Confusion reigns as Europe refuses to endorse new IASB standard
In a move that leaves the reform of accounting standards for financial instruments under a Brussels-shaped cloud, a key European Commission (EC) advisory panel on November 11 delayed endorsement of the first phase of the project, relating to the classification and measurement of assets - despite European politicians having lent heavily on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to rush the new rules through.
Without the endorsement, European companies will be unable to benefit from early adoption of the standard, which was published by the IASB on November 12 and is due for implementation in 2013, although other countries that use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) will be able to adopt them for 2009 accounts.
The panel - the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) - has promised to revisit endorsement in January, but opinions are split on whether that will happen, with some observers believing the EC would prefer to wait until the second and third phases of the reform have been published. The latter course of action would massively delay a process that European politicians had previously trumpeted as one of extreme urgency. The second phase of the reform, dealing with loan-loss accounting, was published on November 5 with a comment period open until June 2010.
The IASB refused to comment on the EFRAG's decision, but a former IASB staffer says the standard-setter will be feeling aggrieved: "They were constantly told they had to get the new standard out in time for endorsement this year. They did a huge amount of work to gather stakeholder opinion, and kept Europe up to date throughout the process." A partner at one of the big accounting firms, who was present at the key November 11 meeting in Brussels, says: "I assume the IASB will be very unhappy."
The meeting was split into two halves. In the morning, representatives of around 50 key stakeholders - banks, industry associations and accounting firms - had their say on the new standard in front of EFRAG staff. These opinions were then meant to inform the EFRAG's decision on whether to endorse the standard for use by European companies. But the accounting firm's partner says it appeared as though the panel had already made up its mind not to endorse. "Nothing they heard at the meeting would have been a surprise, and the flavour we were getting throughout the morning session was that endorsement was not going to happen," he says.
“If Europe tells the IASB it wants further changes and the standard setter makes those changes then they could be seen as caving in to political pressure."
Behind the scenes, the standard appears to have run into opposition from a number of European countries, which feel too many assets would be accounted for at fair value under the new rules. One speaker at the November 11 meeting claimed 10% of Italian mortgages contain features that would result in the
loans being marked-to-market rather than being carried on the more stable basis of amortised cost, says the accounting partner. But the standard has plenty of support too - the partner says around half the stakeholders at the meeting spoke in favour of the change, and the comment period on the standard saw a number of heavyweights applauding it, such as HSBC, KPMG, Deloitte and the Federation of European Accountants.
The worst potential outcome of the November 11 meeting was avoided, says the accounting partner - there could have been a move to allow Europe to pick and choose which elements of the standard to adopt, undermining the bigger goal of unified, harmonised global standards. But the decision not to endorse still leaves the IASB - and the whole financial instruments project - facing a serious problem.
"If Europe tells the IASB it wants further changes and the standard-setter makes those changes, then they could be seen as caving in to political pressure. If that happens, the Securities and Exchange Commission might say, ‘well, this is a good reason for not moving to IFRS'. If, on the other hand, they don't adopt those changes, then presumably the chances are they will not be endorsed and we end up with standards that are a response to the crisis, but which European companies can't use," says the accounting partner.
コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。
これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
現在、このコンテンツを印刷することはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(ポイント2.4)に記載されているように、印刷は1部のみです。
追加の権利を購入したい場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
このコンテンツは、当社の記事ツールを使用して共有することができます。当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(第2.4項)に概説されているように、認定ユーザーは、個人的な使用のために資料のコピーを1部のみ作成することができます。また、2.5項の制限にも従わなければなりません。
追加権利の購入をご希望の場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
詳細はこちら 規制
AI governance rules coming soon, says CFTC chair
Selig doesn’t want to stifle innovation, but says trading or advice algos will need guardrails
監督者のESMAにとって、人材が最も重要となるだろう
業界は、国からの支援を得て、移行期間中の人材に関するリスクを回避したいと考えています
バーゼルIIIの最終局面:全体的な安堵感の陰に、勝者と敗者が潜んでいる
G-Sibsはサーチャージ制度の改革で恩恵を受ける一方、AOCIは地方銀行に打撃を与えています
米国のバーゼルIII案に欠けるもの:期限
期限がなければ、リスク管理チームは、導入プロジェクトを開始するためのリソースを確保するのに苦労することになるでしょう
信用リスクモデルを簡素化することで、EBAは資本コストを増大できるかもしれない
内部格付に基づくアプローチの困難な部分を省略すると、資本負担や導入コストが増大する恐れがあります
変化への倦怠が、EBAの信用リスク簡素化への取り組みに影を落とすかもしれない
短期的な導入負担が銀行の重荷となっているため、改訂は最小限に留められる可能性があります
外国銀行は、米国のバーゼル協定に基づくオペリスクのキャピタルチャージを回避できる可能性がある
新たな提案では、カテゴリーIIIおよびIVの銀行に対し、この制度からの適用除外が認められる一方、グループ内取引にはペナルティが課されることになります
イングランド銀行のベイリーは、FRTBの内部モデルについて世界的な合意が形成されることを期待している
ISDA年次総会:英国は、IMA規則を最終決定する前に、米国およびEUの規制当局からの提案を検討しています