ineffectiveness, an entity shall consider the time value of money. Consequently, the entity determines the value of the hedged item on a present value basis and therefore the change in the value of the hedged item also includes the effect of the time value of money. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.280−BC6.283] |
B6.5.5 | To calculate the change in the value of the hedged item for the purpose of measuring hedge ineffectiveness, an entity may use a derivative that would have terms that match the critical terms of the hedged item (this is commonly referred to as a ‘hypothetical derivative’), and, for example for a hedge of a forecast transaction, would be calibrated using the hedged price (or rate) level. For example, if the hedge was for a two-sided risk at the current market level, the hypothetical derivative would represent a hypothetical forward contract that is calibrated to a value of nil at the time of designation of the hedging relationship. If the hedge was for example for a one-sided risk, the hypothetical derivative would represent the intrinsic value of a hypothetical option that at the time of designation of the hedging relationship is at the money if the hedged price level is the current market level, or out of the money if the hedged price level is above (or, for a hedge of a long position, below) the current market level. Using a hypothetical derivative is one possible way of calculating the change in the value of the hedged item. The hypothetical derivative replicates the hedged item and hence results in the same outcome as if that change in value was determined by a different approach. Hence, using a ‘hypothetical derivative’ is not a method in its own right but a mathematical expedient that can only be used to calculate the value of the hedged item. Consequently, a ‘hypothetical derivative’ cannot be used to include features in the value of the hedged item that only exist in the hedging instrument (but not in the hedged item). An example is debt denominated in a foreign currency (irrespective of whether it is fixed-rate or variable-rate debt). When using a hypothetical derivative to calculate the change in the value of such debt or the present value of the cumulative change in its cash flows, the hypothetical derivative cannot simply impute a charge for exchanging different currencies even though actual derivatives under which different currencies are exchanged might include such a charge (for example, cross-currency interest rate swaps). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC.6.284−BC6.290] |
B6.5.6 | The change in the value of the hedged item determined using a hypothetical derivative may also be used for the purpose of assessing whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC.6.284−BC6.290] |
Rebalancing the hedging relationship and changes to the hedge ratio
B6.5.7 | Rebalancing refers to the adjustments made to the designated quantities of the hedged item or the hedging instrument of an already existing hedging relationship for the purpose of maintaining a hedge ratio that complies with the hedge effectiveness requirements. Changes to designated quantities of a hedged item or of a hedging instrument for a different purpose do not constitute rebalancing for the purpose of this Standard. |
B6.5.8 | Rebalancing is accounted for as a continuation of the hedging relationship in accordance with paragraphs B6.5.9–B6.5.21. On rebalancing, the hedge ineffectiveness of the hedging relationship is determined and recognised immediately before adjusting the hedging relationship. |
B6.5.9 | Adjusting the hedge ratio allows an entity to respond to changes in the relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item that arise from their underlyings or risk variables. For example, a hedging relationship in which the hedging instrument and the hedged item have different but related underlyings changes in response to a change in the relationship between those two underlyings (for example, different but related reference indices, rates or prices). Hence, rebalancing allows the continuation of a hedging relationship in situations in which the relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item changes in a way that can be compensated for by adjusting the hedge ratio. |
B6.5.10 | For example, an entity hedges an exposure to Foreign Currency A using a currency derivative that references Foreign Currency B and Foreign Currencies A and B are pegged (ie their exchange rate is maintained within a band or at an exchange rate set by a central bank or other authority). If the exchange rate between Foreign Currency A and Foreign Currency B were changed (ie a new band or rate was set), rebalancing the hedging relationship to reflect the new exchange rate would ensure that the hedging relationship would continue to meet the hedge effectiveness requirement for the hedge ratio in the new circumstances. In contrast, if there was a default on the currency derivative, changing the hedge ratio could not ensure that the hedging relationship would continue to meet that hedge effectiveness requirement. Hence, rebalancing does not facilitate the continuation of a hedging relationship in situations in which the relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item changes in a way that cannot be compensated for by adjusting the hedge ratio. |
B6.5.11 | Not every change in the extent of offset between the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument and the hedged item’s fair value or cash flows constitutes a change in the relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged item. An entity analyses the sources of hedge ineffectiveness that it expected to affect the hedging relationship during its term and evaluates whether changes in the extent of offset are:
An entity performs this evaluation against the hedge effectiveness requirement for the hedge ratio, ie to ensure that the hedging relationship does not reflect an imbalance between the weightings of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that would create hedge ineffectiveness (irrespective of whether recognised or not) that could result in an accounting outcome that would be inconsistent with the purpose of hedge accounting. Hence, this evaluation requires judgement. |
B6.5.12 | Fluctuation around a constant hedge ratio (and hence the related hedge ineffectiveness) cannot be reduced by adjusting the hedge ratio in response to each particular outcome. Hence, in such circumstances, the change in the extent of offset is a matter of measuring and recognising hedge ineffectiveness but does not require rebalancing. |
B6.5.13 | Conversely, if changes in the extent of offset indicate that the fluctuation is around a hedge ratio that is different from the hedge ratio that is currently used for that hedging relationship, or that there is a trend leading away from that hedge ratio, hedge ineffectiveness can be reduced by adjusting the hedge ratio, whereas retaining the hedge ratio would increasingly produce hedge ineffectiveness. Hence, in such circumstances, an entity must evaluate whether the hedging relationship reflects an imbalance between the weightings of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that would create hedge ineffectiveness (irrespective of whether recognised or not) that could result in an accounting outcome that would be inconsistent with the purpose of hedge accounting. If the hedge ratio is adjusted, it also affects the measurement and recognition of hedge ineffectiveness because, on rebalancing, the hedge ineffectiveness of the hedging relationship must be determined and recognised immediately before adjusting the hedging relationship in accordance with paragraph B6.5.8. |
B6.5.14 | Rebalancing means that, for hedge accounting purposes, after the start of a hedging relationship an entity adjusts the quantities of the hedging instrument or the hedged item in response to changes in circumstances that affect the hedge ratio of that hedging relationship. Typically, that adjustment should reflect adjustments in the quantities of the hedging instrument and the hedged item that it actually uses. However, an entity must adjust the hedge ratio that results from the quantities of the hedged item or the hedging instrument that it actually uses if:
|
B6.5.15 | Rebalancing does not apply if the risk management objective for a hedging relationship has changed. Instead, hedge accounting for that hedging relationship shall be discontinued (despite that an entity might designate a new hedging relationship that involves the hedging instrument or hedged item of the previous hedging relationship as described in paragraph B6.5.28). |
B6.5.16 | If a hedging relationship is rebalanced, the adjustment to the hedge ratio can be effected in different ways:
Changes in volume refer to the quantities that are part of the hedging relationship. Hence, decreases in volumes do not necessarily mean that the items or transactions no longer exist, or are no longer expected to occur, but that they are not part of the hedging relationship. For example, decreasing the volume of the hedging instrument can result in the entity retaining a derivative, but only part of it might remain a hedging instrument of the hedging relationship. This could occur if the rebalancing could be effected only by reducing the volume of the hedging instrument in the hedging relationship, but with the entity retaining the volume that is no longer needed. In that case, the undesignated part of the derivative would be accounted for at fair value through profit or loss (unless it was designated as a hedging instrument in a different hedging relationship). |
B6.5.17 | Adjusting the hedge ratio by increasing the volume of the hedged item does not affect how the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument are measured. The measurement of the changes in the value of the hedged item related to the previously designated volume also remains unaffected. However, from the date of rebalancing, the changes in the value of the hedged item also include the change in the value of the additional volume of the hedged item. These changes are measured starting from, and by reference to, the date of rebalancing instead of the date on which the hedging relationship was designated. For example, if an entity originally hedged a volume of 100 tonnes of a commodity at a forward price of CU80 (the forward price at inception of the hedging relationship) and added a volume of 10 tonnes on rebalancing when the forward price was CU90, the hedged item after rebalancing would comprise two layers: 100 tonnes hedged at CU80 and 10 tonnes hedged at CU90. |
B6.5.18 | Adjusting the hedge ratio by decreasing the volume of the hedging instrument does not affect how the changes in the value of the hedged item are measured. The measurement of the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument related to the volume that continues to be designated also remains unaffected. However, from the date of rebalancing, the volume by which the hedging instrument was decreased is no longer part of the hedging relationship. For example, if an entity originally hedged the price risk of a commodity using a derivative volume of 100 tonnes as the hedging instrument and reduces that volume by 10 tonnes on rebalancing, a nominal amount of 90 tonnes of the hedging instrument volume would remain (see paragraph B6.5.16 for the consequences for the derivative volume (ie the 10 tonnes) that is no longer a part of the hedging relationship). |
B6.5.19 | Adjusting the hedge ratio by increasing the volume of the hedging instrument does not affect how the changes in the value of the hedged item are measured. The measurement of the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument related to the previously designated volume also remains unaffected. However, from the date of rebalancing, the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument also include the changes in the value of the additional volume of the hedging instrument. The changes are measured starting from, and by reference to, the date of rebalancing instead of the date on which the hedging relationship was designated. For example, if an entity originally hedged the price risk of a commodity using a derivative volume of 100 tonnes as the hedging instrument and added a volume of 10 tonnes on rebalancing, the hedging instrument after rebalancing would comprise a total derivative volume of 110 tonnes. The change in the fair value of the hedging instrument is the total change in the fair value of the derivatives that make up the total volume of 110 tonnes. These derivatives could (and probably would) have different critical terms, such as their forward rates, because they were entered into at different points in time (including the possibility of designating derivatives into hedging relationships after their initial recognition). |
B6.5.20 | Adjusting the hedge ratio by decreasing the volume of the hedged item does not affect how the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument are measured. The measurement of the changes in the value of the hedged item related to the volume that continues to be designated also remains unaffected. However, from the date of rebalancing, the volume by which the hedged item was decreased is no longer part of the hedging relationship. For example, if an entity originally hedged a volume of 100 tonnes of a commodity at a forward price of CU80 and reduces that volume by 10 tonnes on rebalancing, the hedged item after rebalancing would be 90 tonnes hedged at CU80. The 10 tonnes of the hedged item that are no longer part of the hedging relationship would be accounted for in accordance with the requirements for the discontinuation of hedge accounting (see paragraphs 6.5.6–6.5.7 and B6.5.22–B6.5.28). |
B6.5.21 | When rebalancing a hedging relationship, an entity shall update its analysis of the sources of hedge ineffectiveness that are expected to affect the hedging relationship during its (remaining) term (see paragraph B6.4.2). The documentation of the hedging relationship shall be updated accordingly. |
Discontinuation of hedge accounting
B6.5.22 | Discontinuation of hedge accounting applies prospectively from the date on which the qualifying criteria are no longer met. |
B6.5.23 | An entity shall not de-designate and thereby discontinue a hedging relationship that:
|
B6.5.24 | For the purposes of this Standard, an entity’s risk management strategy is distinguished from its risk management objectives. The risk management strategy is established at the highest level at which an entity determines how it manages its risk. Risk management strategies typically identify the risks to which the entity is exposed and set out how the entity responds to them. A risk management strategy is typically in place for a longer period and may include some flexibility to react to changes in circumstances that occur while that strategy is in place (for example, different interest rate or commodity price levels that result in a different extent of hedging). This is normally set out in a general document that is cascaded down through an entity through policies containing more specific guidelines. In contrast, the risk management objective for a hedging relationship applies at the level of a particular hedging relationship. It relates to how the particular hedging instrument that has been designated is used to hedge the particular exposure that has been designated as the hedged item. Hence, a risk management strategy can involve many different hedging relationships whose risk management objectives relate to executing that overall risk management strategy. For example:
|
B6.5.25 | The discontinuation of hedge accounting can affect:
|
B6.5.26 | A hedging relationship is discontinued in its entirety when, as a whole, it ceases to meet the qualifying criteria. For example:
|
B6.5.27 | A part of a hedging relationship is discontinued (and hedge accounting continues for its remainder) when only a part of the hedging relationship ceases to meet the qualifying criteria. For example:
|
B6.5.28 | An entity can designate a new hedging relationship that involves the hedging instrument or hedged item of a previous hedging relationship for which hedge accounting was (in part or in its entirety) discontinued. This does not constitute a continuation of a hedging relationship but is a restart. For example:
|
Accounting for the time value of options
B6.5.29 | An option can be considered as being related to a time period because its time value represents a charge for providing protection for the option holder over a period of time. However, the relevant aspect for the purpose of assessing whether an option hedges a transaction or time-period related hedged item are the characteristics of that hedged item, including how and when it affects profit or loss. Hence, an entity shall assess the type of hedged item (see paragraph 6.5.15(a)) on the basis of the nature of the hedged item (regardless of whether the hedging relationship is a cash flow hedge or a fair value hedge):
|
B6.5.30 | The characteristics of the hedged item, including how and when the hedged item affects profit or loss, also affect the period over which the time value of an option that hedges a time-period related hedged item is amortised, which is consistent with the period over which the option’s intrinsic value can affect profit or loss in accordance with hedge accounting. For example, if an interest rate option (a cap) is used to provide protection against increases in the interest expense on a floating rate bond, the time value of that cap is amortised to profit or loss over the same period over which any intrinsic value of the cap would affect profit or loss:
|
B6.5.31 | The accounting for the time value of options in accordance with paragraph 6.5.15 also applies to a combination of a purchased and a written option (one being a put option and one being a call option) that at the date of designation as a hedging instrument has a net nil time value (commonly referred to as a ‘zero-cost collar’). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.410−BC6.413] In that case, an entity shall recognise any changes in time value in other comprehensive income, even though the cumulative change in time value over the total period of the hedging relationship is nil. Hence, if the time value of the option relates to:
|
B6.5.32 | The accounting for the time value of options in accordance with paragraph 6.5.15 applies only to the extent that the time value relates to the hedged item (aligned time value). The time value of an option relates to the hedged item if the critical terms of the option (such as the nominal amount, life and underlying) are aligned with the hedged item. Hence, if the critical terms of the option and the hedged item are not fully aligned, an entity shall determine the aligned time value, ie how much of the time value included in the premium (actual time value) relates to the hedged item (and therefore should be treated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.15). An entity determines the aligned time value using the valuation of the option that would have critical terms that perfectly match the hedged item. |
B6.5.33 | If the actual time value and the aligned time value differ, an entity shall determine the amount that is accumulated in a separate component of equity in accordance with paragraph 6.5.15 as follows:
Any remainder of the change in fair value of the actual time value shall be recognised in profit or loss. |
Accounting for the forward element of forward contracts and foreign currency basis spreads of financial instruments
B6.5.34 | A forward contract can be considered as being related to a time period because its forward element represents charges for a period of time (which is the tenor for which it is determined). However, the relevant aspect for the purpose of assessing whether a hedging instrument hedges a transaction or time-period related hedged item are the characteristics of that hedged item, including how and when it affects profit or loss. Hence, an entity shall assess the type of hedged item (see paragraphs 6.5.16 and 6.5.15(a)) on the basis of the nature of the hedged item (regardless of whether the hedging relationship is a cash flow hedge or a fair value hedge):
|
B6.5.35 | The characteristics of the hedged item, including how and when the hedged item affects profit or loss, also affect the period over which the forward element of a forward contract that hedges a time-period related hedged item is amortised, which is over the period to which the forward element relates. For example, if a forward contract hedges the exposure to variability in three-month interest rates for a three-month period that starts in six months’ time, the forward element is amortised during the period that spans months seven to nine. |
B6.5.36 | The accounting for the forward element of a forward contract in accordance with paragraph 6.5.16 also applies if, at the date on which the forward contract is designated as a hedging instrument, the forward element is nil. In that case, an entity shall recognise any fair value changes attributable to the forward element in other comprehensive income, even though the cumulative fair value change attributable to the forward element over the total period of the hedging relationship is nil. Hence, if the forward element of a forward contract relates to:
|
B6.5.37 | The accounting for the forward element of forward contracts in accordance with paragraph 6.5.16 applies only to the extent that the forward element relates to the hedged item (aligned forward element). The forward element of a forward contract relates to the hedged item if the critical terms of the forward contract (such as the nominal amount, life and underlying) are aligned with the hedged item. Hence, if the critical terms of the forward contract and the hedged item are not fully aligned, an entity shall determine the aligned forward element, ie how much of the forward element included in the forward contract (actual forward element) relates to the hedged item (and therefore should be treated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.16). An entity determines the aligned forward element using the valuation of the forward contract that would have critical terms that perfectly match the hedged item. |
B6.5.38 | If the actual forward element and the aligned forward element differ, an entity shall determine the amount that is accumulated in a separate component of equity in accordance with paragraph 6.5.16 as follows:
Any remainder of the change in fair value of the actual forward element shall be recognised in profit or loss. |
B6.5.39 | When an entity separates the foreign currency basis spread from a financial instrument and excludes it from the designation of that financial instrument as the hedging instrument (see paragraph 6.2.4(b)), the application guidance in paragraphs B6.5.34–B6.5.38 applies to the foreign currency basis spread in the same manner as it is applied to the forward element of a forward contract. |
Hedge of a group of items (Section 6.6)
Hedge of a net position
Eligibility for hedge accounting and designation of a net position
B6.6.1 | A net position is eligible for hedge accounting only if an entity hedges on a net basis for risk management purposes. Whether an entity hedges in this way is a matter of fact (not merely of assertion or documentation). Hence, an entity cannot apply hedge accounting on a net basis solely to achieve a particular accounting outcome if that would not reflect its risk management approach. Net position hedging must form part of an established risk management strategy. Normally this would be approved by key management personnel as defined in IAS 24. |
B6.6.2 | For example, Entity A, whose functional currency is its local currency, has a firm commitment to pay FC150,000 for advertising expenses in nine months’ time and a firm commitment to sell finished goods for FC150,000 in 15 months’ time. Entity A enters into a foreign currency derivative that settles in nine months’ time under which it receives FC100 and pays CU70. Entity A has no other exposures to FC. Entity A does not manage foreign currency risk on a net basis. Hence, Entity A cannot apply hedge accounting for a hedging relationship between the foreign currency derivative and a net position of FC100 (consisting of FC150,000 of the firm purchase commitment—ie advertising services—and FC149,900 (of the FC150,000) of the firm sale commitment) for a nine-month period. |
B6.6.3 | If Entity A did manage foreign currency risk on a net basis and did not enter into the foreign currency derivative (because it increases its foreign currency risk exposure instead of reducing it), then the entity would be in a natural hedged position for nine months. Normally, this hedged position would not be reflected in the financial statements because the transactions are recognised in different reporting periods in the future. The nil net position would be eligible for hedge accounting only if the conditions in paragraph 6.6.6 are met. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.464−BC6.468] |
B6.6.4 | When a group of items that constitute a net position is designated as a hedged item, an entity shall designate the overall group of items that includes the items that can make up the net position. An entity is not permitted to designate a non-specific abstract amount of a net position. For example, an entity has a group of firm sale commitments in nine months’ time for FC100 and a group of firm purchase commitments in 18 months’ time for FC120. The entity cannot designate an abstract amount of a net position up to FC20. Instead, it must designate a gross amount of purchases and a gross amount of sales that together give rise to the hedged net position. An entity shall designate gross positions that give rise to the net position so that the entity is able to comply with the requirements for the accounting for qualifying hedging relationships. |
Application of the hedge effectiveness requirements to a hedge of a net position
B6.6.5 | When an entity determines whether the hedge effectiveness requirements of paragraph 6.4.1(c) are met when it hedges a net position, it shall consider the changes in the value of the items in the net position that have a similar effect as the hedging instrument in conjunction with the fair value change on the hedging instrument. For example, an entity has a group of firm sale commitments in nine months’ time for FC100 and a group of firm purchase commitments in 18 months’ time for FC120. It hedges the foreign currency risk of the net position of FC20 using a forward exchange contract for FC20. When determining whether the hedge effectiveness requirements of paragraph 6.4.1(c) are met, the entity shall consider the relationship between:
|
B6.6.6 | Similarly, if in the example in paragraph B6.6.5 the entity had a nil net position it would consider the relationship between the foreign currency risk related changes in the value of the firm sale commitments and the foreign currency risk related changes in the value of the firm purchase commitments when determining whether the hedge effectiveness requirements of paragraph 6.4.1(c) are met. |
Cash flow hedges that constitute a net position
B6.6.7 | When an entity hedges a group of items with offsetting risk positions (ie a net position), the eligibility for hedge accounting depends on the type of hedge. If the hedge is a fair value hedge, then the net position may be eligible as a hedged item. If, however, the hedge is a cash flow hedge, then the net position can only be eligible as a hedged item if it is a hedge of foreign currency risk and the designation of that net position specifies the reporting period in which the forecast transactions are expected to affect profit or loss and also specifies their nature and volume. [Refer:paragraph 6.6.1(c) and Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.442−BC6.455] |
B6.6.8 | For example, an entity has a net position that consists of a bottom layer of FC100 of sales and a bottom layer of FC150 of purchases. Both sales and purchases are denominated in the same foreign currency. In order to sufficiently specify the designation of the hedged net position, the entity specifies in the original documentation of the hedging relationship that sales can be of Product A or Product B and purchases can be of Machinery Type A, Machinery Type B and Raw Material A. The entity also specifies the volumes of the transactions by each nature. The entity documents that the bottom layer of sales (FC100) is made up of a forecast sales volume of the first FC70 of Product A and the first FC30 of Product B. If those sales volumes are expected to affect profit or loss in different reporting periods, the entity would include that in the documentation, for example, the first FC70 from sales of Product A that are expected to affect profit or loss in the first reporting period and the first FC30 from sales of Product B that are expected to affect profit or loss in the second reporting period. The entity also documents that the bottom layer of the purchases (FC150) is made up of purchases of the first FC60 of Machinery Type A, the first FC40 of Machinery Type B and the first FC50 of Raw Material A. If those purchase volumes are expected to affect profit or loss in different reporting periods, the entity would include in the documentation a disaggregation of the purchase volumes by the reporting periods in which they are expected to affect profit or loss (similarly to how it documents the sales volumes). For example, the forecast transaction would be specified as:
Specifying the nature of the forecast transaction volumes would include aspects such as the depreciation pattern for items of property, plant and equipment of the same kind, if the nature of those items is such that the depreciation pattern could vary depending on how the entity uses those items. For example, if the entity uses items of Machinery Type A in two different production processes that result in straight-line depreciation over ten reporting periods and the units of production method respectively, its documentation of the forecast purchase volume for Machinery Type A would disaggregate that volume by which of those depreciation patterns will apply. |
B6.6.9 | For a cash flow hedge of a net position, the amounts determined in accordance with paragraph 6.5.11 shall include the changes in the value of the items in the net position that have a similar effect as the hedging instrument in conjunction with the fair value change on the hedging instrument. However, the changes in the value of the items in the net position that have a similar effect as the hedging instrument are recognised only once the transactions that they relate to are recognised, such as when a forecast sale is recognised as revenue. For example, an entity has a group of highly probable forecast sales in nine months’ time for FC100 and a group of highly probable forecast purchases in 18 months’ time for FC120. It hedges the foreign currency risk of the net position of FC20 using a forward exchange contract for FC20. When determining the amounts that are recognised in the cash flow hedge reserve in accordance with paragraph 6.5.11(a)–6.5.11(b), the entity compares:
However, the entity recognises only amounts related to the forward exchange contract until the highly probable forecast sales transactions are recognised in the financial statements, at which time the gains or losses on those forecast transactions are recognised (ie the change in the value attributable to the change in the foreign exchange rate between the designation of the hedging relationship and the recognition of revenue). |
B6.6.10 | Similarly, if in the example the entity had a nil net position it would compare the foreign currency risk related changes in the value of the highly probable forecast sales with the foreign currency risk related changes in the value of the highly probable forecast purchases. However, those amounts are recognised only once the related forecast transactions are recognised in the financial statements. |
Layers of groups of items designated as the hedged item
B6.6.11 | For the same reasons noted in paragraph B6.3.19, designating layer components of groups of existing items requires the specific identification of the nominal amount of the group of items from which the hedged layer component is defined. |
B6.6.12 | A hedging relationship can include layers from several different groups of items. For example, in a hedge of a net position of a group of assets and a group of liabilities, the hedging relationship can comprise, in combination, a layer component of the group of assets and a layer component of the group of liabilities. |
Presentation of hedging instrument gains or losses
B6.6.13 | If items are hedged together as a group in a cash flow hedge, they might affect different line items in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. The presentation of hedging gains or losses in that statement depends on the group of items. |
B6.6.14 | If the group of items does not have any offsetting risk positions (for example, a group of foreign currency expenses that affect different line items in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income that are hedged for foreign currency risk) then the reclassified hedging instrument gains or losses shall be apportioned to the line items affected by the hedged items. This apportionment shall be done on a systematic and rational basis and shall not result in the grossing up of the net gains or losses arising from a single hedging instrument. |
B6.6.15 | If the group of items does have offsetting risk positions (for example, a group of sales and expenses denominated in a foreign currency hedged together for foreign currency risk) then an entity shall present the hedging gains or losses in a separate line item in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. Consider, for example, a hedge of the foreign currency risk of a net position of foreign currency sales of FC100 and foreign currency expenses of FC80 using a forward exchange contract for FC20. The gain or loss on the forward exchange contract that is reclassified from the cash flow hedge reserve to profit or loss (when the net position affects profit or loss) shall be presented in a separate line item from the hedged sales and expenses. Moreover, if the sales occur in an earlier period than the expenses, the sales revenue is still measured at the spot exchange rate in accordance with IAS 21. The related hedging gain or loss is presented in a separate line item, so that profit or loss reflects the effect of hedging the net position, with a corresponding adjustment to the cash flow hedge reserve. When the hedged expenses affect profit or loss in a later period, the hedging gain or loss previously recognised in the cash flow hedge reserve on the sales is reclassified to profit or loss and presented as a separate line item from those that include the hedged expenses, which are measured at the spot exchange rate in accordance with IAS 21. [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraphs BC6.456−BC6.458] |
B6.6.16 | For some types of fair value hedges, the objective of the hedge is not primarily to offset the fair value change of the hedged item but instead to transform the cash flows of the hedged item. For example, an entity hedges the fair value interest rate risk of a fixed-rate debt instrument using an interest rate swap. The entity’s hedge objective is to transform the fixed-interest cash flows into floating interest cash flows. This objective is reflected in the accounting for the hedging relationship by accruing the net interest accrual on the interest rate swap in profit or loss. In the case of a hedge of a net position (for example, a net position of a fixed-rate asset and a fixed-rate liability), this net interest accrual must be presented in a separate line item in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. This is to avoid the grossing up of a single instrument’s net gains or losses into offsetting gross amounts and recognising them in different line items (for example, this avoids grossing up a net interest receipt on a single interest rate swap into gross interest revenue and gross interest expense). [Refer:Basis for Conclusions paragraph BC6.459] |
Effective date and transition (Chapter 7)
Transition (Section 7.2)
Financial assets held for trading
B7.2.1 | At the date of initial application [Refer:paragraph 7.2.2] of this Standard, an entity must determine whether the objective of the entity’s business model for managing any of its financial assets meets the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(a) or the condition in paragraph 4.1.2A(a) or if a financial asset is eligible for the election in paragraph 5.7.5. For that purpose, an entity shall determine whether financial assets meet the definition of held for trading as if the entity had purchased the assets at the date of initial application. |
Impairment
B7.2.2 | On transition, an entity should seek to approximate the credit risk on initial recognition by considering all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort. An entity is not required to undertake an exhaustive search for information when determining, at the date of transition, whether there have been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. If an entity is unable to make this determination without undue cost or effort paragraph 7.2.20 applies. |
B7.2.3 | In order to determine the loss allowance on financial instruments initially recognised (or loan commitments or financial guarantee contracts to which the entity became a party to the contract) prior to the date of initial application, both on transition and until the derecognition of those items an entity shall consider information that is relevant in determining or approximating the credit risk at initial recognition. In order to determine or approximate the initial credit risk, an entity may consider internal and external information, including portfolio information, in accordance with paragraphs B5.5.1–B5.5.6. |
B7.2.4 | An entity with little historical information may use information from internal reports and statistics (that may have been generated when deciding whether to launch a new product), information about similar products or peer group experience for comparable financial instruments, if relevant. |
Definitions (Appendix A)
Derivatives
BA.1 | Typical examples of derivatives are futures and forward, swap and option contracts. A derivative usually has a notional amount, which is an amount of currency, a number of shares, a number of units of weight or volume or other units specified in the contract. However, a derivative instrument does not require the holder or writer to invest or receive the notional amount at the inception of the contract. Alternatively, a derivative could require a fixed payment or payment of an amount that can change (but not proportionally with a change in the underlying) as a result of some future event that is unrelated to a notional amount. For example, a contract may require a fixed payment of CU1,000 if six‑month LIBOR increases by 100 basis points. Such a contract is a derivative even though a notional amount is not specified. |
BA.2 | The definition of a derivative in this Standard includes contracts that are settled gross by delivery of the underlying item (eg a forward contract to purchase a fixed rate debt instrument). An entity may have a contract to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument or by exchanging financial instruments (eg a contract to buy or sell a commodity at a fixed price at a future date). Such a contract is within the scope of this Standard unless it was entered into and continues to be held for the purpose of delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements. However, this Standard applies to such contracts for an entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements if the entity makes a designation in accordance with paragraph 2.5 (see paragraphs 2.4–2.7). |
BA.3 | One of the defining characteristics of a derivative is that it has an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors. An option contract meets that definition because the premium is less than the investment that would be required to obtain the underlying financial instrument to which the option is linked. A currency swap that requires an initial exchange of different currencies of equal fair values meets the definition because it has a zero initial net investment.E37 |
| E37 | [IFRIC® Update, March 2014, Agenda Decision, ‘IAS 39 Financial instruments: Recognition and Measurement—accounting for term-structured repo transactions’ The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify: (Issue 1) whether an entity (Entity A) should account for three transactions separately or aggregate and treat them as a single derivative; and (Issue 2) how to apply paragraph B.6 of Guidance on Implementing IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (‘IG B.6 of IAS 39’) [paragraph B.6 of Guidance on Implementing IFRS 9] in addressing Issue 1. Some key features of the three transactions are as follows:
The Interpretations Committee noted that in order to determine whether Entity A should aggregate and account for the three transactions above as a single derivative, reference should be made to paragraphs B.6 and C.6 of Guidance on Implementing IAS 39 and paragraph AG39 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The Interpretations Committee also discussed Issue 2, ie, how to apply paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 in addressing Issue 1. The Interpretations Committee noted that application of the guidance in paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 requires judgement. It also noted that the indicators in paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 may help an entity to determine the substance of the transaction, but that the presence or absence of any single specific indicator alone may not be conclusive. The Interpretations Committee noted that providing additional guidance would result in the Interpretations Committee attempting to specify the accounting for a specific transaction, and that this would not be appropriate. On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.] |
BA.4 | A regular way purchase or sale gives rise to a fixed price commitment between trade date and settlement date that meets the definition of a derivative. However, because of the short duration of the commitment it is not recognised as a derivative financial instrument. Instead, this Standard provides for special accounting for such regular way contracts (see paragraphs 3.1.2 and B3.1.3–B3.1.6). |
BA.5 | The definition of a derivative refers to non‑financial variables that are not specific to a party to the contract. These include an index of earthquake losses in a particular region and an index of temperatures in a particular city. Non‑financial variables specific to a party to the contract include the occurrence or non‑occurrence of a fire that damages or destroys an asset of a party to the contract. A change in the fair value of a non‑financial asset is specific to the owner if the fair value reflects not only changes in market prices for such assets (a financial variable) but also the condition of the specific non‑financial asset held (a non‑financial variable). For example, if a guarantee of the residual value of a specific car exposes the guarantor to the risk of changes in the car’s physical condition, the change in that residual value is specific to the owner of the car. |
Financial assets and liabilities held for trading
BA.6 | Trading generally reflects active and frequent buying and selling, and financial instruments held for trading generally are used with the objective of generating a profit from short‑term fluctuations in price or dealer’s margin. |
BA.7 | Financial liabilities held for trading include:
|
BA.8 | The fact that a liability is used to fund trading activities does not in itself make that liability one that is held for trading. |
Appendix CAmendments to other Standards
This appendix describes the amendments to other Standards that the IASB made when it finalised IFRS 9 (2014). An entity shall apply the amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. If an entity applies IFRS 9 for an earlier period, these amendments shall be applied for that earlier period.
| * * * * * |
The amendments contained in this appendix when this Standard was issued in 2014 have been incorporated into the text of the relevant Standards included in this volume.
Board Approvals
Approval by the Board of IFRS 9 issued in November 2009
International Financial Reporting Standard 9 Financial Instruments was approved for issue by thirteen of the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr Leisenring and Ms McConnell dissented from the issue of the Standard. 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 |
Approval by the Board of the requirements added to IFRS 9 in October 2010
The requirements added to International Financial Reporting Standard 9 Financial Instruments in October 2010 were approved for issue by fourteen of the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Mr Scott abstained in view of his recent appointment to the IASB.
| Sir David Tweedie | Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Elke König | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Warren J McGregor | |
| Paul Pacter | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| John T Smith | |
| Tatsumi Yamada | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Approval by the Board of Mandatory Effective Date of IFRS 9 and Transition Disclosures (Amendments to IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) and IFRS 7) issued in December 2011
Mandatory Effective Date of IFRS 9 and Transition Disclosures (Amendments to IFRS 9 (2009), IFRS 9 (2010) and IFRS 7) was approved for publication by fourteen of the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Ms McConnell dissented from the issue of the amendments. Her dissenting opinion is set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| 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 |
Approval by the Board of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (Hedge Accounting and amendments to IFRS 9, IFRS 7 and IAS 39) issued in November 2013
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (Hedge Accounting and amendments to IFRS 9, IFRS 7 and IAS 39) was approved for issue by fifteen of the sixteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr Finnegan dissented. His dissenting opinion is set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Prabhakar Kalavacherla | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Mary Tokar | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Approval by the Board of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments issued in July 2014
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (as issued in July 2014) was approved for issue by fourteen of the sixteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Messrs Cooper and Engström dissented. Their dissenting opinion is set out after the Basis for Conclusions.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Ian Mackintosh | Vice-Chairman |
| Stephen Cooper | |
| Philippe Danjou | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Jan Engström | |
| Patrick Finnegan | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Suzanne Lloyd | |
| Patricia McConnell | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Mary Tokar | |
| Wei-Guo Zhang |
Approval by the Board of Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to IFRS 9) issued in October 2017
Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to IFRS 9) was approved for issue by 11 of 14 members of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board). Messrs Anderson and Lu and Ms Tarca abstained in view of their recent appointments to the Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Suzanne Lloyd | Vice-Chair |
| Nick Anderson | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Françoise Flores | |
| Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Jianqiao Lu | |
| Takatsugu Ochi | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Thomas Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Ann Tarca | |
| Mary Tokar |
Approval by the Board of Interest Rate Benchmark Reform issued in September 2019
Interest Rate Benchmark Reform, which amended IFRS 9, IAS 39 and IFRS 7, was approved for issue by all 14 members of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board).
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Suzanne Lloyd | Vice‑Chair |
| Nick Anderson | |
| Tadeu Cendon | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Françoise Flores | |
| Gary Kabureck | |
| Jianqiao Lu | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Thomas Scott | |
| Chungwoo Suh | |
| Rika Suzuki | |
| Ann Tarca | |
| Mary Tokar |
Approval by the Board of Interest Rate Benchmark Reform—Phase 2 issued in August 2020
Interest Rate Benchmark Reform—Phase 2, which amended IFRS 9, IAS 39, IFRS 7, IFRS 4 and IFRS 16, was approved for issue by 12 of 13 members of the International Accounting Standards Board (Board). Mr Gast abstained in view of his recent appointment to the Board.
| Hans Hoogervorst | Chairman |
| Suzanne Lloyd | Vice-Chair |
| Nick Anderson | |
| Tadeu Cendon | |
| Martin Edelmann | |
| Françoise Flores | |
| Zach Gast | |
| Jianqiao Lu | |
| Darrel Scott | |
| Thomas Scott | |
| Rika Suzuki | |
| Ann Tarca | |
| Mary Tokar |
Footnotes
| 1 | In accordance with paragraph 7.2.21, an entity may choose as its accounting policy to continue to apply the hedge accounting requirements in IAS 39 instead of the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard. If an entity has made this election, the references in this Standard to particular hedge accounting requirements in Chapter 6 are not relevant. Instead the entity applies the relevant hedge accounting requirements in IAS 39. (back) |
| 2 | The report, 'Reforming Major Interest Rate Benchmarks', is available at http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/r_140722.pdf. (back) |
| 3 | This term (as defined in IFRS 7) is used in the requirements for presenting the effects of changes in credit risk on liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss (see paragraph 5.7.7). (back) |
| 4 | IFRS 3 addresses the acquisition of contracts with embedded derivatives in a business combination. (back) |
| 5 | In this Standard monetary amounts are denominated in ‘currency units’ (CU) and ‘foreign currency units’ (FC). (back) |