![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
American Bankers Association criticises IASB and FASB
The American Bankers Association (ABA) has criticised the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) for trying to reform mark-to-market accounting too quickly and the increasing divergence between their approaches.
“The rapid pace at which both organisations are working, as well as the directions in which they are heading, are causing some to question whether there is due process in evaluating these important issues,” wrote the ABA in a white paper, The current pace and direction of accounting standard setting.
While conceding changes to accounting rules are “urgently needed”, the ABA claims some reforms under consideration could cause disruption, particularly to smaller firms.
“A major concern is that the current directions in which the FASB and IASB are moving appear to be similarly requiring more mark-to-market accounting within financial statements, more capital for existing banking activities and more operational challenges to comply with these rules for banks of all sizes. The cost of accounting compliance puts continued participation in certain market activities at risk for some smaller institutions,” the ABA wrote.
On July 14, the IASB released its exposure draft on the classification and measurement of financial instruments, which will trim the number of measurement categories from four to two: amortised cost and fair value. The FASB plans to issue its own exposure draft in the first half of 2010, which is expected to call for all loans and securities to be marked to market on balance sheet.
The practice of mark-to-market accounting has proved highly contentious during the past two years. Its critics argue that forcing banks to mark assets at less than their true economic value is procyclical and exacerbated the difficulties firms faced during the crisis. ABA says the two boards’ plans to extend the practice is in direct opposition to the Group of Thirty and Financial Stability Forum, which have recommended more counter-cyclical policies.
While the two boards have come under intense political pressure to reform accounting rules, the ABA is concerned “the FASB and the IASB are moving on similar projects, but with different solutions, at different speeds and with different timing for finalising their rules”. The ABA argued that working to different time schedules (as evidenced by the FASB lagging behind the IASB on the financial instruments classification issue) could cause international divergence.
Additionally, the ABA says better co-ordination on reform is needed between the accounting boards and other financial regulators to ensure an “orderly market transition”.
See also: Banks' own credit risk hampers financial results
IASB and FASB differ on approaches for accounting standard overhaul
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Honey, I shrunk the Fed. (Not a sci-fi fantasy)
Promoting the discount window may be the Fed’s key to shrinking its $7trn balance sheet, says Bill Nelson
Insurance double-hatters like Apollo can expect more scrutiny
Regulators are homing in on conflicts of interests at private-equity-owned insurers
The boy who cried ‘outlier’: false alarms could dog EBA test
Analysis reveals banks deemed outliers by net income test are profitable post-shock, so how useful is the test?
Modernising compliance functions with regtech
Regtech addresses the complexities of regulatory requirements, offering innovative tools to modernise compliance functions, streamline processes and enhance efficiency. This article explores its role in compliance and reporting within the banking sector,…
For the Fed discount window, destigmatisation starts at home
US supervisors must change tack to encourage central bank liquidity utilisation, writes Bill Nelson
Study finds just 10 banks plan to apply for FRTB models
Research provides extra insight on reasons for decline in internal models
EU banks hedge net interest income to pass new IRRBB test
Would-be outliers look to cut sensitivity of cashflows to rate moves, but at what cost?
Banks cry foul over shock decision from Basel Committee
Asset and liability management professionals question severity of criteria in revised IRRBB tests