Fannie Mae earnings filing delayed
US mortgage agency Fannie Mae will not file its third-quarter earnings report on time, and may be hit with approximately a $9.0 billion loss if an investigation into its accounting practices reveals it did not qualify for hedge accounting, the organisation announced yesterday.
According to the mortgage giant, completion of the review by KPMG is subject to resolution of its accounting issues and the independent auditor’s “completion of certain other procedures, including its evaluation of results that are not yet available of the investigation of certain matters in the Ofheo report”, dated September 20.
In addition, Fannie Mae may needs to restate its financial results for previous periods if the Ofheo examination reveals it did not qualify for hedge accounting. “The effect on current and past Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and core business earnings would be significant,” stated Fannie Mae. “If Fannie Mae does not qualify for hedge accounting for all periods since its January 1, 2001 adoption of FAS 133, the company estimates it would be required to record in earnings a net cumulative after-tax loss on its derivatives transactions of approximately $9.0 billion as of September 20, 2004,” the release stated.
Under hedge accounting, an organisation can defer gains and losses to the extent the “hedge” is effective. Under question is whether Fannie Mae wrongly assumed “perfect effectiveness” for many of its hedges.
In related news, Fannie Mae will release its October 2004 Monthly Financial Summary report - containing business volumes, delinquency rates and interest rate risk disclosures - on November 19.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive