Under IFRS 9, all equity investments should be measured at fair value. However, management has an option to present, in other comprehensive income, unrealised and realised fair value gains and losses on equity investments that are not held for trading.
Such designation is available on initial recognition, on an instrument-by-instrument basis, and it is irrevocable. There is no subsequent recycling of fair value gains and losses on disposal to the income statement; however, dividends from such
investments will continue to be recognised in the income statement. This is good news for many, because utility entities might own ordinary shares in public entities. As long as these investments are not held for trading, fluctuations in the share price will be recorded in other comprehensive income.
Under the new standard, recent events such as the global financial crisis will not yield volatile results in the income statement from changes in the share prices.
Accounting under IAS 39 Accounting under IFRS 9 Insight
Investments in equity instruments that are not held for trading purposes (e.g., equity securities of a listed entity).
Note. This does not include associates or subsidiaries unless entities specifically make that election.
Usually classified as
“available for sale”, with gains/losses deferred in other comprehensive income (but may be measured at fair value through profit or loss, depending on the instrument).
Measured at fair value with gains/losses recognised in the income statement or through other comprehensive income if applicable.
Equity securities that are not held for trading can be classified and measured at fair value with gains/
losses recognised in other comprehensive income.
This means no charges to the income statement for significant or prolonged impairment on these equity investments, which will reduce volatility in the income statement as a result of the fluctuating share prices.
Available-for-sale debt instruments (e.g., corporate bonds)
Recognised at fair value with gains/
losses deferred in other comprehensive income.
Measured at amortised cost where certain criteria are met. Where criteria are not met, measured at fair value through profit and loss.
Determining whether the debt instrument meets the criteria for amortised cost can be challenging in practice. It involves determining what the bond payments represent.
If they represent more than principal and interest on principal outstanding (e.g., if they include payments linked to a commodity price), this would need to be classified and measured at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in the income statement.
How could current practice change for power and utility entities?
Type of instrument/
Categorisation of instrument
Accounting under IAS 39 Accounting under IFRS 9 Insight
Convertible instruments
(e.g., convertible bonds) Embedded conversion option split out and separately recognised at fair value. The underlying debt instrument is usually measured at amortised cost.
The entire instrument is measured at fair value, with gains/
losses recognised in the income statement.
Many entities found the separation of conversion options and the requirement to separately fair value the instrument challenging.
However, management should be aware that the entire instrument will now be measured at fair value. This may result in a more volatile income statement because it will need to have fair value gains/losses recognised not only on the conversion option, but also on the entire instrument.
Held-to-maturity investments (e.g., government bonds)
Measured at
amortised cost. Measured at amortised cost where certain criteria are met. Where criteria are not met, measured at fair value through profit and loss.
Determining whether the government bond payments meet the criteria for amortised cost remains a challenge.
For example, if the government bond includes a component for inflation, as long as the payment represents only compensation for time value of money, it may still meet the criteria for amortised cost. In contrast, a government bond that is linked to foreign currency exchange rates would not meet the criteria for amortised cost;
instead this would need to be measured at fair value through profit and loss.
What are the key changes for financial liabilities?
The main concern in revising IAS 39 for financial liabilities was potentially showing in the income statement the impact of ‘own credit risk’ for liabilities recognised at fair value – that is, fluctuations in value due to changes in the liability’s credit risk. This can result in gains being recognised in income when the liability has had a credit downgrade, and losses being recognised when the liability’s credit risk improves.
Many users found these results counterintuitive, especially where there is no expectation that the change in the liability’s credit risk will be realised.
In view of this concern, the IASB has retained the existing guidance in IAS 39 regarding classifying and measuring financial liabilities, except for those liabilities where the fair value option has been elected.
IFRS 9 changes the accounting for financial liabilities that an entity chooses to account for at fair value through profit or loss, using the fair value option.
For such liabilities, changes in fair value related to changes in own credit risk are presented separately in other comprehensive income (OCI).
In practice, a common reason for electing the fair value option is where entities have embedded derivatives that they do not wish to separate from the host liability.
In addition, entities might elect the fair value option where they have accounting mismatches with assets that are required to be held at fair value through profit or loss.
Financial liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value through profit or loss (as distinct from those that the entity has chosen to measure at fair value through profit or loss) continue to have all fair value movements recognised in profit or loss, with no transfer to OCI. This includes all derivatives (such as foreign currency forwards or interest rate swaps), or an entity’s own liabilities that it classifies as being held for trading.
Amounts in OCI relating to own credit are not recycled to the income statement, even where the liability is derecognised and the amounts are realised. However, the standard does allow transfers within equity.
What else should entities in the power and utilities sector know about the new standard?
Entities that currently classify their investments as loans and receivables need to carefully assess whether their business model is based on managing the investment portfolio to collect the contractual cash flows from the financial assets. To meet that objective, the entity does not need to hold all of its investments until maturity, but the business must be holding the investments to collect their contractual cash flows.
We expect most utility entities to be managing their loans and receivables (normally trade receivables) to collect their contractual cash flows. As a result, for many entities these new rules will not have a significant impact on their financial assets.
Entities in the utility sector that manage their investments and monitor performance on a fair value basis will need to fair value their financial assets with gains and losses recognised in the income statement.
Primarily, that is because their business model is not considered to be based on managing the investment portfolio to collect the contractual cash flows, and so a different accounting treatment is required. We expect only a minority of entities in the sector to be managing their investments on this basis.
Some entities made use of the cost exception in the existing IAS 39 for their unquoted equity investments.
Under the new standard, these entities can continue to use cost only where it is an appropriate estimate of fair value. Utility entities should be aware that the scenarios in which cost would be an appropriate estimate of fair value are limited to cases where insufficient recent information is available to determine the fair value. Therefore, entities will need to implement mechanisms to determine fair value periodically. There will be a substantial impact on entities that hold investments in unlisted entities where the investing entity does not have significant influence.
This could significantly affect businesses, because IFRS 9 requires a process or system in place to determine the fair value or range of possible fair value measurements.
Entities that currently classify their financial assets as available-for-sale and plan to make use of the ‘other comprehensive income option’ to defer fair value gains should be aware that it is only available for equity investments on an instrument-by-instrument basis. These entities will not be able to use other comprehensive income for debt instruments. Once this election is made, it will irrevocably prevent the entity
3
Futur e de velopments – s tandar ds issued and no t y et ef fectiv e
from recycling gains and losses through the income statement on disposal. For some entities in the sector, this will remove some of the freedoms they currently enjoy with the accounting for debt instruments.
Entities in the utility sector might wish to consider early adopting the standard, particularly where they have previously recorded impairment losses on equity investments that are not held for trading or where they would like to reclassify their financial assets.
On adoption of this standard, entities need to apply the new rules retrospectively. This will allow some entities to reverse some impairment charges recognised on listed equity securities as a result of the global financial crisis, as long as they are still holding the investment.
We expect that some utility entities will consider early adopting the standard to take advantage of this.
Management should bear in mind that the financial instruments project is evolving: IFRS 9 is only the first part of the project to replace IAS 39. Other exposure drafts have been issued in respect of asset-liability offsetting and hedge accounting with the intention of improving and simplifying hedge accounting.