![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Barclays to fall in line with derivatives reporting practice
![shell game shell game](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/677/90677/shellgame-580x358.jpg.webp?itok=1ZNWi6K6)
Barclays will change its reporting for derivatives worth hundreds of billions of pounds in its 2009 annual report, in order to comply with International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 - a European accounting standard amended in March last year.
An official in Barclays' reporting function declines to comment on whether the bank supports the rule, but criticises the effort involved: "All I'll say is that it's a lot of work."
Other large dealers have already voluntarily reported their derivatives in line with the new rules.
IFRS 7 requires all financial instruments reported at fair value to be separated into a three-level hierarchy, in order to show investors and analysts how liquid the instruments are and how they are valued. It mirrors a similar standard already in use in the US, which European banks other than Barclays had based their voluntary disclosures on in advance of IFRS 7. Level 1 is for instruments valued using market prices, while level 3 is for instruments where the value is derived wholly from internal models. Level 2 is for instruments that require a mix of market prices and modelling, and is the bucket into which the vast majority of derivatives fall.
Unlike its peers, however, Barclays combined levels 1 and 2 in a single, undifferentiated pool for its 2008 report - referring to them as "valuations with observable inputs".
It could be interpreted incorrectly, but if anyone saw it, they would then have contacted investor relations
"Obviously, the focus is on level 3 - which is why you have to provide more detail on what has gone through your profit and loss in that category, because those are the numbers analysts want to see. That's what we thought the focus should be on - valuations with unobservable inputs," says the Barclays official.
But that decision created a discrepancy between the Barclays accounts and those of other banks. While Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), for example, reported £800 million of derivatives in the first column of its fair-value disclosure table - denoting level 1 assets in its 2008 annual report - the first column of the corresponding Barclays table reported derivatives worth £970 billion, around 98.5% of all derivatives assets at the bank. That led one regulator - misreading the Barclays approach - to privately castigate the bank for what she saw as dishonest reporting.
"It's a joke to report any of these derivatives at level 1 - none of our banks would be allowed to do it," she told Risk.
The official in Barclays' financial reporting function denies the bank had sought to mislead, but accepts the difference between its disclosures and those of other banks could have been misinterpreted. "It could be interpreted incorrectly, but if anyone saw it, they would then have contacted investor relations where an explanation would have been readily available," he says.
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
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
Fresh EU push for single securities supervisor to compete with US
But MEP expresses ‘concern’ EU nations will stall revival of capital markets union
Discord deepens over fund-linked trades in FRTB
More banks use punitive approach to capital treatment under new trading book regime, irking regulators
AI, quantum computing and tokenisation set to transform finance – Menon
But significant barriers remain preventing the technologies from unlocking their full potential
Could the SEC revive the private fund adviser rule?
Industry experts deem a second life for the reviled rule unlikely
Vendors lack silver bullet for FRTB’s fund-linked issue
EU and UK legislators tried to ease capital charge by leaning on vendors, but problems persist
Does Basel’s internal loss multiplier add up?
As US agencies mull capital reforms, one regulator questions past losses as an indicator of future op risk