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.
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
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
Fed to move tailored-capital goalposts soon, says Bowman
Banks hope agencies will index triggers for harsher capital rules to economic growth
Will SEC reporting proposal supercharge alt data providers?
Move that would allow companies to opt out of quarterly reporting disclosures welcomed
EU lawmaker calls for review of Luxembourg’s cross-border rules
Grand Duchy accused of side-stepping rules aimed at prising away banking business from London
Un-American or un-JPM? Surcharge rethink divides G-Sibs
Some see sense in rethink to funding indicator, others call for a backtrack