BoA mis-states derivatives positions by $345 million
Bank of America has contravened Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules regarding its treatment of derivatives instruments and will recalculate all of its financial statements since 2002.
Bank of America could now face legal action or a fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US financial regulator. But the bank is warning that uncertainties in the FASB 133 rules, which were introduced back in 1999, could cause further problems. It said 40 companies this year have been forced to restate their financial reports following rule clarifications, but the SEC declined to comment on the figure.
“This is not an isolated incident,” a spokesman for the bank told RiskNews. “There was general consensus out there that there was difficulty in understanding the rules,” he added. However, dealers such as Bank of America regularly provide guidance on rules regarding derivatives hedging rules to their own clients.
“The interpretations of how to apply [FAS 133] continue to evolve,” said Alvaro de Molina, the bank’s chief financial officer. “In light of recent interpretations, we reviewed our accounting treatment of certain hedge transactions and determined a restatement would assure that our financial statements adhere to the most recent guidance for accounting treatment of hedge transactions under [FAS 133].”
The SEC would not rule in or out any possible action against Bank of America.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Risk, portfolio margin, regulation: regtech to the rescue
A white paper outlining the complexity of setting the course for risk, margin and regulation
Prop shops recoil from EU’s ‘ill-fitting’ capital regime
Large proprietary trading firms complain they are subject to hand-me-down rules originally designed for banks
Revealed: the three EU banks applying for IMA approval
BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo ask ECB to use internal models for FRTB
FCA presses UK non-banks to put their affairs in order
Greater scrutiny of wind-down plans by regulator could alter capital and liquidity requirements
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
Most read
- Revealed: the three EU banks applying for IMA approval
- Top 10 operational risks for 2024
- Industry urges focus on initial margin instead of intraday VM