Komisyonca
İngilizce
Terim
Servicing
rights
Surrogate
measure
Probable
maximum
loss
Straight debt
Terimin UFRS’de Geçtiği Yerler
Önerilen
Karşılıklar
(IAS 38.9) Common examples of items encompassed by these broad headings are computer software, patents,
copyrights, motion picture films, customer lists, mortgage servicing rights, fishing licences, import quotas,
franchises, customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, market share and marketing rights.
(IAS 39.BC140) The Board also considered whether IAS 39 should permit the interest rate risk portion of loan
servicing rights to be designated as the hedged item.
(IFRS 2.BC92) However, if the fair value of the services received is not readily determinable, then a surrogate
measure must be used, such as the fair value of the share options or shares granted. This is the case for employee
services.
(IFRS 2.BC126) The Board considered whether the delivery (service) date fair value of the equity instruments
granted provided a better surrogate measure of the fair value of the goods or services received from parties
other than employees than the grant date fair value of those instruments.
(IFRS 4.BC222) Some suggested that an insurer—particularly a general insurer—should disclose the probable
maximum loss (PML) that it would expect if a reasonably extreme event occurred. For example, an insurer
might disclose the loss that it would suffer from a severe earthquake of the kind that would be expected to recur
every one hundred years, on average. However, given the lack of a widely agreed definition of PML, the Board
concluded that it is not feasible to require disclosure of PML or similar measures.
(IFRS 7.BC49) The following diagram illustrates the joint value arising from the interaction between a call
option and an equity conversion option in a callable convertible bond. Circle L represents the value of the
liability component, ie the value of the straight debt and the embedded call option on the straight debt, and
Circle E represents the value of the equity component, ie the equity conversion option on the straight debt.
LL
ödeme veya tahsil
etme hakları
ikincil ölçüm
olası azami
kayıp/zarar
yalın borç, borcun
kendisi
E
Enforcement
of covenants
(IFRS 7.IG26) Past due does not mean that a counterparty will never pay, but it can trigger various actions such
as renegotiation, enforcement of covenants, or legal proceedings.
Leveraged
(IFRS 8.IG38) For example, an entity may acquire a zero-cost interest rate collar that includes an out-of-the-
sözleşme şartlarının
zorlanması,
sözleşme şartlarının
yerine getirtilmesi
kaldıraçlı satılmış
Öneri
written option
money leveraged written option (eg the entity pays ten times the amount of the difference between a specified
interest rate floor and the current market interest rate).
rated and
unrated credit
exposures
Speculative
grade
(IFRS 7.IG24) When the entity considers external ratings when managing and monitoring credit quality, the
entity might disclose information about:
(c) the amount of an entity’s rated and unrated credit exposures;
(IFRS 7.IG18) if an entity’s counterparties are concentrated in one or more credit qualities (such as secured
loans or unsecured loans) or in one or more credit ratings (such as investment grade or speculative grade), it
would disclose separately exposure to risks arising from each concentration of counterparties.
(IFRS 7.IG34) For interest rate risk, the sensitivity analysis might show separately the effect of a change in
market interest rates on:
(a) interest income and expense;
(b) other line items of profit or loss (such as trading gains and losses); and
(c) when applicable, equity.
(IFRS 7.IG38) For example, an entity may acquire a zero-cost interest rate collar that includes an out-of-themoney leveraged written option (eg the entity pays ten times the amount of the difference between a specified
interest rate floor and the current market interest rate).
(IFRS 8.BC44) The Board concluded that a ‘competitive harm’ exemption would be inappropriate because it
would provide a means for broad non-compliance with the IFRS. The Board noted that entities would be unlikely
to suffer competitive
harm from the required disclosures since most competitors have sources of detailed information about an entity
other than its financial statements.
(IFRS 8.BC Appendix.44) The Board decided to require disclosure of significant noncash items included in the
measure of segment profit or loss and information about total expenditures for additions to long-lived segment
assets (other than financial instruments, long-term customer relationships of a financial institution, mortgage and
other servicing rights, deferred policy acquisition costs, and deferred tax assets) if that information is reported
internally because it improves financial statement users’ abilities to estimate cash-generating potential and cash
requirements of operating segments.
(IFRS 8.BC18) Board decided that the scope of the standard should be extended to include entities that hold
assets in a
fiduciary capacity for a broad group of outsiders.
trading gains
and losses
Zero-cost
interest rate
collar
Competitive
harm
exemption
Deferred
policy
acquisition
costs
Fiduciary
capacity
reacquisition
provision
(IFRS 8.BC19) Some respondents to ED 8 commented that the scope of the IFRS should not be extended until
the Board has reached a conclusion on the definitions of ‘fiduciary capacity’ and ‘public accountability’ in the
SMEs project.
(IFRS 9.BCZ3.4) Continuing involvement could be established in two ways: (a) a reacquisition provision (such
as a call option, put option or repurchase agreement) and (b) a provision to pay or receive compensation based on
changes in value of the transferred asset (such as a credit guarantee or net cash-settled option).
opsiyon, opsiyon
satışıyla finanse
edilen
derecelendirilmiş ve
derecelendirilmemiş
kredi riskleri
spekülatif not
alım satım kazanç
ve kayıpları
sıfır maliyetli faiz
koridoru
Ertelenmiş poliçe
üretim maliyetleri
emanete alma yetisi
tekrar satın alma
yükümlülüğü
mixed
attribute
approach
basic loan
features
(IFRS 9.BCZ4.6) Board decided that measuring all financial assets at fair value is not the most appropriate
approach to improving the financial reporting for financial instruments. Accordingly, the exposure draft
published in 2009 proposed that entities should classify financial assets into two primary measurement
categories: amortised cost and fair value (the ‘mixed attribute approach’). The Board noted that both of those
measurement methods can provide useful information to users of financial statements for particular types
of financial assets in particular circumstances.
(IFRS 9.BCZ4.7) Almost all respondents to the exposure draft published in 2009 supported the mixed attribute
approach, stating that amortised cost provides relevant and useful information about particular financial assets in
particular circumstances because it provides information about the entity’s likely actual cash flows.
(IFRS 9.BC4.12) Financial asset would be measured at amortised cost if two conditions were met:
(a) the financial asset has only basic loan features; and
(b) the financial asset is managed on a contractual yield basis.
karma yaklaşım
kredinin temel
şartları, kredinin
temel özellikleri
(IFRS 9.BC4.22) The exposure draft published in 2009 proposed that only financial instruments with basic loan
features could be measured at amortised cost. It specified that a financial instrument has basic loan features if its
contractual terms give rise on specified dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on
the principal amount outstanding.
managed on a
contractual
yield basis
waterfall
structure
(IFRS 9.BC4.13) Most respondents supported classification on the basis of the contractual terms of the financial
asset and how an entity manages groups of financial assets. Although they agreed with the principles proposed in
the exposure draft, some did not agree with the way the approach was described and said that more application
guidance was needed, in particular to address the following issues:
(a) the order in which the two conditions are considered;
(b) how the ‘managed on a contractual yield basis’ condition should be applied; and
(c) how the ‘basic loan features’ condition should be applied.
(IFRS 9.BC4.15) The Board concluded that an entity’s business model affects the predictive quality of
contractual cash flows—ie whether the likely actual cash flows will result primarily from the collection of
contractual cash flows. Accordingly, the exposure draft published in 2009 proposed that a financial asset should
be measured at amortised cost only if it is ‘managed on a contractual yield basis’.
(IFRS 9.BC4.26) A structured investment vehicle may issue different tranches to create a ‘waterfall’ structure
that prioritises the payments by the issuer to the holders of the different tranches. In typical waterfall structures,
multiple contractually linked instruments effect concentrations of credit risk in which payments to holders are
prioritised. Such structures specify the order in which any losses that the issuer incurs are allocated to the
tranches.
(IFRS 9.BC4.29) Almost all respondents disagreed with the approach in the exposure draft for investments in
contractually linked instruments for the following reasons:
sözleşmeli getiri
temelli
look through
financial
assets
acquired at a
discount that
reflects
incurred
credit losses
three-category
approach
originated
loan approach
adjusted fair
value
(a) It focused on form and legal structure rather than the economic characteristics of the financial instruments.
(b) It would create structuring opportunities because of the focus on the existence of a waterfall structure,
without consideration of the characteristics of the underlying instruments.
(c) It would be an exception to the overall classification model, driven by anti-abuse considerations.
(IFRS 9.B4.1.17) The fact that a financial asset is non-recourse does not in itself necessarily preclude the
financial asset from meeting the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(b). In such situations, the creditor is required to
assess (‘look through to’) the particular underlying assets or cash flows to determine whether the contractual
cash flows of the financial asset being classified are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount
outstanding.
(IFRS 9.BC4.33) Board decided that, unless it is impracticable, an entity should ‘look through’ to assess the
underlying cash
flow characteristics of the financial assets and to assess the exposure to credit risk of those financial assets
relative to the underlying pool of instruments.
(IFRS 9.BC4.40) The Board agreed that the general classification approach in IFRS 9 should apply to financial
assets acquired at a discount that reflects incurred credit losses. Thus, when such assets meet the conditions
in paragraph 4.1.2, they are measured at amortised cost.
(IFRS 9.BC4.44) Three-category approach: Some respondents suggested retaining a three-category approach,
ie including a third category similar to the available-for-sale category in IAS 39. However, in the Board’s view,
such an approach would neither significantly improve nor reduce the complexity of the reporting for financial
instruments.
(IFRS 9.BC4.44) Originated loan approach: In developing an approach to distinguish between financial assets
measured at fair value and amortised cost the Board considered a model in which only loans originated by the
entity would qualify for amortised cost measurement. The Board acknowledged that for originated instruments
the entity potentially has better information about the future contractual cash flows and credit risk than for
purchased loans. However, the Board decided not to pursue that approach, mainly because some entities manage
originated and purchased loans in the same portfolio. Distinguishing between originated and purchased loans,
which would be done mainly for accounting purposes, would involve systems changes. In addition, the Board
noted that ‘originated loans’ might easily be created by placing purchased loans into an investment vehicle. The
Board also noted that the definition of loans and receivables in IAS 39 had created application problems in
practice.
(IFRS 9.BC4.47) During the outreach programme, the Board explored several approaches for classification and
subsequent measurement of financial liabilities that would exclude the effects of changes in a liability’s credit
risk from profit or loss, including:
(b) measuring liabilities at an ‘adjusted’ fair value whereby the liability would be remeasured for all changes in
üç kategori
yaklaşımı, üç sınıf
yaklaşımı
borcun doğduğu
işletme yaklaşımı
düzeltilmiş gerçeğe
uygun değer,
uyarlanmış makul
değer
fair value except for the effects of changes in its credit risk (ie ‘the frozen credit spread method’). In other
words, the effects of changes in its credit risk would be ignored in the primary financial statements.
frozen credit
spread
method
full fair value
prudential
supervisors
embedded
prepayment
penalties
repackaging
(IFRS 9.BC4.49) The Board should not develop a new measurement attribute. The almost unanimous view was
that a ‘full’ fair value amount is more understandable and useful than an ‘adjusted’ fair value amount that
ignores the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk.
(IFRS 9.BC4.47) During the outreach programme, the Board explored several approaches for classification and
subsequent measurement of financial liabilities that would exclude the effects of changes in a liability’s credit
risk from profit or loss, including:
(b) measuring liabilities at an ‘adjusted’ fair value whereby the liability would be remeasured for all changes in
fair value except for the effects of changes in its credit risk (ie ‘the frozen credit spread method’). In other
words, the effects of changes in its credit risk would be ignored in the primary financial statements.
(IFRS 9.BC4.49) The Board should not develop a new measurement attribute. The almost unanimous view was
that a ‘full’ fair value amount is more understandable and useful than an ‘adjusted’ fair value amount that
ignores the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk.
(IAS 39.BC6) Accordingly, in 1997 IASC published, jointly with the Canadian Accounting Standards Board, a
discussion paper that proposed a different approach, namely that all financial assets and financial liabilities
should be measured at fair value. The responses to that paper indicated both widespread unease with some of its
proposals and that more work needed to be done before a standard requiring a full fair value approach could be
contemplated.
(IFRS 9.BCZ4.57) Following the issue of IAS 39 (as revised in 2003), as a result of continuing discussions with
constituents on the fair value option, the Board became aware that some, including prudential supervisors of
banks, securities companies and insurers, were concerned that the fair value option might be used
inappropriately.
(IFRS 9.BCZ4.71) The Board recognised that regulated financial institutions are extensive holders and issuers of
financial instruments and so are likely to be among the largest potential users of the fair value option. However,
the Board noted that some of the prudential supervisors that oversee these entities expressed concern that the
fair value option might be used inappropriately.
Embedded prepayment penalties
(IFRS 9.BCZ4.96) The Board identified an apparent inconsistency in the guidance in IAS 39 (as issued in 2003).
The inconsistency related to embedded prepayment options in which the exercise price represented a penalty for
early repayment (ie prepayment) of the loan. The inconsistency related to whether these are considered closely
related to the loan.
(IFRS 9.BCZ5.4) The Board decided to clarify that the objective of fair value measurement is to arrive at the
price at which a
transaction would occur at the balance sheet date in the same instrument (ie without modification or
tam gerçeğe uygun
değer
basiretli idareci,
ihtiyatlı gözetmen,
sağduyulu
gözetmen
yeniden paketleme
repackaging) in the most advantageous active market to which an entity has immediate access. Thus, if a dealer
enters into a derivative instrument with the corporate, but has immediate access to a more advantageously priced
dealers’ market, the entity recognises a profit on initial recognition of the derivative instrument.
recycling
back-out
look through
approach
specifically
identified
cash flows
(IFRS 13.BC167) For example, the following three-level measurement hierarchy was implicit in IAS 39 and
IFRS 9:
(b) financial instruments whose fair value is evidenced by comparison with other observable current market
transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) or based on a valuation technique
whose variables include only data from observable markets
(c) financial instruments whose fair value is determined in whole or in part using a valuation technique based on
assumptions that are not supported by prices from observable current market transactions in the same instrument
(ie without modification or repackaging) and not based on available observable market data.
(IFRS 9.BC5.25) Recycling: Many respondents, including many users, did not support the proposal to prohibit
subsequent transfer (‘recycling’) of fair value changes to profit or loss (on derecognition of the investments in an
equity instrument). Those respondents supported an approach that maintains a distinction between realised and
unrealised gains and losses and said that an entity’s performance should include all realised gains and losses.
However, the Board concluded that a gain or loss on those investments should be recognised once only;
therefore, recognising a gain or loss in other comprehensive income and subsequently transferring it to profit or
loss is inappropriate. In addition, the Board noted that recycling of gains and losses to profit or loss would create
something similar to the available-for-sale category in IAS 39 and would create the requirement to assess the
equity instrument for impairment, which had created application problems. That would not significantly improve
or reduce the complexity of the financial reporting for financial assets. Accordingly, the Board decided to
prohibit recycling of gains and losses into profit or loss when an equity instrument is derecognised.
(IFRS 9.BC5.52) The exposure draft published in 2010 proposed to prohibit reclassification of gains or losses to
profit or loss (on derecognition of the liability or otherwise)—sometimes called ‘recycling’.
IFRS 9.BC5.45) The exposure draft published in 2010 proposed a ‘two-step approach’ for presenting a liability’s
credit risk in the statement of comprehensive income, with the result that those changes would not affect profit or
loss. In the first step, the entity would present the entire fair value change in profit or loss. In the second step, the
entity would ‘back out’ from profit or loss the portion of the fair value change that is attributable to changes in
the liability’s credit risk and present that amount in other comprehensive income.
(IFRS 9.BCG.1)
(d) IFRS 9 requires a ‘look through’ approach for investments in contractually linked instruments that effect
concentrations of credit risk. The exposure draft had proposed that only the most senior tranche could have cash
flows that represented payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.
(IFRS 9.3.2.2) Before evaluating whether, and to what extent, derecognition is appropriate under paragraphs
3.2.3–3.2.9, an entity determines whether those paragraphs should be applied to a part of a financial asset (or a
part of a group of similar financial assets) or a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its
entirety, as follows.
yansıtma
çekilme
kaynağı belli nakit
akışları
fully
proportionate
(pro rata)
share of the
cash flows
eventual
recipients
(a) Paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets)
if, and only if, the part being considered for derecognition meets one of the following three conditions.
(i) The part comprises only specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar
financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an interest rate strip whereby the counterparty obtains
the right to the interest cash flows, but not the principal cash flows from a debt instrument, paragraphs 3.2.3–
3.2.9 are applied to the interest cash flows.
(ii) The part comprises only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of the cash flows from a financial asset (or a
group of
similar financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an arrangement whereby the counterparty
obtains the rights to a 90 per cent share of all cash flows of a debt instrument, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied
to 90 per cent of those cash flows. If there is more than one counterparty, each counterparty is not required to
have a proportionate share of the cash flows provided that the transferring entity has a fully proportionate share.
(iii) The part comprises only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of specifically identified cash flows from a
financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an arrangement
whereby the counterparty obtains the rights to a 90 per cent share of interest cash flows from a financial asset,
paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to 90 per cent of those interest cash flows. If there is more than one
counterparty, each counterparty is not required to have a proportionate share of the specifically identified cash
flows provided that the transferring entity has a fully proportionate share.
(IFRS 9.BCZ3.13) Accordingly, a part of a financial asset would be considered for derecognition only if it
comprised:
(a) only specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets);
(b) only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of the cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar
financial assets); or
(c) only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a
group of similar financial assets).
(IFRS 9.3.2.5) When an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset (the
‘original asset’), but assumes a contractual obligation to pay those cash flows to one or more entities (the
‘eventual recipients’), the entity treats the transaction as a transfer of a financial asset if, and only if, all of the
following three conditions are met.
(a) The entity has no obligation to pay amounts to the eventual recipients unless it collects equivalent amounts
from the original asset. Short-term advances by the entity with the right of full recovery of the amount lent plus
accrued interest at market rates do not violate this condition.
(b) The entity is prohibited by the terms of the transfer contract from selling or pledging the original asset other
than as security to the eventual recipients for the obligation to pay them cash flows.
(c) The entity has an obligation to remit any cash flows it collects on behalf of the eventual recipients without
material delay. In addition, the entity is not entitled to reinvest such cash flows, except for investments in cash or
cash equivalents (as defined in IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows) during the short settlement period from the
collection date to the date of required remittance to the eventual recipients, and interest earned on such
investments is passed to the eventual recipients.
oran esasına dayalı
nakit akışları
nihai yararlanıcılar,
nihai alıcılar
servicing
asset
servicing
liability
originator of
the financial
asset
interest-only
strip
receivable
removal of
accounts
provision
amortising
interest rate
swap
(IFRS 9.3.2.10) If an entity transfers a financial asset in a transfer that qualifies for derecognition in its entirety
and retains the right to service the financial asset for a fee, it shall recognise either a servicing asset or a
servicing liability for that servicing contract. If the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity
adequately for performing the servicing, a servicing liability for the servicing obligation shall be recognised at
its fair value. If the fee to be received is expected to be more than adequate compensation for the servicing, a
servicing asset shall be recognised for the servicing right at an amount determined on the basis of an allocation
of the carrying amount of the larger financial asset in accordance with paragraph 3.2.13.
(IFRS 9.B3.2.10) An entity may retain the right to a part of the interest payments on transferred assets as
compensation for servicing those assets. The part of the interest payments that the entity would give up upon
termination or transfer of the servicing contract is allocated to the servicing asset or servicing liability.
(IFRS 3.2.11) If, as a result of a transfer, a financial asset is derecognised in its entirety but the transfer results in
the entity obtaining a new financial asset or assuming a new financial liability, or a servicing liability, the entity
shall recognise the new financial asset, financial liability or servicing liability at fair value.
(IFRS 3.2.3) In applying paragraph 3.2.5, the entity could be, for example, the originator of the financial asset,
or it could be a group that includes a subsidiary that has acquired the financial asset and passes on cash flows to
unrelated third party investors.
(IFRS 9.3.2.10) The part of the interest payments that the entity would not give up is an interest-only strip
receivable. For example, if the entity would not give up any interest upon termination or transfer of the servicing
contract, the entire interest spread is an interest-only strip receivable. For the purposes of applying paragraph
3.2.13, the fair values of the servicing asset and interest-only strip receivable are used to allocate the carrying
amount of the receivable between the part of the asset that is derecognised and the part that continues to be
recognised. If there is no servicing fee specified or the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity
adequately for performing the servicing, a liability for the servicing obligation is recognised at fair value.
(IFRS 9.B3.2.16) Removal of accounts provision. A removal of accounts provision is an unconditional
repurchase (call) option that gives an entity the right to reclaim assets transferred subject to some restrictions.
Provided that such an option results in the entity neither retaining nor transferring substantially all the risks and
rewards of ownership, it precludes derecognition only to the extent of the amount subject to repurchase
(assuming that the transferee cannot sell the assets). For example, if the carrying amount and proceeds from the
transfer of loan assets are CU100,000 and any individual loan could be called back but the aggregate amount of
loans that could be repurchased could not exceed CU10,000, CU90,000 of the loans would qualify for
derecognition.
(IFRS 9.B3.2.16) Amortising interest rate swaps. An entity may transfer to a transferee a fixed rate financial
asset that is paid off over time, and enter into an amortising interest rate swap with the transferee to receive a
fixed interest rate and pay a variable interest rate based on a notional amount. If the notional amount of the swap
amortises so that it equals the principal amount of the transferred financial asset outstanding at any point in time,
the swap would generally result in the entity retaining substantial prepayment risk, in which case the entity either
continues to recognise all of the transferred asset or continues to recognise the transferred asset to the extent of its
continuing involvement. Conversely, if the amortisation of the notional amount of the swap is not linked to the
finansal varlığın
ihraççısı
legal release
Demonstrably
committed
Employee
share
ownership
(plan)
Retail store
chain
Set-off, legal
right of
principal amount outstanding of the transferred asset, such a swap would not result in the entity retaining
prepayment risk on the asset. Hence, it would not preclude derecognition of the transferred asset provided the
payments on the swap are not conditional on interest payments being made on the transferred asset and the swap
does not result in the entity retaining any other significant risks and rewards of ownership on the transferred
asset.
(IFRS 9.B3.3.2) Payment to a third party, including a trust (sometimes called ‘in-substance defeasance’), does
not, by itself, relieve the debtor of its primary obligation to the creditor, in the absence of legal release.
hukuki
yükümlülüğün
kalkması
(IFRS 9.B3.3.4) If the debtor pays a third party to assume an obligation and obtains a legal release from its
creditor, the debtor has extinguished the debt.
(IAS 19.BC157) Before the amendments made in 2011, an entity recognised curtailments resulting from a
significant reduction in the number of employees covered by the plan when the entity was demonstrably
committed to making the reduction. The amendments made in 2011 require an entity to recognise a plan
amendment and a curtailment when they occur.
(IAS 19.BC160) A curtailment occurs when an entity either:
(a) is demonstrably committed to make a significant reduction in the number of employees covered by a plan;
or
(b) amends the terms of a defined benefit plan so that a significant element of future service by current employees
will no longer qualify for benefits, or will qualify only for reduced benefits.
(IFRS 2.BC10) Some argued that requiring the recognition of an expense in respect of these types of plans was
perceived to be contrary to government policy to encourage employee share ownership. In contrast, other
respondents saw no difference between employee share purchase plans and other employee share plans, and
argued that the same accounting requirements should therefore apply. However, some suggested that there should
be an exemption if the discount is small.
(IFRS 2.BC13) Furthermore, that governments in some countries have a policy of encouraging employee share
ownership is not a valid reason for according these types of plans a different accounting treatment, because it is
not the role of financial reporting to give favourable accounting treatment to particular transactions to encourage
entities to enter into them.
(IAS 36.E1) Store X belongs to a retail store chain M. X makes all its retail purchases through M’s purchasing
centre. Pricing, marketing, advertising and human resources policies (except for hiring X’s cashiers and sales
staff) are decided by M.
M also owns five other stores in the same city as X (although in different neighbourhoods) and 20 other stores in
other cities. All stores are managed in the same way as X. X and four other stores were purchased five years ago
and goodwill was recognised.
(IAS 32.42) A financial asset and a financial liability shall be offset and the net amount presented in the
statement of financial position when, and only when, an entity:
(a) currently has a legally enforceable right to set off the recognised amounts;
çalışanların ortak
olma amaçlı pay
edinim planı,
çalışanların ortaklık
planı
outreach
programme
Share Capital
- Reacquired
Own Equity
Instruments
(Treasury
Shares)
(IAS 32.45) A right of set-off is a debtor’s legal right, by contract or otherwise, to settle or otherwise eliminate
all or a portion of an amount due to a creditor by applying against that amount an amount due from the creditor.
(IFRS 9.BC3.30) In addition to the round tables, the Board undertook an extensive outreach programme with
users, preparers, regulators, auditors, trade associations and others.
(IFRS 9.BC4.46) Immediately after issuing the first chapters of IFRS 9 in November 2009, the Board began an
extensive outreach programme to gather feedback on the classification and measurement of financial liabilities,
in particular how best to
address the effects of changes in the fair value of a financial liability caused by changes in the risk that the issuer
will fail to perform on that liability.
(IAS 32.IN14) IAS 32 incorporates the conclusion previously in SIC-16 Share Capital—Reacquired Own
Equity Instruments (Treasury Shares) that the acquisition or subsequent resale by an entity of its own equity
instruments does not result in a gain or loss for the entity.