Topic 502 - Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement

This topic includes FAQs relating to the following IFRS standards, IFRIC Interpretations and SIC Interpretations:

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments

IFRIC 2 Members’ Shares in Co‑operative Entities and Similar Instruments

IFRIC 16 Hedges of a Net Investment in a Foreign Operation

IFRIC 19 Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments

Other resources

  • IFRS At a Glance by standard is available here
  • IFRS in Practice: IFRS 9 Financial Instruments is available here
  • IFRS in Practice: Applying IFRS 9 to Related Company Loans is available here
  • IFRS in Practice: Applying IFRS 9 to Related Company Loans in the Real Estate Sector is available here

 

Sub-topic within this main topic are set out below, with links to IFRS Interpretation Committee agenda decisions and BDO IFRS FAQs relating to that sub-topic below each sub-topic:

Sub-topic Number Sub-topic and Related FAQ
502.1 Scope and definitions
  • 502.1.1.1
  • 502.1.1.2
  • 502.1.1.3
  • 502.1.1.4
  • 502.1.1.5
  • 502.1.1.6
  • 502.1.1.7
502.2 Initial recognition and measurement
  • 502.2.1.1
502.3 Financial assets - classification
  • 502.3.1.1
  • 502.3.1.2
502.4 Financial assets - classification - the SPPI contractual cash flow characteristics test
502.5 Financial assets - classification - business models
502.6 Financial assets - debt instruments at fair value through other comprehensive income
502.7 Financial assets - equity investments at fair value through other comprehensive income
502.8 Financial assets - reclassification
502.9 Financial liabilities - classification
502.10 Financial liabilities - embedded derivatives
  • 502.10.1.1
  • 502.10.1.2
  • 502.10.1.3
502.11 Measurement on initial recognition
  • 502.11.1.1
502.12 Financial assets and financial liabilities - fair value option
502.13 Subsequent measurement - financial assets
502.14 Subsequent measurement - financial liabilities
502.15 Subsequent measurement - amortised cost measurement
  • 502.15.1.1
  • 502.15.1.2
502.16 Subsequent measurement - interest rate benchmark reform
502.17 Subsequent measurement - other
502.18 Impairment - scope
502.19 Impairment - general
  • 502.19.1.1
  • 502.19.1.2
502.20 Impairment - 12 month vs. lifetime expected credit losses
502.21 Impairment - determining significant increase in credit risk
502.22 Impairment - credit impaired financial assets
502.23 Impairment - purchased or originated credit impaired financial assets
502.24 Impairment - simplified impairment model
502.25 Impairment - related party loans receivable
502.26 Impairment - off-balance sheet and other items
502.27 Impairment - other
502.28 Derecognition of financial assets
  • 502.28.1.1
  • 502.28.1.2
  • 502.28.1.3
  • 502.28.1.4
  • 502.28.1.5
502.29 Derecognition of financial liabilities
502.30 Hedge accounting - qualifying criteria
  • 502.30.1.1
  • 502.30.1.2
502.31 Hedge accounting - effectiveness testing
502.32 Hedge accounting - hedged items
  • 502.32.1.1
502.33 Hedge accounting - hedging instruments
502.34 Hedge accounting - presentation of fair value hedges
502.35 Hedge accounting - presentation of cash flow hedges
502.36 Hedge accounting - presentation of hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation
  • 502.36.1.1
502.37 Hedge accounting - hedges of a group of items
502.38 Hedge accounting - Presentation of gains and losses
502.39 Hedge accounting - Discontinuation
502.40 Hedge accounting - temporary exceptions arising from interest rate benchmark reform
502.41 Presentation of interest income 
502.42 Other issues
  • 502.42.1.1

 

FAQ#

Title

Text of FAQ

502.1.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Meaning of delivery

August 2005 - The IFRIC considered the application of the ‘own purchase, sale or usage requirements’ scope exemption in paragraph 5 of IAS 39 [now in paragraph 2.4 of IFRS 9] when:

  • the market design or process imposes a structure or intermediary (eg a gold refiner or an electricity market operator) that prevents the producer from physically delivering its production to the counterparty of the hedge pricing contract; and
  • in some cases, physical delivery is to the intermediary for the spot price, even if the producer is protected from spot price risk by a separate contract that effectively sets a fixed price for the producer’s production.

The IFRIC noted that ‘delivery’ for the purposes of the paragraph 5 exemption is not necessarily restricted to the physical delivery of the underlying to a specific customer, as physical delivery is not a condition of the exemption. The IFRIC was of the view that delivery of gold to a refiner in return for an allocation of an equivalent quantity of refined gold was not delivery, but that allocation of that refined gold to a customer’s account could be regarded as delivery. The IFRIC decided not to develop guidance on the meaning of ‘delivery’ as it was not aware of evidence of significant diversity in practice.

The IFRIC indicated that a synthetic arrangement that results from the linking of a non-deliverable contract entered into with a customer to fix the price of a commodity with a transaction to buy or sell the commodity through an intermediary would not satisfy the paragraph 5 scope exemption.

The IFRIC decided not to add this topic to its agenda, since IAS 39 was clear on both points.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Definition of a derivative: Indexation on own EBITDA or own revenue

January 2007 - In July 2006 the IFRIC published a tentative agenda decision that explained why it had decided not to issue guidance on whether a contract that is indexed to an entity’s own revenue or own earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EDITDA) is (or might contain) a derivative. [The definition of derivative in IFRS 9 is the same as that in IAS 39]

The tentative agenda decision addressed two issues:

  • whether the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract applies only to insurance contracts 
  • whether EBITDA or revenue is a financial or nonfinancial variable.

The tentative agenda decision concluded that:

  • the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract is not restricted to insurance contracts, on the basis of the current drafting of the standard; and
  • although IAS 39 is unclear whether revenue or EBITDA is a financial or non-financial variable, the IFRIC would not take this issue onto its agenda because it was unlikely to reach a consensus on a timely basis.

At the January 2007 meeting, the IFRIC decided to withdraw the tentative agenda decision.

Having reconsidered the issue, the IFRIC noted that taking no action would allow continued significant diversity in practice regarding how financial and non-financial variables were determined. Consequently, the IFRIC directed the staff to refer the issue to the Board.

The IFRIC recommended that the Board should amend IAS 39 (possibly as part of the annual improvements process) to limit to insurance contracts the exclusion from the definition of a derivative of contracts linked to non-financial variables that are specific to a party to the contract.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Written options in retail energy contracts

March 2007 - The IFRIC received a request to interpret what is meant by ‘written option’ within the context of paragraph 7 of IAS 39 [now in paragraph 2.7 of IFRS 9].

Under paragraph 7 of IAS 39 a written option to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be net settled (as defined in paragraph 5) cannot be considered to have been entered into for the purpose of meeting the reporting entity’s normal purchase, sale and usage requirements. The application of this paragraph is illustrated in the current guidance.

The submission was primarily concerned with the accounting for energy supply contracts to retail customers.

Analysis of such contracts suggests that in many situations these contracts are not capable of net cash settlement as laid out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of IAS 39. If this is the case, such contracts would not be considered to be within the scope of IAS 39.

In the light of the above, the IFRIC expected little divergence in practice and therefore decided not to add the item to the agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.4

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Gaming transactions

July 2007 - The IFRIC considered a submission relating to the accounting for wagers received by a gaming institution.

The IFRIC noted the definitions of financial assets and financial liabilities in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation, and the application guidance in paragraph AG8 of IAS 32. It noted that when a gaming institution takes a position against a customer, the resulting unsettled wager is a financial instrument that is likely to meet the definition of a derivative financial instrument and should be accounted for under IAS 39 [The definition of derivative in IFRS 9 is the same as that in IAS 39].

In other situations, a gaming institution does not take positions against customers but instead provides services to manage the organisation of games between two or more gaming parties. The gaming institution earns a commission for such services regardless of the outcome of the wager. The IFRIC noted that such a commission was likely to meet the definition of revenue and would be recognised when the conditions in IAS 18 Revenue were met.

The IFRIC did not consider that there was widespread divergence in practice in this area and therefore decided not to take the issue on to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.5

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting for term-structured repo transactions

March 2014 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify: (Issue 1) whether an entity (Entity A) should account for three transactions separately or aggregate and treat them as a single derivative; and (Issue 2) how to apply paragraph B.6 of Guidance on Implementing IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (‘IG B.6 of IAS 39’) [paragraph B.6 of Guidance on Implementing IFRS 9] in addressing Issue 1. Some key features of the three transactions are as follows:

a.

Transaction 1 (bond purchase): Entity A purchases a bond (the bond) from another entity (Entity B).

b.

Transaction 2 (interest rate swap): Entity A enters into interest rate swap contract(s) with Entity B. Entity A pays a fixed rate of interest equal to the fixed coupon rate of the purchased bond in Transaction 1 and receives a variable rate of interest.

c.

Transaction 3 (repurchase agreement): Entity A enters into a repurchase agreement with Entity B, in which Entity A sells the same bond in Transaction 1 on the same day it purchases the bond and agrees to buy back the bond at the maturity date of the bond.

The Interpretations Committee noted that in order to determine whether Entity A should aggregate and account for the three transactions above as a single derivative, reference should be made to paragraphs B.6 and C.6 of Guidance on Implementing IAS 39 and paragraph AG39 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation.

The Interpretations Committee also discussed Issue 2, ie, how to apply paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 in addressing Issue 1. The Interpretations Committee noted that application of the guidance in paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 requires judgement. It also noted that the indicators in paragraph IG B.6 of IAS 39 may help an entity to determine the substance of the transaction, but that the presence or absence of any single specific indicator alone may not be conclusive.

The Interpretations Committee noted that providing additional guidance would result in the Interpretations Committee attempting to specify the accounting for a specific transaction, and that this would not be appropriate.

On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary and consequently decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.6

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Centrally cleared client derivatives

June 2017 - Some jurisdictions mandate the clearing of particular derivative products through a central clearing counterparty (CCP). To clear through a CCP, an entity must be a clearing member (sometimes referred to as a 'clearing broker’). The types of products required to be cleared, and the surrounding legal framework, vary across jurisdictions.

The Committee received a request to clarify the accounting for centrally cleared client derivative contracts from the perspective of the clearing member.

The Committee concluded that the clearing member first applies the requirements for financial instruments. More specifically, the Committee observed that:

a.

if the transaction(s) results in contracts that are within the scope of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (or IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement), then the clearing member applies the recognition requirements in paragraph 3.1.1 of IFRS 9 (paragraph 14 of IAS 39) to those contracts. The clearing member presents assets and liabilities separately applying IFRS 9 (or IAS 39) in the statement of financial position, unless net presentation is required pursuant to the offsetting requirements in paragraph 42 of IAS 32.

b.

if the transaction(s) is not within the scope of IFRS 9 (IAS 39) and another IFRS Standard does not specifically apply, only then would the clearing member apply the hierarchy in paragraphs 10⁠–⁠12 of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors to determine an appropriate accounting policy for the transaction(s).

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for a clearing member to account for centrally cleared client derivative contracts. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.1.1.7

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Physical Settlement of Contracts to Buy or Sell a Non-financial Item

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about how an entity applies IFRS 9 to particular contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item in the future at a fixed price. The request describes two fact patterns in which an entity accounts for such contracts as derivatives at fair value through profit or loss (FVPL) but nonetheless physically settles the contracts by either delivering or taking delivery of the underlying non-financial item.

IFRS 9 must be applied to contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, as if those contracts were financial instruments, with one exception. That exception applies to contracts that were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements (‘own use scope exception’ in paragraph 2.4 of IFRS 9).

In the fact patterns described in the request, the entity concludes that the contracts are within the scope of IFRS 9 because they do not meet the own use scope exception. Consequently, the entity accounts for the contracts as derivatives measured at FVPL. The entity does not designate the contracts as part of a hedging relationship for accounting purposes.

At the settlement date, the entity physically settles the contracts by either delivering or taking delivery of the non-financial item. In accounting for that settlement, the request explains that the entity records the cash paid (in the case of the purchase contract) or received (in the case of the sale contract) and derecognises the derivative.

In addition, the entity:

a.

recognises inventory for the non-financial item at the amount of the cash paid plus the fair value of the derivative on the settlement date (in the case of the purchase contract); or

b.

recognises revenue for the sale of the non-financial item at the amount of the cash received plus the fair value of the derivative on the settlement date (in the case of the sale contract). The request assumes the entity has an accounting policy of recognising revenue on a gross basis for such contracts.

The request asked whether, in accounting for the physical settlement of these contracts, the entity is permitted or required to make an additional journal entry that would:

a.

reverse the accumulated gain or loss previously recognised in profit or loss on the derivative (even though the fair value of the derivative is unchanged); and

b.

recognise a corresponding adjustment to either revenue (in the case of the sale contract) or inventory (in the case of the purchase contract).

The Committee observed that, in the fact patterns described in the request, the contracts are settled by the receipt (or delivery) of a non-financial item in exchange for both cash and the settlement of the derivative asset or liability. The Committee also observed that the accounting for contracts that do not meet the own use scope exception in IFRS 9 (and are accounted for as a derivative) is different from the accounting for contracts that meet that exception (and are not accounted for as a derivative). Similarly, the accounting for contracts designated in a hedging relationship for accounting purposes is different from the accounting for contracts that are not designated in such relationships. Those differences in accounting reflect differences in the respective requirements. IFRS 9 neither permits nor requires an entity to reassess or change its accounting for a derivative contract because that contract is ultimately physically settled.

The additional journal entry described in the request would effectively negate the requirement in IFRS 9 to account for the contract as a derivative because it would reverse the accumulated fair value gain or loss on the derivative without any basis to do so. The additional journal entry would also result in the recognition of income or expenses on the derivative that do not exist.

Consequently, the Committee concluded that IFRS 9 neither permits nor requires an entity to make the additional journal entry described in the request. However, the Committee observed that an entity is required to present gains and losses on the derivative, and disclose information about those amounts, applying applicable IFRS Standards, such as IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements and IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. In determining what line items to present in profit or loss, the requirements in IAS 1 (including those related to aggregation) are applicable. IAS 1 does not specify requirements for the presentation of amounts related to the remeasurement of derivatives. However paragraph 20(a)(i) of IFRS 7 specifies disclosure requirements for net gains or net losses on financial assets or financial liabilities that are mandatorily measured at FVPL applying IFRS 9. For these purposes, in the fact patterns described in the request, there is no gain or loss on the derivative caused by settlement.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to conclude on whether it is permitted or required to make the additional journal entry described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.2.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Short trading

January 2007 - The IFRIC received a submission regarding the accounting for short sales of securities when the terms of the short sales require delivery of the securities within the time frame established generally by regulation or convention in the marketplace concerned. A fixed price commitment between trade date and settlement date of a short sale contract meets the definition of a derivative according to IAS 39 paragraph 9 [now in Appendix A to IFRS 9]. However, the submission noted that entities that enter into regular way purchase or sales of financial assets are allowed to choose trade date or settlement date accounting in accordance with IAS 39 paragraph 38 [now replaced by paragraph 3.1.2 of IFRS 9]. Therefore, the issue was whether short sales of securities should be eligible for the regular way exceptions (ie whether entities that enter into short sales are permitted to choose trade date or settlement date accounting).

The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG55 and AG56 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraphs B3.1.5 and B3.1.6 of IFRS 9] address the recognition and derecognition of financial assets traded under regular way purchases and regular way sales of long positions. If the regular way exceptions are not applicable to short sales of securities, such short sales should be accounted for as derivatives and be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss.

The IFRIC received several comment letters explaining an interpretation of IAS 39 that is commonly used in practice. Under that interpretation, entities that enter into short sales of securities are allowed to choose trade date or settlement date accounting. Specifically, practice recognises the short sales as financial liabilities at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss. Under the industry practice, the same profit or loss amount is recognised as would have been recognised if short sales of securities were accounted for as derivatives but the securities are presented differently on the balance sheet.

The IFRIC acknowledged that requiring entities to account for the short positions as derivatives might create considerable practical problems for their accounting systems and controls with little, if any, improvement to the quality of the financial information presented. For these reasons and because there was little diversity in practice, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to the agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.3.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Financial assets eligible for the election to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income

September 2017 - The Committee received a request asking whether particular financial instruments are eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9. That election permits the holder of particular investments in equity instruments to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income, rather than in profit or loss. The submitter asked whether financial instruments are eligible for that presentation election if the issuer would classify them as equity applying paragraphs 16A⁠–⁠16D of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation.

The Committee observed that the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9 refers to particular investments in equity instruments. ‘Equity instrument’ is a defined term, and Appendix A of IFRS 9 specifies that it is defined in paragraph 11 of IAS 32. IAS 32 defines an equity instrument as ‘any contract that evidences a residual interest in the assets of an entity after deducting all of its liabilities’. Consequently, a financial instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability cannot meet the definition of an equity instrument.

The Committee also observed that paragraph 11 of IAS 32 specifies that, as an exception, an instrument that meets the definition of a financial liability is classified as an equity instrument by the issuer if it has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS 32.

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that a financial instrument that has all the features and meets the conditions in paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of IAS 32 is not eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9. This is because such an instrument does not meet the definition of an equity instrument in IAS 32. This conclusion, based on the requirements in IFRS 9 and IAS 32, is supported by the Board’s explanation in paragraph BC5.21 of IFRS 9 of its decision in this respect.

The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for the holder of the instruments described in the request to classify those instruments. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.3.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Investment in a subsidiary accounted for at cost: Partial disposal

January 2019 - The Committee received a request about how an entity applies the requirements in IAS 27 to a fact pattern involving an investment in a subsidiary.

In the fact pattern described in the request, the entity preparing separate financial statements:

  • elects to account for its investments in subsidiaries at cost applying paragraph 10 of IAS 27.
  • holds an initial investment in a subsidiary (investee). The investment is an investment in an equity instrument as defined in paragraph 11 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation.
  • subsequently disposes of part of its investment and loses control of the investee. After the disposal, the entity has neither joint control of, nor significant influence over, the investee.

The request asked whether:

a.

the investment retained (retained interest) is eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. That election permits the holder of particular investments in equity instruments to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income (OCI) (Question A).

b.

...

Question A

Paragraph 9 of IAS 27 requires an entity to apply all applicable IFRS Standards in preparing its separate financial statements, except when accounting for investments in subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures to which paragraph 10 of IAS 27 applies. After the partial disposal transaction, the investee is not a subsidiary, associate or joint venture of the entity. Accordingly, the entity applies IFRS 9 for the first time in accounting for its retained interest in the investee. The Committee observed that the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9 applies at initial recognition of an investment in an equity instrument. An investment in an equity instrument within the scope of IFRS 9 is eligible for the election if it is neither held for trading (as defined in Appendix A of IFRS 9) nor contingent consideration recognised by an acquirer in a business combination to which IFRS 3 Business Combinations applies.

In the fact pattern described in the request, assuming the retained interest is not held for trading, the Committee concluded that (a) the retained interest is eligible for the presentation election in paragraph 4.1.4 of IFRS 9, and (b) the entity would make this presentation election when it first applies IFRS 9 to the retained interest (ie at the date of losing control of the investee).

...

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to account for a partial disposal transaction in its separate financial statements. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.10.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Accounting for a financial instrument that is mandatorily convertible into a variable number of shares subject to a cap and a floor

May 2014 - The Interpretations Committee discussed how an issuer would account for a particular mandatorily convertible financial instrument in accordance with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement or IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. The financial instrument has a stated maturity date and, at maturity, the issuer must deliver a variable number of its own equity instruments to equal a fixed cash amount—subject to a cap and a floor, which limit and guarantee, respectively, the number of equity instruments to be delivered.

The Interpretations Committee noted that the issuer’s obligation to deliver a variable number of the entity’s own equity instruments is a non-derivative that meets the definition of a financial liability in paragraph 11(b)(i) of IAS 32 in its entirety. Paragraph 11(b)(i) of the definition of a liability does not have any limits or thresholds regarding the degree of variability that is required. Therefore, the contractual substance of the instrument is a single obligation to deliver a variable number of equity instruments at maturity, with the variation based on the value of those equity instruments. Such a single obligation to deliver a variable number of own equity instruments cannot be subdivided into components for the purposes of evaluating whether the instrument contains a component that meets the definition of equity. Even though the number of equity instruments to be delivered is limited and guaranteed by the cap and the floor, the overall number of equity instruments that the issuer is obliged to deliver is not fixed and therefore the entire obligation meets the definition of a financial liability.

Furthermore, the Interpretations Committee noted that the cap and the floor are embedded derivative features whose values change in response to the price of the issuer’s equity share. Therefore, assuming that the issuer has not elected to designate the entire instrument under the fair value option, the issuer must separate those features and account for the embedded derivative features separately from the host liability contract at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IAS 39 or IFRS 9.

The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing IFRS requirements, an Interpretation was not necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.10.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision -  Accounting for embedded foreign currency derivatives in host contracts

January 2015 - The Interpretations Committee received a request related to the ‘closely related’ criterion in paragraph 11 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement [now replaced by paragraph 4.3.3 of IFRS 9] to determine whether an embedded derivative should be separated from a host contract and accounted for as a derivative in accordance with IAS 39.

More specifically, the Interpretations Committee was asked to consider whether an embedded foreign currency derivative in a licence agreement is closely related to the economic characteristics of the host contract, on the basis that the currency in which the licence agreement is denominated is the currency in which commercial transactions in that type of licence agreement are routinely denominated around the world (ie the ‘routinely-denominated’ criterion in paragraph AG33(d)(ii) of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraph B4.3.8(d)(ii) of IFRS 9]).

The Interpretations Committee noted that the issue related to a contract for a specific type of item and observed that an assessment of the routinely-denominated criterion is based on evidence of whether or not such commercial transactions are denominated in that currency all around the world and not merely in one local area. The Interpretations Committee further observed that the assessment of the routinely denominated criterion is a question of fact and is based on an assessment of available evidence.

On the basis of the analysis above, the Interpretations Committee determined that, in the light of the existing IFRS requirements, sufficient guidance exists and that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.10.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Separation of an embedded floor from a floating rate host contract

January 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify the application of the embedded derivative requirements of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement in a negative interest rate environment. Specifically, the Interpretations Committee considered:

a.

whether paragraph AG33(b) of IAS 39 should apply to an embedded interest rate floor in a floating rate host debt contract in a negative interest rate environment; and

b.

how to determine the ‘market rate of interest’ referred to in that paragraph.

The Interpretations Committee observed that:

a.

paragraph AG33(b) of IAS 39 should be applied to an interest rate floor in a negative interest rate environment in the same way as it would be applied in a positive interest rate environment;

b.

when applying paragraph AG33(b) of IAS 39, in a positive or negative interest rate environment, an entity should compare the overall interest rate floor (ie the benchmark interest rate referenced in the contract plus contractual spreads and if applicable any premiums, discounts or other elements that would be relevant to the calculation of the effective interest rate) for the hybrid contract to the market rate of interest for a similar contract without the interest rate floor (ie the host contract); and

c.

in order to determine the appropriate market rate of interest for the host contract, an entity is required to consider the specific terms of the host contract and the relevant spreads (including credit spreads) appropriate for the transaction.

In making these observations, the Interpretations Committee noted the following:

a.

paragraph AG33(b) of IAS 39 makes no distinction between positive and negative interest rates and, therefore, the requirements of that paragraph should be applied consistently in both cases;

b.

paragraph AG33(b) of IAS 39 requires an entity to identify whether an embedded interest rate floor is closely related to a host debt contract and makes no reference to individual components of an embedded interest rate floor (such as the benchmark interest rate); and

c.

the term ‘market rate of interest’ is linked to the concept of fair value as defined in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and is described in paragraph AG64 of IAS 39 as the rate of interest ‘for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate and other factors) with a similar credit rating’.

The Interpretations Committee also observed that paragraphs B4.3.8(b) and B5.1.1 of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replicate the requirements of paragraphs AG33(b) and AG64 of IAS 39 respectively. Consequently, the observations noted in this agenda decision would be equally applicable to financial liabilities accounted for in accordance with IFRS 9.

In the light of the existing IFRS requirements, the Interpretations Committee determined that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.11.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Changes in the contractual terms of an existing equity instrument resulting in it being reclassified to financial liability

November 2006 - The IFRIC was asked to consider a situation in which an amendment to the contractual terms of an equity instrument resulted in the instrument being classified as a financial liability of the issuer. Two issues were discussed: (i) on what basis the financial liability should be measured at the date when the terms were changed and (ii) how any difference between the carrying amount of the previously recognised equity instrument and the amount of the financial liability recognised at the date when the terms were changed should be accounted for.

The IFRIC noted that at the time when the contractual terms were changed, a financial liability was initially recognised, and, furthermore, that a financial liability on initial recognition is measured at its fair value in accordance with paragraph 43 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement [IFRS 9 Financial Instruments replaced IAS 39. The requirements of paragraph 43 of IAS 39 relating to the initial measurement of financial liabilities were relocated to paragraph 5.1.1 of IFRS 9].

The IFRIC observed that Example 3 of IFRIC 2 Members’ Shares in Co-operative Entities and Similar Instruments deals with a similar situation. In that example, at the time when the financial liabilities are recognised, when the terms are changed, they are recognised at their fair value.

The IFRIC observed that the change in the terms of the instrument gave rise to derecognition of the original equity instrument. The IFRIC noted that paragraph 33 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation states that no gain or loss shall be recognised in profit or loss on the purchase, sale, issue or cancellation of an entity’s own equity instruments. The IFRIC, therefore, believed that, at the time when the terms were changed, the difference between the carrying amount of the equity instrument and the fair value of the newly recognised financial liability should be recognised in equity.

The IFRIC believed that the requirements of IFRS, taken as a whole, were sufficiently clear and that the issue was not expected to have widespread relevance in practice. The IFRIC, therefore, decided that the issue should not be taken onto the agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.15.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Application of the effective interest rate method

July 2008 - The IFRIC was asked for guidance on the application of the effective interest rate method to a financial instrument whose cash flows are linked to changes in an inflation index. The submission suggested three possible approaches.

The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG6⁠–⁠AG8 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement [now replaced by paragraphs B5.4.4⁠–⁠B5.4.6 of IFRS 9] provide the relevant application guidance. Judgement is required to determine whether an instrument is a floating rate instrument within the scope of paragraph AG7 or an instrument within the scope of paragraph AG8.

In view of the existing application guidance in IAS 39, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda. However, the IFRIC referred the issue to the Board with a recommendation that the Board should consider clarifying or expanding that application guidance.

Back to sub-topic index

502.15.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Participation rights and calculation of the effective interest rate

May 2009 - The IFRIC was asked for guidance on how an issuer should account for a financial liability that contains participation rights by which the instrument holder shares in the net income and losses of the issuer. The holder receives a percentage of the issuer’s net income and is allocated a proportional share of the issuer’s losses. Losses are applied to the nominal value of the instrument to be repaid on maturity. Losses allocated to the holder in one period can be offset by profits in subsequent periods. The IFRIC considered the issue without reconsidering the assumptions described in the request, namely that the financial liability:

  •   does not contain any embedded derivatives
  •   is measured at amortised cost using the effective interest rate method, and
  •   does not meet the definition of a floating rate instrument.

The IFRIC noted that paragraphs AG6 and AG8 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraphs B5.4.4 and B5.4.6 of IFRS 9] provide the relevant application guidance for measuring financial liabilities at amortised cost using the effective interest rate method. The IFRIC also noted that it is inappropriate to analogise to the derecognition guidance in IAS 39 because the liability has not been extinguished.

Because specific application guidance already exists, the IFRIC decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.19.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Curing of a Credit-impaired Financial Asset

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about how an entity presents amounts recognised in the statement of profit or loss when a credit-impaired financial asset is subsequently cured (ie paid in full or no longer credit-impaired).

When a financial asset becomes credit-impaired, paragraph 5.4.1(b) of IFRS 9 requires an entity to calculate interest revenue by applying the ‘effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset’. This results in a difference between (a) the interest that would be calculated by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount of the credit-impaired financial asset; and (b) the interest revenue recognised for that asset. The request asked whether, following the curing of the financial asset, an entity can present this difference as interest revenue or, instead, is required to present it as a reversal of impairment losses.

Appendix A to IFRS 9 defines a credit loss as ‘the difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls), discounted at the original effective interest rate…’. Appendix A also defines the gross carrying amount as ‘the amortised cost of a financial asset, before adjusting for any loss allowance.’ The Committee noted that, based on the definitions in Appendix A to IFRS 9, the gross carrying amount, amortised cost and loss allowance are discounted amounts, and changes in these amounts during a reporting period include the effect of the unwinding of the discount.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to ‘recognise in profit or loss, as an impairment gain or loss, the amount of expected credit losses (or reversal) that is required to adjust the loss allowance at the reporting date to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with this Standard.’

The Committee observed that, applying paragraph 5.5.8 of IFRS 9, an entity recognises in profit or loss as a reversal of expected credit losses the adjustment required to bring the loss allowance to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with IFRS 9 (zero if the asset is paid in full). The amount of this adjustment includes the effect of the unwinding of the discount on the loss allowance during the period that the financial asset was credit-impaired, which means the reversal of impairment losses may exceed the impairment losses recognised in profit or loss over the life of the asset. 

The Committee also observed that paragraph 5.4.1 specifies how an entity calculates interest revenue using the effective interest method. Applying paragraph 5.4.1(b), an entity calculates interest revenue on a credit-impaired financial asset by applying the effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset, and thus interest revenue on such a financial asset does not include the difference described in the request. 

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that, in the statement of profit or loss, an entity is required to present the difference described in the request as a reversal of impairment losses following the curing of a credit-impaired financial asset.

The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to recognise and present the reversal of expected credit losses following the curing of a credit-impaired financial asset in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.19.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Credit Enhancement in the Measurement of Expected Credit Losses

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about the effect of a credit enhancement on the measurement of expected credit losses when applying the impairment requirements in IFRS 9. The request asked whether the cash flows expected from a financial guarantee contract or any other credit enhancement can be included in the measurement of expected credit losses if the credit enhancement is required to be recognised separately applying IFRS Standards.

For the purposes of measuring expected credit losses, paragraph B5.5.55 of IFRS 9 requires the estimate of expected cash shortfalls to ‘reflect the cash flows expected from collateral and other credit enhancements that are part of the contractual terms and are not recognised separately by the entity.’

Accordingly, the Committee observed that the cash flows expected from a credit enhancement are included in the measurement of expected credit losses if the credit enhancement is both:

a.

part of the contractual terms; and

b.

not recognised separately by the entity.

The Committee concluded that, if a credit enhancement is required to be recognised separately by IFRS Standards, an entity cannot include the cash flows expected from it in the measurement of expected credit losses. An entity applies the applicable IFRS Standard to determine whether it is required to recognise a credit enhancement separately. Paragraph B5.5.55 of IFRS 9 does not provide an exemption from applying the separate recognition requirements in IFRS 9 or other IFRS Standards.

The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS Standards provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether to include the cash flows expected from a credit enhancement in the measurement of expected credit losses in the fact pattern described in the request. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.28.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision – Revolving Structures

November 2005 - The IFRIC discussed a request for guidance on whether ‘revolving’ structures would meet the pass-through requirements in paragraph 19(c) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.5(c) of IFRS 9]. In a revolving structure an entity collects cash flows on behalf of eventual recipients and uses the amounts collected to purchase new assets instead of remitting the cash to the eventual recipients. On maturity the principal amount is remitted to the eventual recipients from the cash flows arising from the reinvested assets.

The IFRIC noted that in order to meet the pass-through arrangement requirements in IAS 39 paragraph 19(c) an entity is required to remit any cash flows it collects on behalf of eventual recipients without material delay. This paragraph also limits permissible reinvestments to items that qualify as cash or cash equivalents. Most revolving arrangements would involve a material delay before the original collection of cash is remitted. Furthermore, the nature of the new assets typically acquired means that most revolving arrangements involve reinvestment in assets that would not qualify as cash or cash equivalents. Therefore, it is clear that such structures would not meet the requirements in paragraph 19(c) of IAS 39. Consequently, the IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda as it did not expect significant diversity in practice to arise.

Back to sub-topic index

502.28.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision – Retention of Servicing Rights

November 2005 - The IFRIC was asked to provide guidance on whether an arrangement under which an entity has transferred the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset but continues to provide servicing on the transferred asset would fail the definition of a transfer of cash flows in terms of IAS 39 paragraph 18(a) [now paragraph 3.2.4(a) of IFRS 9].

The IFRIC noted that paragraph 18(a) focuses on whether an entity transfers the contractual rights to receive the cash flows from a financial asset. The determination of whether the contractual rights to cash flows have been transferred is not affected by the transferor retaining the role of an agent to administer collection and distribution of cash flows. Therefore, retention of servicing rights by the entity transferring the financial asset does not in itself cause the transfer to fail the requirements in paragraph 18(a) of IAS 39. The IFRIC decided not to add the issue to its agenda as it did not expect significant diversity in practice to arise.

Back to sub-topic index

502.28.1.3

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Derecognition of financial instruments upon modification

September 2012 - The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on the circumstances in which the restructuring of Greek government bonds (GGB) should result in derecognition in accordance with IAS 39 of the whole asset or only part of it. In particular, the Interpretations Committee has been requested to consider whether:

(a)

the portion of the old GGBs that are exchanged for twenty new bonds with different maturities and interest rates should be derecognised, or conversely accounted for as a modification or transfer that would not require derecognition?;

(b)

IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors would be applicable in analysing the submitted fact pattern?

(c)

either paragraphs AG8 or AG62 of IAS 39 [paragraph AG62 of IAS 39 is now replaced by paragraph B3.3.6 of IFRS 9] would be applicable to the fact pattern submitted if the GGBs were not derecognised?

Exchange of Financial Instruments: derecognition?

The Interpretations Committee noted that the request has been made within the context of a narrow fact pattern. The narrow fact pattern highlights the diversity in views that has arisen in relation to the accounting for the portion of the old GGBs that is exchanged for twenty new bonds with different maturities and interest rates. The submitter asked the Interpretations Committee to consider whether these should be derecognised, or conversely accounted for as a modification or transfer that would not require derecognition.

In addition, the Interpretations Committee has been asked to consider whether IAS 8 would be applicable in analysing the submitted fact pattern, and whether the exchange can be considered to be a transfer within the scope of paragraph 17(b) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(b) of IFRS 9].

The Interpretations Committee observed that the term ‘transfer’ is not defined in IAS 39. However, the potentially relevant portion of paragraph 18 of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.4 of IFRS 9] states that an entity transfers a financial asset if it transfers the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset. The Interpretations Committee noted that, in the fact pattern submitted, the bonds are transferred back to the issuer rather than being transferred to a third party. Accordingly, the Interpretations Committee believed that the transaction should be assessed against paragraph 17(a) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9].

In applying paragraph 17(a), the Interpretations Committee noted that, in order to determine whether the financial asset is extinguished, it is necessary to assess the changes made as part of the bond exchange against the notion of ‘expiry’ of the rights to the cash flows. The Interpretations Committee also noted that, if an entity applies IAS 8 because of the absence in IAS 39 of an explicit discussion of when a modification of a financial asset results in derecognition, applying IAS 8 requires judgement to develop and apply an accounting policy. Paragraph 11 of IAS 8 requires that, in determining an appropriate accounting policy, consideration must first be given to the requirements in IFRSs that deal with similar and related issues. The Interpretations Committee noted that, in the fact pattern submitted, that requirement would lead to the development of an analogy to the notion of a substantial change of the terms of a financial liability in paragraph 40 of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.3.2 of IFRS 9].

Paragraph 40 sets out that such a change can be effected by the exchange of debt instruments or by modification of the terms of an existing instrument. Hence, if this analogy to financial liabilities is applied to financial assets, a substantial change of terms (whether effected by exchange or by modification) would result in derecognition of the financial asset.

The Interpretations Committee noted that, if the guidance for financial liabilities is applied by analogy to assess whether the exchange of a portion of the old GGBs for twenty new bonds is a substantial change of the terms of the financial asset, the assessment needs to be made taking into consideration all of the changes made as part of the bond exchange.

In the fact pattern submitted, the relevant facts led the Interpretations Committee to conclude that, in determining whether the transaction results in the derecognition of the financial asset, both approaches (ie extinguishment under paragraph 17(a) of IAS 39 [now paragraph 3.2.3(a) of IFRS 9] or substantial change of the terms of the asset) would result in derecognition.

The Interpretations Committee considered the following aspects of the fact pattern in assessing the extent of the change that results from the transaction:

(a)

A holder of a single bond has received, in exchange for one portion of the old bond, twenty bonds with different maturities and cash flow profiles as well as other instruments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the exchange transaction;

(b)

All of the bond-holders received the same restructuring deal irrespective of the terms and conditions of their individual holdings. This indicates that the individual instruments, terms and conditions were not taken into account. The different bonds (series) were not each modified in contemplation of their respective terms and conditions but were instead replaced by a new uniform debt structure;

(c)

The terms and conditions of the new bonds are substantially different from those of the old bonds. The changes include many different aspects, such as the change in governing law; the introduction of contractual collective action clauses and the introduction of a co-financing agreement that affects the rights of the new bond holders; and modifications to the amount, term and coupons.

The Interpretations Committee noted that the starting point that it used for its analysis was the assumption in the submission that the part of the principal amount of the old GGBs that was exchanged for new GGBs could be separately assessed for derecognition. The Interpretations Committee emphasised that this assumption was more favourable for achieving partial derecognition than looking at the whole of the old bond. Hence, its conclusion that the old GGBs should be derecognised would apply even more so when taking into account that the exchange of the old GGBs was, as a matter of fact, the result of a single agreement that covered all aspects and types of consideration for surrendering the old GGBs. As a consequence, the Interpretations Committee noted that partial derecognition did not apply.

Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add the issue to its agenda.

Application of paragraphs AG62 or AG8 of IAS 39 to the submitted fact pattern

The Interpretations Committee noted that the questions raised by the submitter assume that the old GGBs in the fact pattern would not be derecognised. In the submitted fact pattern, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the old GGBs are derecognised. The Interpretations Committee noted that, because of its conclusion on derecognition, these questions did not need to be answered.

Back to sub-topic index

502.28.1.4

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Scope of paragraph AG5

November 2012 - The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance on several accounting issues that resulted from the restructuring of Greek government bonds (GGBs) in 2012. At its September 2012 meeting, the Interpretations Committee concluded that the GGBs surrendered in March 2012 should be derecognised, which means the new GGBs received as part of the debt restructuring are recognised as new assets. At the July 2012 and November 2012 meetings, the Interpretations Committee addressed the particular request to consider whether paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 [now replaced by paragraph B5.4.7 of IFRS 9] could apply when determining the effective interest rate on initial recognition of those new GGBs. Applying paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 means that the effective interest rate would be determined at initial recognition using estimated cash flows that take into account incurred credit losses.

The Interpretations Committee noted that paragraph AG5 of IAS 39 applies to acquired assets, which includes both purchased and originated assets.

The Interpretations Committee also noted that even though an origination of a debt instrument with an incurred loss is rather unusual, there are situations in which such transactions occur. For example, within the context of significant financial difficulty of an obligor, transactions can arise that involve originations of debt instruments that are outside the normal underwriting process but are instead forced upon already existing lenders by a restructuring process. This could include situations in which modifications of debt instruments result in derecognition of the original financial asset and the recognition of a new financial asset under IFRSs. In circumstances such as these, new financial assets could be recognised that have incurred losses on initial recognition. The Interpretations Committee noted that whether an incurred loss exists on initial recognition of an asset is a factual matter and that the assessment requires judgement. The Interpretations Committee also noted that the circumstances leading to the recognition of an asset with an incurred loss on initial recognition need not be limited to those in which debt instruments are effectively forced upon existing lenders, but could also arise in other transactions.

The Interpretations Committee considered that in the light of its analysis of the existing requirements of IAS 39 an interpretation was not necessary and consequently decided not to add the issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.28.1.5

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Commodity loans

March 2017 - The Committee received a request on how to account for a commodity loan transaction. Specifically, the transaction is one in which a bank borrows gold from a third party (Contract 1) and then lends that gold to a different third party for the same term and for a higher fee (Contract 2). The bank enters into the two contracts in contemplation of each other, but the contracts are not linked—ie the bank negotiates the contracts independently of each other. In each contract, the borrower obtains legal title to the gold at inception and has an obligation to return, at the end of the contract, gold of the same quality and quantity as that received. In exchange for the loan of gold, each borrower pays a fee to the respective lender over the term of the contract but there are no cash flows at inception of the contract.

The Committee was asked whether, for the term of the two contracts, the bank that borrows and then lends the gold recognises:

a.

an asset representing the gold (or the right to receive gold); and

b.

a liability representing the obligation to deliver gold.

The Committee observed that the particular transaction in the submission might not be clearly captured within the scope of any IFRS Standard. [The Committee observed, however, that particular IFRS Standards would apply to other transactions involving commodities (for example, the purchase of commodities for use in an entity’s production process, or the sale of commodities to customers).] In the absence of a Standard that specifically applies to a transaction, an entity applies paragraphs 10 and 11 of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors in developing and applying an accounting policy to the transaction. In doing so, paragraph 11 of IAS 8 requires an entity to consider:

a.

whether there are requirements in IFRS Standards dealing with similar and related issues; and, if not;

b.

how to account for the transaction applying the definitions, recognition criteria and measurement concepts for assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the Conceptual Framework.

The Committee noted that, applying paragraph 10 of IAS 8, the accounting policy developed must result in information that is (i) relevant to the economic decision-making needs of users of financial statements; and (ii) reliable—ie represents faithfully the financial position, financial performance and cash flows of the entity; reflects the economic substance; and is neutral, prudent and complete in all material respects. The Committee observed that, in considering the requirements that deal with similar and related issues, an entity considers all the requirements dealing with those similar and related issues, including relevant disclosure requirements.

The Committee also observed that the requirements in paragraph 112(c) of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements are relevant if an entity develops an accounting policy applying paragraphs 10 and 11 of IAS 8 for a commodity loan transaction such as that described in the submission. In applying these requirements, an entity considers whether additional disclosures are needed to provide information relevant to an understanding of the accounting for, and risks associated with, such commodity loan transactions.

The Committee concluded that it would be unable to resolve the question asked efficiently within the confines of existing IFRS Standards. The wide range of transactions involving commodities means that any narrow-scope standard-setting activity would be of limited benefit to entities and would have a high risk of unintended consequences. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.30.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Application of the Highly Probable Requirement when a Specific Derivative is Designated as a Hedging Instrument

March 2019 - The Committee received a request about the requirement in IFRS 9 and IAS 39 that a forecast transaction must be ‘highly probable’ to qualify as a hedged item in a cash flow hedge relationship. The request asked how an entity applies that requirement when the notional amount of the derivative designated as a hedging instrument (load following swap) varies depending on the outcome of the hedged item (forecast energy sales).

The responses to outreach performed on the request and those received in comment letters confirmed that the financial instrument described in the request is not common. The comment letters also confirmed the views expressed by some Committee members that the request relates to the broader matter of how uncertainty over the timing and magnitude of a forecast transaction affects the highly probable assessment applying IFRS 9 and IAS 39. 

The Committee observed that, in a cash flow hedge, a forecast transaction can be a hedged item if, and only if, it is highly probable (paragraphs 6.3.1 and 6.3.3 of IFRS 9 and paragraphs 86(b) and 88(c) of IAS 39). When assessing whether a forecast transaction (in the request, the forecast energy sales) is highly probable, an entity considers uncertainty over both the timing and magnitude of the forecast transaction (paragraphs F.3.7 and F.3.11 of the Implementation Guidance accompanying IAS 39).

The Committee also observed that, for hedge accounting purposes, the entity must document the forecast energy sales with sufficient specificity in terms of timing and magnitude so that when such transactions occur the entity can identify whether the transaction is the hedged transaction. Consequently, the forecast energy sales cannot be specified solely as a percentage of sales during a period because that would lack the required specificity (paragraphs F.3.10 and F.3.11 of the Implementation Guidance accompanying IAS 39).

In addition, the Committee observed that the terms of the hedging instrument (in the request, the load following swap) do not affect the highly probable assessment because the highly probable requirement is applicable to the hedged item.

The Committee noted that the highly probable requirement in IFRS 9 is not new; IAS 39 includes the same requirement. The Board decided not to carry forward any of the hedge accounting related Implementation Guidance that accompanied IAS 39; nonetheless paragraph BC6.95 of IFRS 9 explains that not carrying forward the Implementation Guidance did not mean that the Board had rejected that guidance.

The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 and IAS 39 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether a forecast transaction is highly probable. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add this matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.30.1.2

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Hedging Variability in Cash Flows due to Real Interest Rates

May 2021 - The Committee received a request about applying the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9 when the risk management objective is to ‘fix’ the cash flows in real terms.

The request asked whether a hedge of the variability in cash flows arising from changes in the real interest rate, rather than the nominal interest rate, could be accounted for as a cash flow hedge. More specifically, the request describes a fact pattern in which an entity with a floating rate instrument referenced to an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, enters into an inflation swap (which swaps the variable interest cash flows of the floating rate instrument for variable cash flows based on an inflation index). The request asked whether the entity can designate the swap in a cash flow hedging relationship to hedge changes in the variable interest payments for changes in the real interest rate.

Hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9

Paragraph 6.1.1 of IFRS 9 states that the objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or other comprehensive income). Paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9 sets out the qualifying criteria for hedge accounting.

One type of hedging relationship described in paragraph 6.5.2 of IFRS 9 is a cash flow hedge in which an entity hedges the exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to a particular risk associated with all, or a component of, a recognised asset or liability and could affect profit or loss.

Paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9 specifies that an entity may designate an item in its entirety, or a component of an item, as a hedged item. A risk component may be designated as the hedged item if, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, the risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable.

With respect to inflation risk, paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 states ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that unless inflation risk is contractually specified, it is not separately identifiable and reliably measurable and hence cannot be designated as a risk component of a financial instrument’.

Paragraph B6.3.14 of IFRS 9 states that an entity cannot simply impute the terms and conditions of an inflation hedging instrument by projecting its term and conditions onto a nominal interest rate debt instrument. This is because, when developing IFRS 9, the Board specifically considered inflation risk and put in place restrictions to address its concern that entities might impute the terms and conditions of a hedging instrument onto the hedged item ‘without proper application of the criteria for designating risk components’ as a hedged item (paragraph BC6.193 of IFRS 9). To appropriately account for hedge (in)effectiveness, paragraph B6.5.5 of IFRS 9 requires an entity to measure the (present) value of the hedged item independently of the measurement of the value of the hedging instrument.

Given that the request asked whether the real interest rate component could be designated as a risk component in a cash flow hedge, the Committee’s analysis focused on whether a non-contractually specified real interest rate risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable in the context of the proposed cash flow hedging relationship described in the request.

Can a non-contractually specified real interest rate risk component be designated as the hedged item in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship?

When considering the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9, the Committee observed that for cash flow hedge accounting to be applied in the fact pattern described in the request, it would be necessary to determine:

• whether that risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable as required by paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9; and

• as a result, that the entity has exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to the real interest rate risk component of the floating rate instrument as required by paragraph 6.5.2(b) of IFRS 9.

 

The Committee noted that, to designate a risk component in a hedging relationship, the risk component must be separately identifiable and reliably measurable within the context of each individual hedging relationship. The Committee also noted that it is the market structure—in which a floating rate instrument is issued and in which hedging activity will take place—that needs to support the eligibility of a real interest rate risk component as a non-contractually specified risk component as required by paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9. For the market structure to support the eligibility of that risk component in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship, the real interest rate must represent an identifiable pricing element in setting the floating benchmark interest rate, thereby creating separately identifiable and reliably measurable cash flow variability in the floating rate instrument.

Although the rebuttable presumption in paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 applies to both fair value hedges and cash flow hedges, the example in paragraph B6.3.14 of IFRS 9 illustrates a rebuttal of the presumption in a fair value hedge. The Committee therefore concluded that, because nominal rates generally do not change as a direct result of changes in real interest rates, the existence in the relevant debt market of a term structure of zero-coupon real interest rates does not, in itself, overcome the rebuttable presumption in paragraph B6.3.13 of IFRS 9 in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship.

The Committee noted that cash flows as defined by paragraph 6 of IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows are, by nature, denominated in nominal terms. The Committee also noted that the interest rate for floating rate financial instruments is defined in nominal terms for a given currency. Therefore, to meet the requirements in IFRS 9 for a cash flow hedge designation, the variability in the cash flows of the floating rate instrument attributable to the designated risk component needs to be assessed in nominal terms. A nominal interest rate (such as LIBOR) may be influenced by expected inflation and the real interest rate in the long term. However, nominal interest rates do not change as a direct result of changes in inflation or the real interest rate (that is, they are not identifiable pricing elements in setting nominal rates).

The Committee therefore concluded that there is no exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to changes in the real interest rate in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship and, thus, the requirements in paragraph 6.3.7 and paragraph 6.5.2(b) of IFRS 9 are not met. Consequently, the real interest rate risk component in the proposed cash flow hedging relationship does not meet the requirements in IFRS 9 to be designated as an eligible hedged item as required by paragraph 6.4.1 of IFRS 9.

The Committee concluded that the requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether a hedge of the variability in cash flows arising from changes in the real interest rate, rather than the nominal interest rate, could be accounted for as a cash flow hedge. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add a standard-setting project to the work plan.

Back to sub-topic index

502.32.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Fair Value Hedge of Foreign Currency Risk on Non-financial Assets

September 2019 - The Committee received two requests about fair value hedge accounting applying IFRS 9. Both requests asked whether foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset held for consumption that an entity can designate as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship.

Hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9

The objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or, in some cases, other comprehensive income) (paragraph 6.1.1 of IFRS 9).

If all the qualifying criteria specified in IFRS 9 are met, an entity may choose to designate a hedging relationship between a hedging instrument and a hedged item. One type of hedge accounting relationship is a fair value hedge, in which an entity hedges the exposure to changes in fair value of a hedged item that is attributable to a particular risk and could affect profit or loss.

An entity may designate an item in its entirety, or a component of an item, as a hedged item. A risk component may be designated as the hedged item if, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, that risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable.

In considering the request, the Committee assessed the following:

Can an entity have exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption that could affect profit or loss?

Paragraph 6.5.2(a) of IFRS 9 describes a fair value hedge as ‘a hedge of the exposure to changes in fair value of a recognised asset or liability or an unrecognised firm commitment, or a component of any such item, that is attributable to a particular risk and could affect profit or loss’.

Therefore, in the context of a fair value hedge, foreign currency risk arises when changes in exchange rates result in changes in the fair value of the underlying item that could affect profit or loss.

Depending on the particular facts and circumstances, a non-financial asset might be priced—and its fair value determined—only in one currency at a global level and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency. If the fair value of a non-financial asset is determined in a foreign currency, applying IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, the measure of fair value that could affect profit or loss is the fair value translated into an entity’s functional currency (translated fair value). The translated fair value of such a non-financial asset would change as a result of changes in the applicable exchange rate in a given period, even if the fair value (determined in the foreign currency) were to remain constant. The Committee therefore observed that in such circumstances an entity is exposed to foreign currency risk.

IFRS 9 does not require changes in fair value to be expected to affect profit or loss but, rather, that those changes could affect profit or loss. The Committee observed that changes in fair value of a non-financial asset held for consumption could affect profit or loss if, for example, the entity were to sell the asset before the end of the asset’s economic life.

Consequently, the Committee concluded that, depending on the particular facts and circumstances, it is possible for an entity to have exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption that could affect profit or loss. This would be the case when, at a global level, the fair value of a non-financial asset is determined only in one currency and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency.

If an entity has exposure to foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset, is it a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component?

Paragraph 6.3.7 of IFRS 9 permits an entity to designate a risk component of an item as the hedged item if, ‘based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, the risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable’. 

Paragraph 82 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement permits the designation of non-financial items as hedged items only for a) foreign currency risks, or b) in their entirety for all risks, ‘because of the difficulty of isolating and measuring the appropriate portion of the cash flows or fair value changes attributable to specific risks other than foreign currency risks’. Paragraph BC6.176 of IFRS 9 indicates that, in developing the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9, the Board did not change its view that there are situations in which foreign currency risk can be separately identified and reliably measured. That paragraph states that the Board ‘learned from its outreach activities that there are circumstances in which entities are able to identify and measure many risk components (not only foreign currency risk) of non-financial items with sufficient reliability’.

Consequently, the Committee concluded that foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset. Whether that is the case will depend on an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances within the context of the particular market structure.

The Committee observed that foreign currency risk is separately identifiable and reliably measurable when the risk being hedged relates to changes in fair value arising from translation into an entity’s functional currency of fair value that, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, is determined globally only in one currency and that currency is not the entity’s functional currency. The Committee noted, however, that the fact that market transactions are commonly settled in a particular currency does not necessarily mean that this is the currency in which the non-financial asset is priced—and thus the currency in which its fair value is determined.

Can the designation of foreign currency risk on a non-financial asset held for consumption be consistent with an entity’s risk management activities?

Paragraph 6.4.1(b) of IFRS 9 requires that, at the inception of a hedging relationship, ‘there is formal designation and documentation of the hedging relationship and the entity’s risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge’. Accordingly, the Committee observed that, applying IFRS 9, an entity can apply hedge accounting only if it is consistent with the entity’s risk management objective and strategy for managing its exposure. An entity therefore cannot apply hedge accounting solely on the grounds that it identifies items in its statement of financial position that are measured differently but are subject to the same type of risk.

To the extent that an entity intends to consume a non-financial asset (rather than to sell it), the Committee observed that changes in the fair value of the non-financial asset may be of limited significance to the entity. In such cases, an entity is unlikely to be managing and using hedging instruments to hedge risk exposures on the non-financial asset and, in that case, it cannot apply hedge accounting.

The Committee expects that an entity would manage and hedge exposure to foreign currency risk on the fair value of non-financial assets held for consumption only in very limited circumstances—in such circumstances, an entity would use hedging instruments to hedge only foreign currency risk exposure that it expects will affect profit or loss. This may be the case, for example, if (a) the entity expects to sell the non-financial asset (eg an item of property, plant and equipment) part-way through its economic life; (b) the expected residual value of the asset at the date of expected sale is significant; and (c) the entity manages and uses hedging instruments to hedge the foreign currency risk exposure only on the residual value of the asset.

Furthermore, the Committee observed that risk management activities that aim only to reduce foreign exchange volatility arising from translating a financial liability denominated in a foreign currency applying IAS 21 are inconsistent with the designation of foreign exchange risk on a non-financial asset as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship. In such circumstances, the entity is managing the foreign currency risk exposure arising on the financial liability, rather than managing the risk exposure arising on the non-financial asset.

Other considerations

An entity applies all other applicable requirements in IFRS 9 in determining whether it can apply fair value hedge accounting in its particular circumstances, including requirements related to the designation of the hedged item and hedging instrument, and hedge effectiveness. For example, an entity would consider how its hedge accounting designation addresses any differences in the size, depreciation/amortisation pattern and expected sale/maturity of the hedged item and the hedging instrument.

For any risk exposure for which an entity elects to apply hedge accounting, the entity also makes the disclosures required by IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures related to hedge accounting. The Committee noted, in particular, that paragraphs 22A⁠–⁠22C of IFRS 7 require the disclosure of information about an entity’s risk management strategy and how it is applied to manage risk.

The Committee concluded that the principles and requirements in IFRS 9 provide an adequate basis for an entity to determine whether foreign currency risk can be a separately identifiable and reliably measurable risk component of a non-financial asset held for consumption that an entity can designate as the hedged item in a fair value hedge accounting relationship. Consequently, the Committee decided not to add the matter to its standard-setting agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.36.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Determining hedge effectiveness for net investment hedges

March 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request to clarify how an entity should determine hedge effectiveness when accounting for net investment hedges in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. Specifically, the submitter asked whether, when accounting for net investment hedges, an entity should apply the ‘lower of’ test required for cash flow hedges in determining the effective portion of the gains or losses arising from the hedging instrument.

The Interpretations Committee observed that:

a.

paragraph 6.5.13 of IFRS 9 states that ‘hedges of a net investment in a foreign operation … shall be accounted for similarly to cash flow hedges …’. Paragraph 6.5.13(a), which focusses on net investment hedges, also references paragraph 6.5.11, which deals with the accounting for cash flow hedges; this includes the ‘lower of’ test. This indicates that, when accounting for net investment hedges, an entity should apply the ‘lower of’ test in determining the effective portion of the gains or losses arising from the hedging instrument.

b.

in determining the effective portion of the gains or losses arising from the hedging instrument when accounting for net investment hedges, the application of the ‘lower of’ test avoids the recycling of exchange differences arising from the hedged item that have been recognised in other comprehensive income before the disposal of the foreign operation. The Interpretations Committee noted that such an outcome would be consistent with the requirements of IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates.

In addition, the Interpretations Committee noted the following:

a.

it did not receive evidence of significant diversity among entities applying IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement in determining the effective portion of the gains or losses arising from the hedging instrument by applying the ‘lower of’ test when accounting for net investment hedges.

b.

few entities have yet adopted the hedging requirements in IFRS 9; consequently, it is too early to assess whether the issue is widespread. However, the Interpretations Committee expects no significant diversity to arise when IFRS 9 is adopted more widely.

In the light of the existing requirements in IFRS Standards, the Interpretations Committee decided that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index

502.42.1.1

IFRIC Agenda Decision - Transition issues relating to hedging

January 2016 - The Interpretations Committee received a request for guidance in respect of two issues pertaining to hedge designation and hedge accounting in situations in which an entity makes the transition from IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement to IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

More specifically, the Interpretations Committee has been asked to consider:

a.

whether an entity can treat a hedging relationship as a continuing hedging relationship on transition from IAS 39 to IFRS 9 if the entity changes the hedged item in a hedging relationship from an entire non‑financial item (as permitted by IAS 39) to a component of the non‑financial item (as permitted by IFRS 9) in order to align the hedge with the entity’s risk management objective (Issue 1); and

b.

whether an entity can continue with its original hedge designation of the entire non-financial item on transition to IFRS 9 when the entity’s risk management objective is to hedge only a component of the non-financial item (Issue 2).

In relation to Issue 1, the Interpretations Committee noted that when an entity changes the hedged item in a hedging relationship from an entire non-financial item to a component of the non-financial item upon transition to IFRS 9, it is required to do so on a prospective basis as described in paragraph 7.2.22 of IFRS 9. The Interpretations Committee also noted that changing the hedged item while continuing the original hedge relationship would be equivalent to the retrospective application of the hedge accounting requirements in IFRS 9, which is prohibited except in the limited circumstances described in paragraph 7.2.26 of IFRS 9. The Interpretations Committee observed that in the example presented in Issue 1, the exceptions in paragraph 7.2.26 do not apply and therefore the original hedge relationship could not be treated as a continuing hedge relationship on transition to IFRS 9.

In relation to Issue 2, the Interpretations Committee observed that:

a.

paragraphs BC6.97, BC6.98 and BC6.100 of IFRS 9 support the use of hedge designations that are not exact copies of actual risk management (‘proxy hedging’) as long as they reflect risk management in that they relate to the same type of risk that is being managed and the same type of instruments that are being used for that purpose; and

b.

the use of proxy hedging in cases in which it reflects the entity’s risk management (that is, where it relates to the same type of risk that is being managed and the same type of instruments that are being used for that purpose) did not appear to be restricted to instances in which IFRS 9 had prohibited an entity from designating hedged items in accordance with its actual risk management.

As a result, the Interpretations Committee noted that hedge designations of an entire non-financial item could continue on transition to IFRS 9 as long as they meet the qualifying criteria in IFRS 9.

In the light of existing IFRS requirements, the Interpretations Committee determined that neither an Interpretation nor an amendment to a Standard was necessary. Consequently, the Interpretations Committee decided not to add this issue to its agenda.

Back to sub-topic index


This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

The BDO network (referred to as the ‘BDO network’ or the ‘Network’) is an international network of independent public accounting, tax and advisory firms which are members of BDO International Limited and perform professional services under the name and style of BDO (hereafter ‘BDO member firms’). BDO International Limited is a UK company limited by guarantee.  It is the governing entity of the BDO network. 
This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Neither BDO IFR Advisory Limited, and/or any other entity of BDO network, nor their respective partners, employees and/or agents accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

Service provision within the BDO network in connection with IFRS (comprising International Financial Reporting Standards, International Accounting Standards, and Interpretations developed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the former Standing Interpretations Committee), and other documents, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, is provided by BDO IFR Advisory Limited, a UK registered company limited by guarantee. Service provision within the BDO network is coordinated by Brussels Worldwide Services BV, a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium.

Each of BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and the BDO member firms is a separate legal entity and has no liability for another entity’s acts or omissions. Nothing in the arrangements or rules of the BDO network shall constitute or imply an agency relationship or a partnership between BDO International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV, BDO IFR Advisory Limited and/or the BDO member firms. Neither BDO International Limited nor any other central entities of the BDO network provide services to clients.

BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.