IFRS 9 Financial Instruments Follow-up to European field-tests This is a follow-up to the 2012-2013 field-tests on the proposed classification and measurement, impairment and general hedging requirements of IFRS 9. This exercise is being carried out by EFRAG in partnership with the ANC, ASCG, FRC and the OIC. This questionnaire has been sent to respondents to the three 2012-2013 field-tests, European banking and insurance associations and European National Standard Setters. All responses are welcomed: please feel free to pass on this questionnaire to other interested parties. EFRAG staff will aggregate the results of all the questionnaires received on an anonymous basis and only a list of companies who participated in the study will be provided as an appendix. If you explicitly request it, the name of your company will not be included. EFRAG and your National Standard Setter, if applicable, will have access to the information that you provide in response to this questionnaire. Your response will be also shared with the other partner National Standard Setters on an anonymous basis (i.e. participant’s identity will remain confidential). The full EFRAG field-work policy is available on the EFRAG website. Background 1 In 2013 EFRAG and the National Standard Setters (ANC, ASCG, FRC and the OIC) carried out a field-test on the proposed classification and measurement requirements for financial assets contained within IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, as amended by the Exposure Draft Classification and Measurement (Limited Amendments to IFRS 9). The field-test report was published on 17 June 2013 and is available on EFRAG’s website. 2 In 2013 EFRAG and the National Standard Setters (ANC, ASCG, FRC and the OIC) carried out a field-test on the proposed impairment requirements in the IASB Exposure Draft Expected Credit Losses. The field-test report was published on 19 July 2013 and is available on EFRAG’s website. 3 In 2012, EFRAG and the National Standard Setters (ANC, ASCG, FRC and the OIC) carried out a field-test on the Review Draft Hedge accounting. In addition a consultation was held on the transition from IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement to IFRS 9 for macro-hedging practices. The field-test report was published on 24 July 2013 and is available on EFRAG’s website. Objective of this questionnaire 4 These field-tests identified a number of concerns regarding the proposals. EFRAG and the partner National Standard Setters wish to identify to what extent these concerns are still applicable after the publication of the final IFRS 9 in July 2014. 1 Field-test follow-up questionnaire 5 The results from this questionnaire will be used as input into the process of endorsement. What you are invited to do 6 The EFRAG staff has developed this questionnaire to facilitate the data collection effort and processing of findings. The questionnaire asks you to report on the tentative results and conclusions of your internal assessment regarding the new requirements. 7 Please document your observations and findings in English in the sections specified. If you have any questions about how to document in this questionnaire, please contact your designated point of contact. Participants are encouraged to contact their own national standard setter (as per the table below) where possible; otherwise participants should contact EFRAG. 8 This questionnaire collects both qualitative and quantitative data. If you are not able to provide quantitative data at this time, we would appreciate receiving your qualitative input. 9 Participants are asked to send the questionnaire to their designated point of contact and to EFRAG. Preferably, this should be before 31 December 2014. If you are not able to respond by this time, please advise if you will be able to complete the questionnaire by 31 March 2015 and when you expect to be able to do so. Country Organisation Contact name Phone number E-mail address All countries EFRAG Didier Andries Benjamin Reilly +32-22104400 didier.andries@efrag.org benjamin.reilly@efrag.org France ANC Thiery Hervé +33 1 53 44 28 77 herve.thiery@anc.gouv.fr Germany ASCG Jan-Velten Grosse +49-3020641223 grosse@drsc.de UK FRC Seema Jamil-O’Neill +44-20-7492-2422 s.jamiloneill@frc.org.uk Italy OIC Roberta Luly +39-06-6976681 rluly@fondazioneoic.it Outline of the questionnaire 10 This questionnaire contains: (a) general questions about your organisation: (b) questions on the classification and measurement requirements and what their impact would be; (c) questions on the impairment requirements and their implementation; (d) an overall question on the general hedge accounting requirements. 11 Each section comprises a targeted set of questions. EFRAG and the National Standard Setters encourage participants to respond to all parts of the questionnaire. 12 We appreciate that participants might not respond to some of the questions, because questions are not applicable, information might not be available, the expected impact is immaterial or participants do not wish to answer certain questions. We ask you to respond only to those questions that are applicable in your circumstances and for which you have some information (even if that information is only an early estimate), and indicate the reason for not responding to a question. 13 The purpose of this field test is to gain an understanding of the impact of IFRS 9 and any implementation challenges. In the conclusions to be drawn from this questionnaire more weight will be given to responses that are substantiated by facts and analysis. 2 Questionnaire General questions and contact information Q1 Please provide the following details about your company: (a) Name of the group with IFRS consolidated financial statements. (b) Country where the parent company is located. (c) Size of the company: total balance sheet, total sales, total net income, net interest income, number of employees (please indicate the financial period to which the information relates). (d) Main activities carried out by the company. (e) Contact details including email address. (f) If you do not wish your organisation/company’s name to be included in the list of participants, please indicate so here. 3 Content of this questionnaire Part 1 – Classification and Measurement ....................................................................5 Part 2 – Expected Credit Losses ............................................................................... 16 Part 3 – General Hedge Accounting .......................................................................... 19 Part 4 – Overall assessment of IFRS 9 ..................................................................... 20 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to Expected Credit Losses .... 21 4 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Entity’s progress in the impact assessment Q2 To what extent is it possible to provide information on the quantitative impact? How much progress have you made in assessing the impact of IFRS 9? How likely it that any details provided in this section will be materially different to the final outcome? When do you think you will be in a position to estimate, with reasonable accuracy, the final quantitative impact? Follow-up from previous field-testing - instruments expected to be assessed as having cashflows that are not SPPI The SPPI assessment 14 Paragraphs BC4.12 – BC4.25 of IFRS 9 describe how the contractual cashflows assessment is a way of determining whether a financial asset has ‘basic loan features’ and is therefore (subject to the entity’s business model for managing the financial assets) measured at amortised cost (or Fair Value through OCI). 15 One of the purposes of this questionnaire is to determine whether the IFRS 9 assessment of a financial asset’s contractual cashflows accords with constituents’ views as what should be categorised as basic lending instruments. The field-test results 16 The 2013 field-test identified a large number of classes of instruments currently held as amortised cost that were expected to be assessed as having cashflows that were not SPPI, which would result in those instruments being required to be held at FVPL. Some of these instruments were viewed as basic lending instruments and the IASB subsequently made changes to the guidance on the application of the SPPI test. 17 The EFRAG staff have considered the impact of these changes on each broad class of instruments (see table on following pages) and EFRAG would like to know if this is consistent with your own analysis. 5 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Instruments currently held at amortised cost that were expected to be assessed as having cashflows that are not SPPI 18 The descriptions in the following table are based on responses to the 2013 field-test (and in particular, Question 11 of that field-test). 19 In doing the assessment the EFRAG staff has not, unless explicitly stated, considered contractual cashflows determined to be ‘de minimis’ and therefore not part of the SPPI test in accordance with paragraph B4.1.18. Q3 To what extent is the assessment in the table below applicable to the financial instruments in your portfolio(s)? Please explain. Description (per fieldtest participants) [see following table for further details] EFRAG staff commentary1 on whether changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test impact are likely to impact the SPPI assessment. Financial assets with interest rate mismatch features Changes to IFRS 9 could impact the SPPI assessment. Based on paragraph B4.1.9A-C an assessment would need to be made on whether the undiscounted contractual cashflows were – or could be – significantly different to the cashflows where the time value of money element of interest was not modified. 1 Do you agree with this commentary? Please explain. Do you view these instruments as basic lending instruments? How do you manage these instruments (e.g. banking book, fair value)? Approximate proportion of banking book (if instrument no longer offered/likely to be withdrawn please indicate). This commentary by the EFRAG staff is based around their understanding of IFRS 9 and the contractual characteristics of the various broad classes of instruments as they were described by respondents to the 2013 field-test. Nothing stated should be taken as an interpretation of the requirements of IFRS 9 or of how the cashflows of specific financial instruments should or will be assessed. 6 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description (per fieldtest participants) [see following table for further details] EFRAG staff commentary1 on whether changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test impact are likely to impact the SPPI assessment. Do you agree with this commentary? Please explain. Do you view these instruments as basic lending instruments? How do you manage these instruments (e.g. banking book, fair value)? Approximate proportion of banking book (if instrument no longer offered/likely to be withdrawn please indicate). This assessment would require a qualitative and/or quantitative judgement.. Financial assets with regulated interest rates These would now be assessed as being SPPI. New guidance for regulated interest rates in paragraph B4.1.9E means that a regulated interest rate can be considered as a proxy for the time value of money element for the purpose of applying the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). Securitisation vehicles (e.g. asset-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations) There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Credit-linked products There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these 7 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description (per fieldtest participants) [see following table for further details] EFRAG staff commentary1 on whether changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test impact are likely to impact the SPPI assessment. Do you agree with this commentary? Please explain. Do you view these instruments as basic lending instruments? How do you manage these instruments (e.g. banking book, fair value)? Approximate proportion of banking book (if instrument no longer offered/likely to be withdrawn please indicate). instruments. Subordinated debt securities There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Financial assets with prepayment and call options These may potentially be assessed as being SPPI. The guidance in paragraph B4.1.11(b) makes it clear that an option to prepay/require repayment is a contractual term consistent with SPPI. Financial assets with automatic early redemption rights These may potentially be assessed as being SPPI. If the early redemption (contractual cashflows) are triggered by an event that is consistent with (for example) an increase in credit risk, paragraph B4.1.10 indicates that this is consistent with the cashflows being SPPI. 8 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description (per fieldtest participants) [see following table for further details] EFRAG staff commentary1 on whether changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test impact are likely to impact the SPPI assessment. Financial assets with prepayment above fair value These may potentially be assessed as being SPPI. Paragraph B4.1.11 indicates that prepayment amounts can include reasonable additional compensation for the early termination of the contract. Debt-instruments with non-vanilla features These may potentially be assessed as being SPPI., if the non-vanilla features are assessed as being de minimis. Paragraph B4.1.18 now includes additional guidance on determining which contractual cashflows to include in the assessment. Financial assets with participation features There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Shared appreciation mortgages There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 Do you agree with this commentary? Please explain. Do you view these instruments as basic lending instruments? How do you manage these instruments (e.g. banking book, fair value)? Approximate proportion of banking book (if instrument no longer offered/likely to be withdrawn please indicate). 9 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description (per fieldtest participants) [see following table for further details] EFRAG staff commentary1 on whether changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test impact are likely to impact the SPPI assessment. Do you agree with this commentary? Please explain. Do you view these instruments as basic lending instruments? How do you manage these instruments (e.g. banking book, fair value)? Approximate proportion of banking book (if instrument no longer offered/likely to be withdrawn please indicate). since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Preference shares (regarded as debt instruments) There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Financial assets with derivatives bifurcated under IAS 39 There have been no relevant changes to IFRS 9 since the field-test that would impact the assessment of these instruments. Other (please describe) 10 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Further information about these descriptions Description Detail (as described by field-test participants) Financial assets with interest rate mismatch features Financial assets which are market standard products in their relevant jurisdictions, but contain a modified economic relationship between principal and interest that could be ‘more than insignificant’. The contractual interest rate may be calculated by reference to rates in previous periods or averages of the rates for various payment frequencies. Examples of such instruments include: retail mortgages with rates based on three-month Euribor with yearly resetting; retail mortgages with monthly payments but contractual rates based on the average of 12-month Euribor in the month preceding the reset. retail mortgages with monthly payments where the contractual interest rate is ‘lagged’ and based on the market rate in a previous period; loans with variable interest rates reset quarterly to the one-month rate; loans with variable interest rates that reset semi-annually to a three-month rate; loans with a variable interest rate based on the secondary market rate for an indefinite period; and perpetual debt instruments with indexed interest rate that is not connected to a specific period of time. Financial assets with regulated interest rates. These instruments are common in various jurisdictions, including constant maturity rate loans in China, ‘Livret A’ receivables in France and other financial assets with regulated interest rates in European jurisdictions. Securitisation vehicles (e.g. asset-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations) The underlying instruments give rise to payments other than principal and interest. In addition, the exposure to credit risk of the financial assets (tranches) may be higher than the exposure to credit risk of the underlying pool of financial instruments. Credit-linked products Some of these financial assets have limited synthetic exposures which may result in the 11 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description Detail (as described by field-test participants) underlying cash pool not meeting the requirements in IFRS 9. Subordinated debt securities Non-payment would not constitute a breach of the contract and the holder did not have a contractual right to unpaid amounts of principal and interest even in the event of the debtor’s bankruptcy. Financial assets with prepayment and call options Prepayment and call options triggered by breaches of covenants. Financial assets with automatic early redemption rights These include ‘cash-sweep’ features linked to credit deterioration of the issuer. Financial assets with prepayment above fair value These allow the issuer to prepay the instrument above its fair value, for example, when the prepayment amount is based on the outstanding coupons and principal and discounted using a non-current rate. Debt-instruments with non-vanilla features Particular examples provided by participants in the field-test were deep out of the money convertible bonds, financial assets with a fixed annual interest payment and an insignificant expected annual dividend payment, and financial assets with changes of the size of the coupon and/or principal payments driven by the performance of the issuer (e.g. revenues, EBITDA or net income). Financial assets with participation features Frequently included as part of loan restructurings, they may contain features that provide returns other than payments of principal and interest (e.g. profit or property participation rights) Shared appreciation mortgages As part of retail business certain loans could be issued with a low interest rate on the basis that the entity would participate in the appreciation of the property, reflecting returns that are not just payments of interest. Preference shares (regarded as debt instruments) Instruments with coupons fixed for a period of time, If the instrument is not redeemed a variable interest rate with a fixed step-up is paid annually and after a certain time period the issuer is obliged to pay all unpaid coupons. Financial assets with derivatives bifurcated under IAS 39 Examples include: 12 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Description Detail (as described by field-test participants) Convertible bonds with an equity derivative; Commodity linked coupons; Fully funded total return swaps; Credit linked notes; Loans with an in the money interest rate floor; Structured loans; Investments in money market instruments; Financial debt securities with leverage and constant maturity swap features; and Structured debt securities with returns linked to interest rates. 13 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Other basic lending instruments Q4 Are there any other financial assets you view as basic lending instruments that you believe will be assessed as having cashflows that are not SPPI? If so, what are they and how have you reached this conclusion? Other banking book assets Q5 Are there any other financial assets you manage as part of the banking book that you believe will be assessed as having cashflows that are not SPPI? If so, what are they and how have you reached this conclusion? Qualitative impact assessment Q6 Do you hold a significant number of financial assets that you view as being basic lending instruments and/or managed as part of the banking book but that are unlikely to be assessed as meeting the SPPI test in IFRS 9? Please explain. In addition, approximately what proportion of your overall banking book are they and what level of the fair-value hierarchy do you expect them to be? Implications for lending practices Q7 If you have identified any instruments in response to Q4 or Q5 above do you expect any changes to be made in respect of these products (either to their contractual terms or their availability)? Please explain. Impact Assessment of Classification and Measurement requirements Financial assets – debt instruments 20 EFRAG is interested in the overall quantitative impact of moving from IAS 39 to IFRS 9 and whether it is possible to assess the impact at this stage. Q8 Approximately what proportion of each IAS 39 balance sheet category do you expect to be assessed as SPPI or not SPPI? Expected to be assessed as Currently SPPI Not SPPI Loans and receivables Held to Maturity AFS debt instruments Financial assets – equity instruments 21 EFRAG is interested in the impact of the removal of the exemption from fair value measurement for equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market and whose fair value cannot be reliably determined. 14 Part 1 – Classification and Measurement Q9 What is the impact of removing this exemption? (a) Do you view the impact of removing this exemption as significant or not? Please explain. (b) What is the current cost and impairment of equity instruments held at cost because they do not have a quoted market price in an active market and their fair value cannot be reliably determined? (c) What is the estimated fair value of such equity instruments? Other comments Q10 Do you have any other comments regarding the impact of the classification and measurement requirements of IFRS 9? 15 Part 2 – Expected Credit Losses Overall question Q11 What is the status of your assessment of the implications of the impairment requirements of IFRS 9? Please explain. Q12 When do you expect to have a (materially) complete understanding of the impairment requirements of IFRS 9? Please explain. Internal risk management Q13 To what extent can your internal risk management be relied upon to provide the necessary input for calculating the expected credit losses? Do you have forwardlooking information available in your internal risk management systems and are you able apply it for IFRS 9 impairment purposes? Please identify the present and expected status in the table below and provide explanations and comments. Internal risk management system Currently In the future Fully in line with IFRS 9 Partly in line with IFRS 9 Not in line with IFRS 9 Please provide further explanations and comments on your assessment in the table above. Undue cost and effort Q14 To what an extent can the current internal risk management system be relied on to accommodate the application of IFRS 9? Please explain. What additional systems need to be put in place? If so, what is the implementation cost of the additional system? Please explain. What is the ongoing cost of the new system, once implemented? Is the ongoing cost significantly more than what is currently in place? Please explain. 16 Part 2 – Expected Credit Losses EFRAG staff comments on changes to requirements 22 Attached below (see Appendix from page 21) are comments from the EFRAG staff on issues identified during the field-test and subsequent changes to IFRS 9. The EFRAG staff’s tentative view is that most of the issues raised have been addressed. Q15 Do you agree with the EFRAG staff’s tentative view, in particular where it is stated that the issue was resolved? Please explain. Your analysis of impact of Expected Credit Losses Q16 Could you describe and if possible quantify the result of your initial modelling of the effect on provisions?2 In doing so, please indicate for each portfolio, whether you expect to use the relief provided for in the transition requirements. Please explain. Relief Type of portfolio Y/N Lower >25% 0-25% Higher 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% >100% Loans to local, regional and central governments Loans to corporates Loans secured on real estate property Retail loans Loans to credit institutions and investment firms Other loans Total loans Debt securities (making use of external ratings) Debt securities (making use of internal ratings) Purchased or originated credit impaired assets Lease receivables Trade receivables Financial guarantees and loan commitments Please provide further explanations and comments: Q17 Do you expect any impact of the new impairment guidance of IFRS 9 on the availability of specific financial products and/or on their pricing? Please explain. 2 The quantitative data provided in response to this question will be treated in a confidential way and in accordance with the EFRAG field-work policy, as well as all other information provided in response to this questionnaire. 17 Part 2 – Expected Credit Losses Q18 Do you have any other comments on the Expected Credit Losses requirements in IFRS 9? 18 Part 3 – General Hedge Accounting 23 Based on the overall positive reactions from constituents during the consultation process, EFRAG thinks that no further field-testing for general hedge accounting is required. For this reason we include only one overall question on this issue in the questionnaire. Q19 Do you have any remaining concerns relating to the implementation of the general hedge accounting requirements? Please explain. 19 Part 4 – Overall assessment of IFRS 9 Q20 When considering the requirements of IFRS 9, do you have any overall comments on the standard not addressed elsewhere in this questionnaire? Please explain. 20 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to Expected Credit Losses Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment Significant increase in credit risk 1 Participants in the field-test had the following requests IFRS 9 paragraph 5.5.9 notes that ‘At each reporting Issue resolved. for additional guidance: date, an entity shall assess whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition. When making the assessment, an Determining the principle of transfer; How to define the threshold for the recognition of entity shall use the change in the risk of a default occurring over the expected life of the financial lifetime expected credit losses; and The practical expedients that could be used to instrument instead of the change in the amount of expected credit losses. To make that assessment, an make the assessment. entity shall compare the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the reporting date with the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the date of initial recognition and consider reasonable and supportable information, that is available without undue cost or effort, that is indicative of significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition.’ IFRS 9 paragraph B5.5.5 notes that ‘For the purpose of determining significant increases in credit risk and recognising a loss allowance on a collective basis, an entity can group financial instruments on the basis of shared credit risk characteristics with the objective of facilitating an analysis that is designed to enable significant increases in credit risk to be identified on a timely basis.’ IFRS 9 paragraph B5.5.7 notes that ‘The assessment of whether lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised is based on significant increases in the 21 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment likelihood or risk of a default occurring since initial recognition (irrespective of whether a financial instrument has been repriced to reflect an increase in credit risk) instead of on evidence of a financial asset being creditimpaired at the reporting date or an actual default occurring. Generally, there will be a significant increase in credit risk before a financial asset becomes creditimpaired or an actual default occurs.’ The Implementation Guidance provides, amongst others, examples clarifying: (a) a significant increase in credit risk; (b) when no significant increase in credit risk occurs; (c) the responsiveness to changes in credit risk; (d) the comparison with maximum initial credit risk; and (e) the counterparty assessment of credit risk. 12 month and lifetime expected credit losses 2 Operational difficulties in applying the proposed IFRS 9 paragraphs B5.5.49 to B5.5.54 explain which Issue resolved. definitions related to the availability of data, adjustments information is to be used for estimating expected credit to their existing risk management systems and losses. estimating the lifetime probability of default. For the purpose of this Standard, reasonable and supportable information is that which is reasonably available at the reporting date without undue cost or effort, including information about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions. Information that is available for financial reporting purposes is considered to be available without undue cost or effort. 22 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment An entity is not required to incorporate forecasts of future conditions over the entire expected life of a financial instrument. The degree of judgement that is required to estimate expected credit losses depends on the availability of detailed information. An entity need not undertake an exhaustive search for information but shall consider all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that is relevant to the estimate of expected credit losses, including the effect of expected prepayments. Historical information is an important anchor or base from which to measure expected credit losses. However, an entity shall adjust historical data, such as credit loss experience, on the basis of current observable data to reflect the effects of the current conditions and its forecasts of future conditions that did not affect the period on which the historical data is based, and to remove the effects of the conditions in the historical period that are not relevant to the future contractual cash flows. When using historical credit loss experience in estimating expected credit losses, it is important that information about historical credit loss rates is applied to groups that are defined in a manner that is consistent with the groups for which the historical credit loss rates were observed. Expected credit losses reflect an entity’s own expectations of credit losses. However, when considering 23 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment all reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort in estimating expected credit losses, an entity should also consider observable market information about the credit risk of the particular financial instrument or similar financial instruments. 12-month expected credit losses are defined as ‘The portion of lifetime expected credit losses that represent the expected credit losses that result from default events on a financial instrument that are possible within the 12 months after the reporting date.’ 3 Adjusting the regulatory parameters to comply with the definitions of the ED would be operationally difficult, in particular as the advanced Internal Ratings Based models were based on through-the-cycle probabilities of default. IFRS 9 paragraph BC5.283 notes that ‘The IASB notes that financial reporting, including estimates of expected credit losses, are based on information, circumstances and events at the reporting date. The IASB expects entities to be able to use some regulatory measures as a basis for the calculation of expected credit losses in accordance with the requirements in IFRS 9. However, these calculations may have to be adjusted to meet the measurement requirements in Section 5.5 of IFRS 9. Only information that is available without undue cost or effort and supportable at the reporting date should be considered. This may include information about current economic conditions as well as reasonable and supportable forecasts of future economic conditions, as long as the information is supportable and available without undue cost or effort when the estimates are made.’ Issue not applicable. Financial reporting has a different purpose than regulatory models. 24 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment 4 Applying a standardised definition of default to different IFRS 9 paragraph 5.5.37 notes that “When defining Issue resolved. individual portfolio characteristics would be difficult default for the purposes of determining the risk of a default occurring, an entity shall apply a default definition that is consistent with the definition used for internal credit risk management purposes for the relevant financial instrument and consider qualitative indicators (for example, financial covenants) when appropriate. However, there is a rebuttable presumption that default does not occur later than when a financial asset is 90 days past due unless an entity has reasonable and supportable information to demonstrate that a more lagging default criterion is more appropriate.” 5 Greater clarity should be provided in respect of IFRS 9 paragraph B5.5.40 notes that ‘When determining Issue resolved. provisioning for revolving credit products which could be the period over which the entity is expected to be withdrawn at short notice. exposed to credit risk, but for which expected credit losses would not be mitigated by the entity’s normal credit risk management actions, an entity should consider factors such as historical information and experience about: (a) the period over which the entity was exposed to credit risk on similar financial instruments; (b) the length of time for related defaults to occur on similar financial instruments following a significant increase in credit risk; and (c) the credit risk management actions that an entity expects to take once the credit risk on the financial instrument has increased, such as the reduction or removal of undrawn limits’ Low credit risk 25 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test 6 The proposed definition would be applicable only to debt securities and counterparties assessed by rating agencies, rather than to retail portfolios where delinquency information would be more relevant to assess changes in credit risk. Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment IFRS 9 paragraph B5.5.23 notes that ‘To determine Issue resolved. whether a financial instrument has low credit risk, an entity may use its internal credit risk ratings or other methodologies that are consistent with a globally understood definition of low credit risk and that consider the risks and the type of financial instruments that are being assessed. An external rating of ‘investment grade’ is an example of a financial instrument that may be considered as having low credit risk. However, financial instruments are not required to be externally rated to be considered to have low credit risk. They should, however, be considered to have low credit risk from a market participant perspective taking into account all of the terms and conditions of the financial instrument.’ 30 days past due 7 No operational difficulties reported but the threshold was IFRS 9 paragraphs B5.5.19 and B5.5.20 note that ‘The Issue partly resolved. found to be too conservative, possibly leading to rebuttable presumption in paragraph 5.5.11 is not an volatility. absolute indicator that lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised, but is presumed to be the latest point at which lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised even when using forward-looking information (including macroeconomic factors on a portfolio level). An entity can rebut this presumption.’ Responsiveness of the general model to changes in the economic environment 8 By using a point-in-time probability of default instead of a IFRS 9 paragraph BC5.285 notes that ‘The IASB notes through-the-cycle probability of default, the proposed that the objective of the impairment requirements is to model would exhibit high pro-cyclicality. faithfully represent the economic reality of expected credit losses in relation to the carrying amount of a financial asset. The IASB does not include in this The issue is not in line with the primary objective of general purpose financial 26 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? objective the recognition of a loss allowance that will sufficiently cover unexpected credit losses, because that is not the primary objective of general purpose financial reporting.’ EFRAG staff comment reporting. Purchased credit impaired financial assets 9 To be clarified when originated credit impaired assets IFRS 9 paragraphs BC5.214 to BC5220 provide further Issue resolved. exist. information on originated credit-impaired assets. IFRS 9 paragraph BC5.216 notes that ‘In confirming that a financial asset could be credit-impaired on origination the IASB focussed on the potential for the modification of contractual cash flows to result in derecognition. The IASB considered an example in which a substantial modification of a distressed asset resulted in derecognition of the original financial asset. Such a case is an example of the rare situation in which a newly originated financial asset may be credit-impaired—it would be possible for the modification to constitute objective evidence that the new asset is credit-impaired at initial recognition.’ Disclosures 10 IFRS 9 paragraph BCE.166 notes that ‘Respondents to Issue resolved. the 2013 Impairment Exposure Draft were concerned that Reconciliation between opening and closing this disclosure would be operationally too challenging. balance of the gross carrying amount; and Given the feedback raised on operational concerns, the IASB made the disclosure less prescriptive and more principle-based by clarifying that its objective is to provide Disclosures by credit risk grades. information about the significant changes in the gross carrying amount that contributed to changes in the loss Disclosures which were found the most complex were: 27 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment allowance during the period. In particular, the disclosures are intended to enable users of the financial statements to differentiate between the effects of changes in the amount of exposure (for example, those due to increased lending) and the effect of changes in credit risk. The IASB considers that the requirement, as clarified, is less operationally burdensome but still provides useful information to users of financial statements.’ IFRS 9 paragraph BC48FF notes that ‘Some respondents to the 2013 Impairment Exposure Draft also commented that the disclosure was incompatible with the credit risk management practices for some asset classes and for non-financial entities, and noted that the disclosure should be aligned with an entity’s internal credit risk approach. In the light of this feedback the Board decided to remove the requirement to provide a disaggregation across a minimum of three credit risk rating grades, and instead require that the disaggregation to be aligned with how credit risk is managed internally. The Board additionally decided to permit the use of an ageing analysis for financial assets for which delinquency information is the only borrower-specific information available to assess significant increases in credit risk.’ Effective date and transition 11 IFRS 9 paragraph 7.1.1 notes that ‘An entity shall apply A three year this Standard for annual periods beginning on or after 1 implementation period The implementation dates of IFRS 9 and IFRS 4 were to January 2018. Earlier application is permitted.’ is granted. be aligned. IFRS 9 paragraph 7.32 notes that ‘The IASB will consider Deferred pending the A three year implementation period was requested. 28 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment in developing the new IFRS 4 whether to provide an new IFRS 4. option for insurers to reclassify some or all financial assets when they first apply the new IFRS 4. This would be similar to the option in paragraph 45 of IFRS 4 and paragraph D4 of IFRS 1. The IASB included such an option in IFRS 4 for reasons that may be equally valid for phase II.’ Impairment-related modifications and write-offs 12 Operational problems highlighted were related to the identification of modified financial assets and the recalculation of the gross carrying amount on the basis of the modified cash flows. IFRS 9 paragraphs BC5.231 to BC5.235 note that ‘The IFRS 9 confirms the IASB also proposed in the 2013 Impairment Exposure proposals in the 2013 Draft that the modification requirements should apply to Impairment ED. all modifications or renegotiations of the contractual cash flows of financial instruments. Although most respondents supported the proposals, some noted that they would have preferred that the requirements be limited to modifications of credit-impaired assets or modifications undertaken for credit risk management purposes. These respondents believed that the proposed requirements do not represent the economics of modifications performed for commercial or other reasons that are unrelated to credit risk management. The full reasoning of the IASB can be found in paragraphs BC5.232 to BC5.234 of IFRS 9. The IASB decided to confirm the proposals in the 2013 Impairment Exposure Draft that the modification requirements should apply to all modifications or renegotiations of the contractual terms of financial instruments. 29 ECL Appendix – EFRAG staff comments on changes to impairment requirements Issue identified in the field-test Addressed by the final standard? EFRAG staff comment Trade receivables and lease receivables 13 Estimating 12-months’ and lifetime expected credit losses was expected to be challenging. Challenges related to the amount, availability and processing of data. IFRS 9 paragraph B5.5.35 notes that ‘An entity may use Issue resolved. practical expedients when measuring expected credit losses if they are consistent with the principles in paragraph 5.5.17. An example of a practical expedient is the calculation of the expected credit losses on trade receivables using a provision matrix.’ 30 31