Macroeconomia Monitorare l'evolversi dei Principi Contabili (Fasb & Ias)

[iuessei1981]

articolo di oggi sul sole24

Il fair value sperduto nel labirinto delle banche
di Robert Kaplan, Robert Merton, e Scott Richard *

19 Agosto 2009

Le banche e gli altri istituti finanziari fanno lobbying contro la contabilizzazione al fair value delle loro attività. Sostengono che molte delle loro attività non sono problematiche, che comunque intendono conservarle fino alla scadenza e che i recenti prezzi di transazione non rispecchiano il valore effettivo degli asset, bensì le difficoltà di vendere in un mercato illiquido. I Parlamenti e le autorità di regolamentazione sostengono questa tesi, preferendo mascherare il calo dei prezzi delle attività che dover gestire le conseguenze di banche insolventi.
Tutto questo non aiuta a fare passi avanti. Regolatori e legislatori smaniano per trovare soluzioni semplici a problemi complessi, ma consentire agli istituti di credito di ignorare le transazioni di mercato non è una buona idea.
Una banca sostiene di solito che un mutuo per il quale continua a ricevere regolarmente i pagamenti mensili non è un mutuo problematico, e che non c'è necessità di svalutarlo. Però un potenziale acquirente del mutuo difficilmente lo valuterà al suo valore originario. L'acquirente calcola il rapporto prestito/valore sulla base del valore corrente dell'immobile, che è molto più basso. Dopo aver calcolato l'eventualità d'insolvenza, l'acquirente potenziale elabora un prezzo che tiene conto del rischio d'insolvenza e della potenziale perdita: un prezzo che è ben al di sotto del valore contabile del mutuo riportato nei registri della banca.
La banca probabilmente ignorerà il prezzo offerto, o scambi con attività analoghe, sostenendo che sono le condizioni eccezionali del mercato, non un calo del valore delle attività, a determinare la carenza di acquirenti al prezzo originario. Ma il vero motivo è che non vogliono ammettere la perdita. Conservando gli asset al loro valore originario, però, la banca crea le condizioni per un peculiare scenario, con la possibilità che i suoi trader acquistino un prestito identico a un prezzo inferiore, e perciò trovandosi a detenere, fra gli asset non in vendita, due titoli identici a prezzi diversissimi.
Gli asset finanziari, anche i raggruppamenti complessi di asset, vengono scambiati di continuo sui mercati. I mercati funzionano al meglio quando le aziende rivelano informazioni attendibili sul valore delle loro attività e sui flussi di cassa futuri. Se le aziende scelgono di non rivelare le loro stime più attendibili sul valore equo delle loro attività, gli operatori di mercato elaboreranno da soli un giudizio sui flussi di cassa futuri e sottrarranno un premio di rischio per la mancanza di trasparenza. Una contabilità valida dovrebbe limitare le perdite di questo genere.
Funziona già così in un altro comparto della finanza. I fondi comuni di investimento negli Stati Uniti ora, per fornire stime eque del valore delle loro attività scambiate sui mercati esteri, non usano più l'ultimo prezzo di mercato, bensì dei modelli che servono a prevedere i prezzi a cui verrebbero scambiati questi asset esteri alla chiusura dei mercati negli Stati Uniti, basandosi sui prezzi di chiusura di attività simili sul mercato Usa. In questa maniera, i fondi fanno in modo che i loro azionisti non scambino le quote sulla base di valori netti distorti, calcolati partendo da prezzi ormai superati. Le banche possono usare modelli analoghi per aggiornare i prezzi che verrebbero pagati per varie attività. Gli uffici di trading delle banche dispongono di modelli che consentono, anche per i raggruppamenti di asset complessi, di prevedere i prezzi che verrebbero offerti con un margine di errore del 5 per cento.
Ottenere stime attendibili per raggruppamenti complessi di titoli garantiti da attività, naturalmente, non è semplice. Ma oggi gli analisti di una banca possono usare i prezzi delle ultime transazioni di mercato come punti di riferimento, e poi applicare dei correttivi in base alle caratteristiche specifiche degli asset detenuti dalla banca, come i prezzi sul mercato locale degli immobili a cui fanno riferimento i mutui.
Perché queste stime, fatte da analisti interni alla banca, siano credibili, è necessario che vengano convalidate da revisori esterni e indipendenti. Molti revisori certificati, tuttavia, hanno scarso addestramento ed esperienza dei modelli usati per calcolare stime eque. In questo caso, le società di revisione possono ricorrere ad esperti esterni, più o meno come fanno oggi con esperti di calcolo attuariale e avvocati, che forniscono un'attestazione indipendente ad altre stime complesse presenti nei documenti finanziari di una società. Il costo aggiuntivo del ricorso a esperti indipendenti rientra fra i costi legati all'emissione e all'investimento in strumenti finanziari complessi, poco scambiati sui mercati.
I legislatori e gli organismi di regolamentazione temono che declassare le attività di una banca al valore equo possa innescare azioni automatiche, col deterioramento del coefficiente patrimoniale. Ma usare le regole contabili per ingannare i regolatori con informazioni non accurate non è una buona cosa. Se i calcoli sui capitali sono basati su valori imprecisi delle attività, i coefficienti patrimoniali sono già più bassi di quanto appare. Le banche dovrebbero fornire ai regolatori le migliori informazioni possibili sulle loro attività e passività e, separatamente, consentire loro la flessibilità e la discrezionalità per correggere il coefficiente di adeguatezza patrimoniale in base alla situazione economica. I regolatori possono abbassare i coefficienti patrimoniali durante i periodi di rallentamento dell'economia e alzarli quando l'economia va bene.
Nessun sistema per appurare il valore equo di titoli complessi è perfetto. I modelli possono essere usati o interpretati a sproposito. Ma oggi esistono metodi ragionevoli e revisionabili per incorporare le informazioni sugli ultimi prezzi di mercato. Gli investitori, i creditori, i consigli di amministrazione e i regolatori non devono prendere decisioni sulla base di valori distorti delle attività e delle passività finanziarie di una società.

* Robert Kaplan e Robert Merton, premi Nobel per l'economia nel 1997, insegnano alla Harvard Business School. Scott Richard insegna alla Warton School dell'Università della Pennsylvania
(Traduzione di Fabio Galimberti)
19 Agosto 2009
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/SoleO...ir-value.shtml

 

[dagoweb]

Faccio un po' di crossposting, ma l'articolo segnalato nell'altro 3d direi che merita.

http://www.investireoggi.it/forum/showpost.php?p=1026020&postcount=1751

 

[paologorgo]

Federal bank regulators issued guidelines allowing banks to keep loans on their books as "performing" even if the value of the underlying properties have fallen below the loan amount.
The volume of troubled commercial real-estate loans is skyrocketing. Regulators said that the rules were designed to encourage banks to restructure problem commercial mortgages with borrowers rather than foreclose on them. But the move has prompted criticism that regulators are simply prolonging the financial crisis by not forcing borrowers and lenders to confront, rather than delay, inevitable problems.

More

• Read: Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts

The guidelines, released on Friday by agencies including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, provide guidance for bank examiners and financial institutions working with commercial property owners who are "experiencing diminished operating cash flows, depreciated collateral values, or prolonged delays in selling or renting commercial properties." Restructurings are often in the best interest of both lenders and borrowers, the guidelines point out.
The new rules don't reverse existing rules. Rather they are more explicit than regulators have been in the past about how banks should deal with restructuring issues. Banks in recent months have been peppering agencies with questions about this as the number of problem loans has soared.
Regulators have been expressing increasing concern that problems in commercial real estate could unglue the nascent economic recovery by slamming financial institutions with billions of dollars in new losses. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate subcommittee earlier this month that reworking the terms of these loans could help banks avoid larger losses. She likened it to the push regulators made last year for banks to rework troubled residential mortgages.
About $770 billion of the $1.4 trillion commercial mortgages that will mature in the next five years are currently underwater, according to Foresight Analytics. As of last week, 106 banks had failed this year, the most since 1992—the peak of the savings-and-loan crisis. Regional and community banks especially have been paying dearly for their aggressive push into commercial real-estate lending during the boom years.
The new guidelines are targeted primarily at the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans that are coming due that can't be refinanced largely because the value of the properties have fallen below the loan amount. In many of these situations, the properties are still generating enough income to pay debt service.
Banks have generally been keeping a lid on commercial real-estate losses by extending these mortgages upon maturity. However, that practice, billed by many industry observers as "extending and pretending," has come under criticism by some analysts and investors as it promises to put off the pains into the future.
Now federal regulators are essentially sanctioning the practice as long as banks restructure loans prudently. The federal guidelines note that banks that conduct "prudent" loan workouts after looking at the borrower's financial condition "will not be subject to criticism (by regulators) for engaging in these efforts." In addition, loans to creditworthy borrowers that have been restructured and are current won't be reclassified as "high risk" by regulators solely because the collateral backing them has declined to an amount less than the loan balance, the new guidelines state.
Critics say the new rules are yet another example of a head-in-the-sand approach by regulators, pointing to the relaxed accounting standards last year that enabled banks to avoid marking the value of the loans down. This is doing long-term damage to the economy, they say, because it ties up bank capital, preventing them from resuming lending.
Critics say a wiser approach would be for regulators and banks to deal with problems quickly like the Resolution Trust Corp. did in the early 1990s during the last commercial real-estate crash. Back then, the RTC helped purge the financial system of toxic mortgages.
The new guidance "gives people a long time to figure out they're not going to pay it back," said Douglas Durst, a leading New York City developer. "We are in a period where nothing is happening," he said, adding that banks are "not making any new loans because they have this bad debt on their books and not writing it down and getting rid of it."

Banks Get New Rules on Property - WSJ.com

 

[stockuccio]

beh, c'è un piagnisteo bancario per ritardare (meglio sopprimere ) le FSB166 e FSB167, che in origine dovevano essere operative col nuovo anno fiscale dal 15 novembre, ora siamo dal primo gennaio ... vedremo come finisce, tra i rari sostenitori della decenza c'è il solito Ron Paul ... ovvio che se fanno rientrare bnei bilanci i 1000 miliardi di assets fuori bilancio, che se stanno fuori bilancio difficile siano ottimi assets, le banche sono TUTTE insolventi Big Banks: "You Will Cancel FASB 166 So We Can Continue Pretending All Is Good... Or We Will Kill Lending Even More" | zero hedge

 

[paologorgo]

Excerpts from Mind the GAAP: Reflections on European Corporates’ Results for H1 2009

Accounting limitations make it difficult to assess how the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has affected the financial health of Europe’s largest non-financial companies, according to Moody’s Investors Service

Financial reports covering the first half of 2009 are a stark contrast of carnage in the income statement, and relative calm and constancy in the cash flow statement and balance sheet.
​

Moody’s report explains why the 49% median decline in bottom-line profit, the 4% increase in operating cash flow and the largely unchanged balance sheets reported by a sample of 38 firms selected from eight different industries are not particularly helpful when assessing the damage done by the economic crisis.
“Balance sheets of non-financial companies are not necessarily good indicators of changes in financial health — they largely reflect historical costs that tend to be disconnected from the real value of the entity’s assets. Cash flow statements are heavily affected by changes in the inventory cycle and management policy. And one-off items, combined with a smattering of accounting anomalies, can easily cloud the income statement,” says Trevor Pijper, a Moody’s Vice President-Senior Credit Officer and author of the report.
Moody’s study points out that the vast majority of the companies included in the sample — 29 out of 38 — published an additional unofficial figure for net income. According to Mr Pijper, there was limited consistency in the way the alternative “non-GAAP” performance measures were calculated, but they generally portrayed a more favourable outcome than that computed under IFRS.

FFO (’Funds from Operations’) — a measure of normalised cash generation — overcomes many of the accounting limitations described in the report. It automatically excludes one-off items such as disposal gains and impairment charges, as well as other non-cash items. It is also impervious to changes in the inventory cycle. The median decline in FFO was 28%, a significant deterioration but an outcome that prompted Moody’s to lower the rating of only one issuer in the 38-company sample. Set against the rating agency’s expectations, there were few surprises in the half-year results.


Accounting Changes Cloud Assessment of Crisis Impact on European Companies -- Seeking Alpha

 

[lorenzo63]

Paris Mounts the Barricades Against Global Standards ...

Mi sembra di capire che il nodo della partita sia un chi controlla il controllore...ovvero: queste regole vengono riscritte per dare è credibilità al sistema ma la francia vorrebbe che i governo abbiano un maggior peso nella questione e nn sia devoluto tutto ad una serie di regole ..

Comunque trattasi di articolo interlocutorio ..




Few G-20 initiatives are more important to restoring trust in the global financial system than international accounting standards. Yet this critical project is hitting trouble. French minister Christine Lagarde plans to lobby other G-20 finance ministers meeting in Scotland on Friday to accept greater political control of the standard-setting process.

Behind the scenes, France appears determined to block the European Union's adoption of a new accounting standard for financial instruments. If it succeeds, the goal of global accounting convergence will face a serious setback.


The International Accounting Standards Board, which set rules for Europe and much of the rest of the world, has already bent over backwards to meet French objections over a replacement for IAS39, the accounting rules for financial instruments that were much criticized during the crisis. For example, the IASB agreed to fast-track changes limiting the use of mark-to-market accounting. The IASB also controversially agreed its new rules should apply only to financial assets and not liabilities, leaving in place widely discredited rules letting banks mark their own debt to market.

The IASB's new standard is widely recognized as an improvement on IAS39. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group last month endorsed the new standard -- a first step toward EU ratification. Yet Paris still isn't satisfied.
Some French objections are technical. Although the new standard would mean less fair value accounting, Paris doesn't think the reduction goes far enough, particularly in relation to derivatives -- a major concern to French banks with large exposure. But many objections look spurious. In a dissenting opinion to the EFRAG report, the French and Italian members criticized IASB for its piecemeal approach to reform, even though it was done this way to address French concerns.

Paris's real objection is to the IASB itself, which it believes is too focused on investor interests and not sufficiently accountable to politicians. Never mind that the G-20 in Pittsburgh specifically endorsed the independence of standard-setters. Never mind the G-20 also endorsed efforts by the IASB to improve its accountability by establishing a monitoring board and consulting more widely with stakeholders such as regulators. Ms. Lagarde's objective is a greater role for national governments.

Ms. Lagarde stands little chance of convincing the G-20, with most governments accepting that rules must be free from political interference to carry credibility with investors. But she may have more luck with the European Commission, which is once again threatening to introduce European "carve-ins" to existing rules if the new standard isn't agreed to. Instead of tighter convergence on accounting, that would lead to fragmentation, which is in nobody's interest.

 

[dagoweb]

Civil War In Corporate America: Banks Battling The Chamber On Accounting Rules

 

[dagoweb]

* Questo e' del mese scorso.

IASB Not Waiting for FASB

IASB Not Waiting for FASB



New York
(October 20, 2009)




International Accounting Standards Board chairman Sir David Tweedie said he won’t wait for the board’s U.S. counterpart to finalize its own revisions to fair value accounting for financial instruments.
Speaking at a meeting of the European Finance Ministers in Luxembourg, Tweedie promised that he would deliver on his promise to revise the IAS 39 standards on financial instruments by November. After extensive consultation with various stakeholders, the IASB will give companies more flexibility to use historical cost in valuing financial instruments rather than requiring them to use fair value measurement.
Sir David Tweedie

That approach would put it at odds with the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board, which has been moving toward expanding fair value accounting to encompass loans as well as financial instruments and assets such as mortgage-backed securities. Despite the differences, Tweedie said he believed that the IASB and FASB would still be able to resolve their differences and achieve the Group of 20 leaders’ mandate that they agree on a single set of high-quality accounting standards by June 2011.

The two boards will meet next week to continue their convergence efforts.“Next week, we will meet the FASB to seek to agree [on] an approach leading to a common international standard on financial instruments,” said Tweedie. “While it may have been preferable to have had common timelines with the FASB on financial instruments, the IASB believed that the commitment made to this Council and the conclusion of the G-20 overrode this timing consideration.”
Tweedie noted that the IASB had heard from banks in Europe that they did not want to adopt the U.S. approach on accounting for impaired assets. “I want to emphasize that the alternative of adopting a portion of the FASB approach to impairment, promulgated in April, would not bring about a level playing field,” he said. “Furthermore, on many issues, EU financial institutions would not want us to adopt the U.S. approach on impairment. As I said in June, given the urgency of the fundamental issues surrounding IAS 39, none of us can afford the potential protracted back-and-forth resulting from piecemeal changes in international and U.S. standards that would undermine the comprehensive and desperately needed reform that is under way.”
Despite the differences, he pledged to work with FASB chairman Bob Herz on bridging the gap between the two boards’ approaches. “In our discussions with the FASB aiming to reach a common global approach, we will emphasize our position in favor of a mixed-measurement model over one that requires full fair value measurement on the balance sheet,” said Tweedie. “We will seek to reach common agreement on a forward-looking model for loan-loss provisioning and a simplified hedging methodology. I remain optimistic that we can overcome our current differences. I know that my counterpart at the FASB, Bob Herz, is equally committed to reconciling any differences. To this end, we have enhanced our cooperation over recent months and have stepped up the joint meetings of our boards and staff. We at the IASB recognize the importance of our work on financial instruments, not only in Europe, but globally.”

 

[dagoweb]

Schapiro backs IASB-FASB agreement - Accountancy Age
Schapiro backs IASB-FASB agreement


SEC chief expresses public support for drive towards global accounting standards

Written by Mario Christodoulou

Accountancy Age, 06 Nov 2009


The head of the US financial regulator has expressed support for reinvigorated efforts to harmonise accounting standards.
Mary Schapiro, chairman of the US Securities and Exchanges Commission, yesterday said she was encouraged by a renewed commitment by the US and international standard setters to transparency and arriving at agreed accounting standards.




In recent weeks, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board have (IASB) committed themselves to redouble efforts to converge international and American accounting rules, with a view to bringing in a truly global language for finance.
The two organisations say they are on track to meet a June 2011 deadline for convergence. The standards will however need SEC approval before they are used by American companies, some of which are reluctant to take on the new rules.
The signing of a memorandum of understanding to greater transparency between the IASB and FASB yesterday led Schapiro to release a short, two-sentence statement expressing support for the move.
“I am greatly encouraged by the commitment of the IASB and the FASB to provide greater transparency to the standard setting process and their convergence efforts,” she said.

“I believe that these efforts will result in improved financial information provided to investors.”
However, internally the SEC is yet to commit to a timetable for US adoption of the rules.
The SEC has until December 21 to release its recommendations on the US roadmap for adoption of international standards. Submissions received by the SEC however have exposed divisions within the US financial community about when and how the US should adopt the standards.
Julie Erhardt, deputy chief accountant at the SEC, described the submissions as “an array” including “Every possible idea you could think of on how to get there”.
“There was no unanimity," she said.

 

[dagoweb]

FASB, IASB Describe Convergence Plans



New York
(November 16, 2009)

Financial Accounting Standards Board Chairman Bob Herz said the $64,000 question is, “Where are we going with IFRS?” as he described plans for FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board to work more closely on uniting U.S. GAAP with International Financial Reporting Standards.
At a Financial Executives International conference in New York, Herz said the ball is now in the SEC’s court. The SEC is deliberating this fall on the proposed IFRS roadmap that was issued by former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox during the waning days of the Bush administration. FASB and the IASB have decided to meet monthly to try to work out major areas of difference in accounting standards by June 2011 to meet a goal set by the G-20 leaders at a recent summit in Pittsburgh (see IASB and FASB to Meet Monthly on Standards Overhaul).
Bob Herz

IASB board member Patrick Finnegan said at the same panel discussion that the IASB wants both the U.S. and Japan to adopt IFRS, noting that the world’s two biggest economies remained uncommitted. Herz, for his part, pointed out that a number of countries continue to use U.S. GAAP.

The two boards have resolved not to get out ahead of each other in issuing many of the most controversial accounting standards in order to avoid "arbitrage" between the two sets of standards by companies. However, the standards they have issued have continued to attract controversy.
The IASB issued the first part of its revision of IAS 39 standards last week for classifying and measuring financial assets at the request of the European Commission. However, the new IFRS 9 standards were greeted with a non-endorsement by the European Commission. Finnegan expressed disappointment with the decision, but noted that the silver lining is that the IASB will have more time to work on the standard in consultation with FASB.
Meanwhile FASB has been continuing its own work on providing guidance on U.S. GAAP to address the concerns of U.S. accounting firms. Herz described the effort as “riding two horses.” FASB director Russell Golden said, however, that the board would defer its work on SFAS 167 until it can work with the IASB on a converged solution.
Golden noted that FASB often gets questions about whether companies need to reference the new ASUs, or accounting standards updates, in the new FASB Codification when they write footnotes, but he said that isn’t necessary.
“What we’d like you to do is say the company does its accounting for income taxes pursuant to GAAP but not have to cite all those paragraphs,” he said.
Golden also noted that FASB had amended its SOP 97-2 standards on software revenue recognition to require fewer hardware products to have their activities accounted for according to their software updates.
He added that FASB has temporarily put aside its work on accounting for loss contingencies, but expects that work to resume shortly.
“We’ve heard a lot of your comments, a lot of your attorneys’ comments, and we’re trying to get on a path where it’s more an increased disclosure based on actual facts and less predictive information,” he said.
Golden also noted that FASB staff would be working on improving disclosures of multi-employer plans because of concerns about underfunding of those plans.