|
|
Major changes
introduced by IAS 39
Relating to securitisation
Vinod
Kothari
1. "Originated loans" replaced by "loans and receivables"
The classification of financial assets into 4: originated loans, hold
to maturity investments, available-for-sale assets and trading assets
has been changed by revising the definition of "originated loans"
into "loans and receivables". Under the earlier text, the buyer
of a loan could not have classed the investment in "originated loan"
category. The definition of "loans and receivables" provides
that "an interest acquired in a pool of assets that are not loans
orreceivables (for example, an interest in a mutual fund or a similar
fund) is not a loan or receivable". By implication, an interest in
a pool of loans, for example, in a securitisation transaction, particularly
of the pass-through nature, may be classified as "loans and receivables"
2. The major accounting consequence of securitisation is de-recognition,
that is, off-balance sheet accounting. Gain-on-sale follows de-recognition.
There are some conceptual changes in the approach to de-recognition,
which, in actual implementation, might amount to major changes.
§ First, the accounting standard tries to achieve a synthesis
of the risk-rewards approach and the surrender of control approach.
Notably, the risk-rewards approach has not been the basis of securitisation
accounting under the US standards. Under the revised IAS 39, there
are four possible situations:
o If there is no transfer of risks and rewards, there is no de-recognition
at all.
o If there is transfer of all the risks and rewards, there is de-recognition,
no questions asked. Quite obviously, transfers where there is full
recourse against the transferor will not qualify for de-recognition.
o If there is retention of some risks and rewards, then comes the
surrender of control approach. In other words, in cases where substantially
all the risks and rewards are retained, there will be no de-recognition
even if the control has been surrendered.
o In cases where the control has not been surrendered, that is,
the asset does not qualify for de-recognition, the asset is continued
to the extent of the "continuing involvement" of the transferring
entity. Continuing involvement, in simple terms, would mean the
continuing financial exposure of the transferor. In sum, the asset
may be partially derecognised to the extent the transferor does
not have a financial exposure. The continuing involvement approach
is substantially similar to the "linked presentation"
approach under the UK standard, except that it is applied only to
a part of the transferred asset.
§ A set of new conditions has been introduced for fractional transfers.
Earlier, de-recognition was possible for either the whole of a financial
asset or its part. Now, in case of fractional or partial transfers,
a de-recognition can be done only if it relates either an identifiable
part of a financial asset, for example, interest in a series of loan
payments, or a proportional share of a whole financial asset (say, 10%
of loan receivables), or proportional share of an identifiable part.
By interpretation, if an entity retains, for instance, all the interest
above a particular rate, say 5%, it is not a case likely to qualify
for partial de-recognition, as the retained interest is not a proportionate
share of the interest flows.
3. Legal true sales would no more be necessary to achieve de-recognition.
This would be a major change from the existing approach. The new concept
of "transfer of a financial asset" includes situations where
the entity would continue to be entitled to the cash flows from the financial
asset, but would be obligated to pay the same in satisfaction of an obligation.
Though the Implementation Guidance has put an example of a beneficial
interest issued at SPV level, properly structured "secured loan"
structures of securitisation might easily qualify for off-balance sheet
treatment under this approach.
|