Advanced Program in Accounting and Auditing Regulation Module 23
-
Upload
holmes-hull -
Category
Documents
-
view
42 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Advanced Program in Accounting and Auditing Regulation Module 23
1
Advanced Program in Accounting and Advanced Program in Accounting and Auditing RegulationAuditing Regulation
Module 23Module 23
Prof. Arnold SchilderProf. Arnold Schilder
Chairman BCBS Accounting Task ForceChairman BCBS Accounting Task Force
3 May 20063 May 2006
2
Agenda
1. Interaction between financial reporting and prudential reporting1. IFRS and prudential reporting2. Bridging the gap: filters, guidance, templates
2. IAS 39: supervisory response1. Impact on regulatory capital2. Loan loss allowance guidance3. Work ahead
3. Need for robust audit: recent initiatives
3
Overview
1. The information that prudential supervisor needs is not always available from the financial reporting (= the published financial statements)
2. Completely separate prudential reporting is expensive and can result in internal control risks and behavioural risks
3. Therefore: use financial reporting as much as possible
4
IFRS and prudential reporting
• Financial reporting is becoming more risk-sensitive IAS 39 (recognition and measurement of (innovative)
financial instruments, (collective) loan loss allowances), IAS 32 (presentation of innovative instruments), IFRS 7 (financial risk disclosures), consolidation of innovative financial structures
• The regulatory capital framework is also becoming more risk-senstivePillar 1 (IRB-approach, operational risk), Pillar 2
assessment, Pillar 3 disclosures• But…
5
IFRS and prudential reporting
• … there are differences in risk perception…
Financial reporting takes a neutral view of risk; prudential reporting focuses on downside risk
Financial reporting is moving more slowly towards recognising portfolio risk and portfolio risk management
Financial reporting is moving towards a shorter time horizon; the focus is increasingly on what is now
6
IFRS and prudential reporting
• … and differences in risk measurement
Financial reporting is moving towards more flexible measurement principles Increased use of fair values; also for illiquid financial
instruments IAS 39 fair value option (FASB fair value option
proposal) Financial reporting differentiates risks less explicitly than
prudential reportingRegulatory capital is computed using explicit risk
weightings
7
IFRS and prudential reporting
• … and differences in presentation
Financial reporting is becoming less specific in formNo specific standard for banksNo specific reporting formats
8
Bridging the gap
• Prudential filters: adjust financial reporting to (1) eliminate artificial volatility; (2) maintain level of regulatory capital
• Prudential guidance: complement financial reporting to support prudential reporting (e.g. fair value option, loan loss allowances)
• Prudential reporting templates: complement financial reporting to support prudential reporting (e.g. FINREP, COREP)
9
Prudential filters
• Eliminate artificial volatility
Reverse fair value gains and losses on liabilities for banks’ own credit standing
Reverse fair value gains and losses on cash flow hedges
10
Prudential filters
• Maintain level of regulatory capital
• Examples:Deduct goodwillMaintain prudential framework for: (1)
classification of debt versus equity; (2) trading book; (3) securitisations
Reallocate fair value gains and losses between Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital
11
Prudential guidance
• Prudential filters not preferred route in all casesExploit strengths of financial reportingRecognise reporting burden on banks
• Apply prudential guidance where this solves the problemAccept financial reporting if subject to robust
risk management consistent with prudential norms
If not, consider prudential measures
12
Prudential reporting templates
• FINREP (FINancial REPorting framework): based on IFRS
• COREP (COmmon REPorting framework): based on CRDPromote convergence of supervisory practicesPromote harmonisation of informationFacilitate exchange of informationReduce reporting burden on banks operating cross-
border
13
Agenda
1. Interaction between financial reporting and prudential reporting1. IFRS and prudential reporting2. Bridging the gap: filters, guidance, templates
2. IAS 39: supervisory response1. Impact on regulatory capital2. Loan loss allowance guidance3. Work ahead
3. Need for robust audit: recent initiatives
14
Overview
1. IAS 39 has merits and drawbacks for the prudential supervisor
2. Supervisory response is necessary
3. IAS 39 is an ongoing project
15
Impact on regulatory capital
• Qualitative analysis indicated need for responsePress releases (prudential filters)Prudential guidance (fair value option, loan loss
allowances)
• Quantitative analysis (CEBS) indicated need for monitoringFair value optionLoan loss allowancesHedge accounting
16
CEBS impact analysis (transition)2004 2005 ∆(%)
Financial assets (HFT) 977 1,696 74
Financial assets (FVO) 58 288 394
Financial assets (AFS) 690 810 17
Loans and receivables 4,870 4,717 -3
Financial assets (HTM) 174 63 -64
Financial liabilities (HFT) 569 1,198 111
Hedging derivatives (liabilities) 1 36 2,531
In billions of euros
17
Regulatory response: why?
• Prudence: forward-looking recognition of losses; critical recognition of gains
• Reliability: measurement of non-traded instruments
• Economic risk recognition: volatility; portfolio risk (management)
• Definitions: eligible capital instruments, trading book, securitised assets
18
Regulatory response: what?
• Prudential filters (treated earlier)
• Prudential guidanceFair value option guidance (under
consultation)Loan loss allowance guidance (under
consultation)
19
Loan loss allowance guidance (1)
• Purpose of the guidance
Highlight principle of robust loan loss allowances under financial reporting standards
Provide guidance for evaluating loan loss allowances from a prudential perspective
Highlight need to act when loan loss allowances do not satisfy prudential norms
20
Loan loss allowance guidance (2)
• Content of the guidance
Ten principles coveringSupervisory expectationsSupervisory action
Highlight differences between financial reporting framework and prudential framework
Encourage use of common inputs for credit risk assessment, financial reporting and prudential reporting
21
Loan loss allowance guidance (3)
• Implementation of the guidance
Identify when to recognise loan losses Determine how to calculate loan losses Analyse loan losses against prudential norms
Integrate data and processes to the extent possible Manage separate data and processes from point of
divergence
22
Loan loss allowance guidance (4)
• Implementation of the guidance
Process review Dialogue with external auditor Dialogue with prudential supervisor Dialogue between external auditor and
prudential supervisor
23
The work ahead: short-term
1. Monitor application of fair value option on banks’ capital base and business practices
2. Monitor level of banks’ loan loss allowances under IAS 39
3. Monitor developments in fair value measurement project (including fair value hierarchy)
4. Remain open to initiatives to refine the IAS 39 hedge-accounting framework
24
The work ahead: long(er)-term
1. Address fundamental issues to accommodate broader stakeholder base Conceptual framework project is first contribution
2. Key aspects for consideration include: Risk sensitivity: economic risk recognition Risk perception: forward-lookingness Risk measurement: reliability Feasibility and cost of application and enforcement
25
Agenda
1. Interaction between financial reporting and prudential reporting1. IFRS and prudential reporting2. Bridging the gap: filters, guidance, templates
2. IAS 39: supervisory response1. Impact on regulatory capital2. Loan loss allowance guidance3. Work ahead
3. Need for robust audit: recent initiatives
26
Overview
1. Regulatory framework relies on audit (reliable reporting)
2. Audits must be performed, and be perceived to performed, independently and to a high quality
3. Improvements in audit have been made
4. There is room for further improvement
27
Interaction with regulatory framework
• Prudential reporting (which is based on financial reporting inputs) relies on reliable information (e.g. application of financial reporting standards (fair values, loan loss allowances))
• Market discipline (including Pillar 3) relies on reliable information
28
Recent initiatives in audit
• Regulatory intervention
• Introduction of oversight: PCAOB (US), EGAOB (EU)
• Revised legislation (EU 8th Directive)
29
Recent initiatives in audit
• IFAC institutional reform
• Introduction of oversight: PIOB with strong regulatory input
• New CAG with independent chair and pro-active Working Groups
• Stronger focus on public interest:• International Auditing and Assurance Standards
Board (IAASB)• International Accounting Education Standards
Board (IAESB)• International Ethics Standards Board for
Accountants (IESBA)
30
Recent initiatives in audit
• IFAC technical reform
• Revised Code of Ethics• Clarity Project• Review of standards• Explicit identification of public interest entities• Focus on conduct, including corporate
conduct
31
EU 8th Directive
• Formal adoption foreseen in 2006; transposition into national law within two years
1. Independent public oversight2. Auditor independence (audit vs non-audit services)3. Mandatory rotation (key audit partner; public interest
entities; every 7 years at the latest)4. Requirement for listed companies to set up audit
committee or equivalent body5. Limited liability (EC invited to issue report before end
2006)
32
The way ahead
• BCBS applauds efforts so far
• Areas for ongoing improvement• PIOB focus: Balanced composition of IFAC boards,
public accountability, quality of audits worldwide• Technical improvements: Clarity Project, ethics,
review of IAPS 1006 (auditing the financial statements of banks)
• Specific focus on interactive tools such as XBRL (financial and prudential reporting)
• Continuing dialogue between regulators and audit profession
• Continuing dialogue among regulators