IASB published a summary of its June meeting, including the preliminary decisions of the Board. IASB met on June 25, 2020 to discuss the feedback on its exposure draft on interest rate benchmark reform. The exposure draft proposed amendments to IAS 39 and IFRS 9, the old and new standards on financial instruments, respectively; IFRS 7 on disclosures of financial instruments; IFRS 4 on insurance contracts; and IFRS 16 on leases. This is Phase 2 of the IASB project on interest rate benchmark reform. The Board tentatively decided to finalize the effective date proposed in the exposure draft—that is, entities would be required to apply the amendments for annual periods beginning on or after January 01, 2021, with earlier application permitted.
At its meeting, the Board tentatively decided to:
- Finalize without substantial changes the proposals set out in the draft amendments to IFRS 9, IFRS 4, and IFRS 16, with respect to modifications of financial assets and financial liabilities.
- Finalize the proposals in the exposure draft related to the changes required to hedging relationships and clarify that the changes to the hedging relationships have to be made by the end of the reporting period, during which uncertainty with respect to a specific element of the relationship has been resolved.
- Finalize the proposals in the exposure draft, subject to clarifying that the 24-month period applies to the individual alternative benchmark rate and hence begins from the date that an entity designates a particular alternative benchmark rate as the hedged risk for the first time.
- Finalize the transition requirements proposed in the exposure draft with one change to the requirement for reinstating particular discontinued hedging relationships.
- Finalize the proposed amendments in paragraphs 24I–24J of the exposure draft, related to disclosures, subject to changing the amendment proposed in paragraph 24J(b) and deleting the disclosure requirement proposed in paragraph 24J(c) of the exposure draft.
- Clarify that, for the changes required to a hedging instrument, modifications required by the interest rate benchmark reform could be made in ways other than by modifying the contractual terms of the hedging instrument. This could be made as long as the hedging instrument is not de-recognized and the outcome is economically equivalent to modifying the hedging instrument to refer to an alternative benchmark rate.
- Make no substantial changes to the proposals in the exposure draft in response to issues related to classification of financial assets and embedded derivatives.
At the July 2020 Board meeting, IASB plans to discuss feedback on the proposals, in the exposure draft, on accounting for qualifying hedging relationships and groups of items, as well as any sweep issues that may arise. IASB will also discuss beginning the balloting process for the amendments.
Keywords: International, Accounting, Banking, Securities, Insurance, IBOR, Interest Rate Benchmarks, Financial Instruments, IFRS 9, IAS 39, Hedging, Disclosures, Insurance Contracts, IASB
Previous ArticleFCA Further Extends Deadlines for Certain Returns Amid COVID Crisis
BIS published a paper that provides an overview on the use of big data and machine learning in the central bank community.
APRA finalized the reporting standard ARS 115.0 on capital adequacy with respect to the standardized measurement approach to operational risk for authorized deposit-taking institutions in Australia.
ECB published a guide that outlines the principles and methods for calculating the penalties for regulatory breaches of prudential requirements by banks.
MAS and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) jointly issued a paper that sets out good practices for the management of operational and other risks stemming from new work arrangements adopted by financial institutions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR announced that a new data collection application, called DLPP (Datalake for Prudential), for collecting banking and insurance prudential data will go into production on April 12, 2021.
BCB announced that the Financial Stability Committee decided to maintain the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) for Brazil at 0%, at least until the end of 2021.
EIOPA has launched a European-wide comparative study on non-life underwriting risk in internal models, also kicking-off of the data collection phase.
SRB published an overview of the resolution tools available in the Banking Union and their impact on a bank’s ability to maintain continuity of access to financial market infrastructure services in resolution.
EBA is consulting on the implementing technical standards for Pillar 3 disclosures on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks, as set out in requirements under Article 449a of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
ESAs Issue Advice on KPIs on Sustainability for Nonfinancial Reporting