BoA mis-states derivatives positions by $345 million
Bank of America has contravened Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules regarding its treatment of derivatives instruments and will recalculate all of its financial statements since 2002.
Bank of America could now face legal action or a fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US financial regulator. But the bank is warning that uncertainties in the FASB 133 rules, which were introduced back in 1999, could cause further problems. It said 40 companies this year have been forced to restate their financial reports following rule clarifications, but the SEC declined to comment on the figure.
“This is not an isolated incident,” a spokesman for the bank told RiskNews. “There was general consensus out there that there was difficulty in understanding the rules,” he added. However, dealers such as Bank of America regularly provide guidance on rules regarding derivatives hedging rules to their own clients.
“The interpretations of how to apply [FAS 133] continue to evolve,” said Alvaro de Molina, the bank’s chief financial officer. “In light of recent interpretations, we reviewed our accounting treatment of certain hedge transactions and determined a restatement would assure that our financial statements adhere to the most recent guidance for accounting treatment of hedge transactions under [FAS 133].”
The SEC would not rule in or out any possible action against Bank of America.
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
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say
Barr defends easing of Basel III endgame proposal
Fed’s top regulator says he will stay and finish the package, is comfortable with capital impact
Bank of England to review UK clearing rules
Broader collateral set and greater margin transparency could be adopted from Emir 3.0, but not active accounts requirement