ESG-based bonds and loans: the global agenda is expected to adversely impact the coherence of IFRS
A quick amendment to IFRS 9 is intended, among other things, to permit classification of an investment in ESG bonds based on the traditional and simple amortised cost model, instead of measurement at fair value through profit or loss, which triggers volatility of results. This amendment is expected to encourage investments in the said bonds and even to encourage banks to include ESG terms as part of loan agreements. Even though the proposed amendment is consistent with the global agenda regarding this matter, it creates a coherency problem with respect to the accounting treatment of the Standard. Accordingly, it would be wise to limit the amendment solely to cases where achieving the ESG target reduces the credit risk of the issuing entity.
Standardization is needed with respect to the non-accounting performance measures published for investors (*)
The case of SentinelOne regarding revision of the ARR information, which led to a collapse of its share price, illustrates the significant problem presently posed by reporting non‑accounting performance measures. Today’s individual investors in high‑tech companies rely on the said measures for share‑pricing purposes. While these measures are ostensibly objective, the manner of their calculation is not necessarily uniform or standard among different companies. The Securities Authorities must ensure the standardization of these measures for individual investors (sophisticated investors such as investment funds know and do this on a regular basis). In addition, presentation of a detailed reconciliation between the performance measure and an existing corresponding GAAP‑based accounting item is needed.
Recording the entire provision for expected credit losses as an immediate loss: a proposed solution to the accounting distortion created in an acquisition of financial companies
The relatively new accounting model for expected credit losses adopted by both IFRS and US GAAP in recent years creates a distortion in the financial statements of the acquirer upon execution of a business combination. The reason for this is that the acquirer is required to record a loss immediately in the full amount of the provision for expected credit losses in respect of the acquiree’s financial assets. The big (but not the only) problem that is particularly relevant at the present time relates to mergers and acquisitions in the banking area around the world. The solution must be accomplished through a revision of the existing accounting standards.
SVB’s fall: A question about its “perfect” financial statements
The accounting classification of investment in held to maturity securities whose fair value was only $76.2 billion, but they were measured at their amortized cost of $91.3 billion was not so trivial in light of the duration gap - the short duration of the bank's liabilities compared to its assets. A potential mistake that could wipe out the bank's shareholders’ equity which was $16.3 billion! This fact was not even identified as a critical decision in the bank’s financial statements.
Capitalization of Specific Borrowings through General Borrowings could Potentially Mislead Investors
Capitalization of Specific Borrowings through General Borrowings could Potentially Mislead Investors
Capitalization of specific borrowing costs incurred for acquiring non-qualifying assets by means of a capitalization mechanism that includes general borrowings leads to an upward‑bias in the recording of net profit and FFO, which could ultimately mislead investors. The distortion stems from the fact that general borrowing is not presently defined in such a manner that excludes specific borrowing that was taken out to finance non-qualifying assets. The distortion currently exists in both IFRS and US GAAP, although in the last few years it is manifest in IFRS as a result of application of the new lease model. The solution lies in excluding specific borrowings taken out to finance non-qualifying assets.
