This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
IFRS 7 Financial
This publication provides an overview of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures (IFRS 7 or the
Standard) in addition to discussing implementation issues and the main differences compared to the
previous disclosure requirements for financial instruments. It also includes examples of disclosures
provided by companies that have adopted IFRS 7 early. It should be read in conjunction with Ernst &
Young’s International GAAP 2007 which explains the required accounting treatment for financial
instruments and much of the terminology used in IFRS 7.
IFRS 7 incorporates the disclosures relating to financial instruments required by IAS 32 Financial
Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation
and replaces IAS 30 Disclosures in the Financial Statements of
Banks and Similar Financial Institutions, so that all financial instruments disclosure requirements are
located in a single standard for all types of companies. The IFRS 7 disclosure requirements are less
prescriptive than those of IAS 30 for banks and there are no longer any bank-specific disclosure
The IFRS 7 disclosure requirements include both ‘qualitative’ narrative descriptions and specific
‘quantitative’ data. The level of detail of such disclosures should not overburden users with excessive
detail, but equally should not obscure significant information as a result of excessive aggregation.
Unlike the other disclosures required by IFRS 7, the risk disclosures do not have to be given in the
financial statements, but may either be provided in the financial statements or incorporated into the
financial statements by reference from another statement (eg, the management commentary or a risk report
that is available to users of the financial statements on the same terms as the financial statements).
However, as the risk disclosures are required by IFRS, they will be subject to audit and, for companies with
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registrations, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404
The financial instrument disclosures are intended: (1) to provide information that will enhance the
understanding of the significance of financial instruments to a company’s financial position, performance,
and cash flows; and (2) to assist in evaluating the risks associated with these instruments, including how
the company manages those risks.
IFRS 7 introduces:
• requirements for enhanced balanced sheet and income statement disclosure ‘by category’ (eg, whether the
instrument is available-for-sale or held-to-maturity)
• information about any provisions against impaired assets
• additional disclosure relating to the fair value of collateral and other credit enhancements used to manage
• market risk sensitivity analyses.
IFRS 7 must be applied for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2007.
Including amendments issued in 2005 for The Fair Value Option and Financial Guarantee Contracts.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 2
IFRS 7 applies to all risks arising from all financial instruments, including those instruments that are not
recognised on-balance sheet, for all companies in all industries. For example, loan commitments not within
the scope of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IAS 39) are within the scope of
IFRS 7. Contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item that are within the scope of IAS 39 (as derivative
financial instruments) are also within the scope of IFRS 7. The Application Guidance of IFRS 7 indicates
that such financial instruments should be considered a separate class for the purpose of preparing the
The following are excluded from the scope of IFRS 7:
• interests in subsidiaries, associates, and joint ventures
• employee benefit plan obligations
• contingent consideration in a business combination
• insurance contracts
• share-based payment transactions.
Consistent with IAS 30 and IAS 32, there is no scope exemption for the financial statements of subsidiaries or,
as yet, for small- and medium-sized companies. The IASB has issued an Exposure Draft (ED) of a proposed
IFRS for Small- and Medium-sized Companies that proposes to provide such companies with the option of
applying either: (1) the special rules for financial instruments contained in the ED and no requirement to
apply IFRS 7, or (2) the recognition and measurement rules in IAS 39 and disclosure requirements in IFRS
7. The application of IFRS 7 to subsidiaries may present a challenge to companies that are members of a
consolidated group, as they often manage risk on a consolidated basis. Furthermore, the requirement to
provide the disclosures for each company may be of limited value to users of financial statements
(compared to the cost of compilation) when the information is already disclosed at the group level.
Insurance contracts as defined by IFRS 4 Insurance contracts are excluded from the scope of IFRS 7.
However, IFRS 4 requires that qualitative and quantitative information regarding credit risk, liquidity risk,
and market risk, as required by IFRS 7, be provided as if such insurance contracts were included within the
scope of IFRS 7. The Basis for Conclusions of IFRS 4 indicates that it is more useful to the users and
preparers of the financial statements if the risk disclosures for financial instruments and insurance contracts
are similar. All derivatives embedded in insurance contacts that are required to be accounted for separately
in accordance with IAS 39 are within the scope of IFRS 7.
General points to note
IFRS 7 disclosures must be based on the accounting policies used for the financial statements prepared in
accordance with IFRS, including consolidation adjustments. It is possible that the internal information
made available to management for risk management purposes is not prepared using such accounting
policies, in which case it will need to be adjusted.
The Standard repeatedly requires disclosure by ‘class’ of financial instrument, a group that is appropriate to
the nature of the information disclosed and the characteristics of the instruments. A class of financial
instrument is a lower level of aggregation than a category, such as ‘available-for-sale’ or ‘loans and
receivables’. For example, government debt securities, equity securities, or asset-backed securities could all
be considered classes of financial instruments.
Like IAS 32, IFRS 7 does not prescribe the location of the required balance sheet-related disclosures. A
company is permitted to present the required disclosures either on the face of the balance sheet or in the
notes to the financial statements.
The Standard requires disclosure of additional detail for each category of financial instrument, such as
financial assets held at fair value through profit or loss or available-for-sale. By contrast, IAS 32 requires
separate disclosure only of financial instruments carried at fair value through profit or loss, although the
level of detail prescribed by IFRS 7 is not as extensive as the requirements of IAS 30. The required core
balance sheet disclosures for each category of financial assets and financial liabilities in IFRS 7 are similar
to those in IAS 32 and include the carrying amount and related fair value, along with the amount of and
reason for any reclassifications between categories. Disclosures relating to financial instruments held for
trading should be presented separately from those designated at fair value through profit or loss.
Disclosure of fair value of financial instruments
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.119
Most companies should be familiar with the disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments as this
disclosure is currently required by IAS 32. Similar to most companies, Danske Bank presents this
information in the notes to the financial statements:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 4
Nordea Annual Report 2006, p.129
Nordea, similar to most of the companies that adopted IFRS 7 early, provides information relating to the
categories of financial instruments in the notes to the financial statements rather than on the face of the
The required balance sheet disclosures include the following:
Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss
IFRS 7 reiterates the requirement in IAS 32 to disclose the change in the fair value of a financial liability
that is attributable to changes in the credit risk of that liability during the period and cumulatively.
Since it may be difficult for many companies to identify and reliably measure the change in fair value due
to changes in own credit risk, IFRS 7 permits companies to determine this amount as the amount of change
in the liability’s fair value that is not attributable to changes in market conditions that give rise to market
risk. Companies may use another method if they can demonstrate that it results in a more faithful
representation of the change in fair value attributable to changes in the credit risk of the asset. IFRS 7
requires the method used to determine the change in fair value due to credit risk to be disclosed.
Additionally, a company must disclose the difference between the carrying amount of financial liabilities at
fair value through profit or loss and the amount the company will be contractually required to pay at
maturity. The difference could be significant in the case of a long-dated financial liability whose
creditworthiness has deteriorated.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.372
HSBC designates financial liabilities to be carried at fair value through profit or loss and, accordingly,
provides the following disclosures:
Loans and receivables at fair value through profit and loss
IFRS 7 contains the disclosure requirements for loans and receivables at fair value through profit or loss
introduced in IAS 32 as a result of the IAS 39 fair value option amendment. IFRS 7 refers only to loans
and receivables in this regard. However, we presume that the IASB intended that the disclosure
requirements apply also to hybrid instruments designated at fair value through profit or loss that contain a
loan as the host contract (ie, loans with embedded derivatives that would otherwise require separation). The
required disclosures include the maximum credit exposure, the impact of credit derivatives on the credit
exposure, and the change in the fair value of the loan or receivable (or group of loans or receivables) and
any related credit derivatives due to changes in credit risk, both during the period and cumulatively.
The ‘default’ approach for the calculation of the change in fair value attributable to credit risk (ie not
attributable to changes in market risk) is similar to that for financial liabilities at fair value through profit or
loss (refer to discussion above). As with financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss, if another
method more faithfully represents the effect of credit risk then the company should use it.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 6
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.101
Danske Bank designates mortgage loans and issued mortgage bonds to be recorded at fair value through
profit or loss and, accordingly, provides the following disclosures:
Other sundry balance sheet disclosures:
• Reclassifications: disclosure is required of the amount and the reason for reclassification to or from
cost or amortised cost and fair value (although reclassification into or out of financial assets or
liabilities at fair value through profit or loss is not permitted, so, in practice, this will relate only to
transfers to or from available-for-sale).
• Derecognition: certain information is required to be disclosed for each class of financial instrument
when transferred financial assets do not qualify for derecognition, or when the assets continue to be
recognised to the extent of the company’s ‘continuing involvement’.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.359
HSBC provides the following disclosure of the impact of financial assets that have been transferred but that
do not qualify for derecognition:
HSBC provides the following disclosure of financial assets that have been securitised under arrangements
by which it retains a continuing involvement, and that it therefore continues to recognise:
• Collateral given: disclosure is required of the carrying amount in addition to the terms and conditions
of financial assets
pledged as collateral. Additionally, IAS 39 requires collateral provided, when the
counterparty has the right to sell or repledge the collateral (by custom or contract), to be reclassified
separately from other assets.
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.146
Deutsche Telekom provides the following information relating to financial assets pledged as collateral:
• Collateral received: a company must disclose the fair value and terms and conditions of financial or
non-financial assets received as collateral which the company has the right to sell or repledge in the
absence of default.
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.147
Deutsche Telekom provides the following information relating to financial assets received as collateral:
• Allowance for credit losses: IFRS 7 requires a reconciliation to be presented of changes in the
allowance for credit losses for each class of financial assets during the period, whereas IAS 30 requires
a similar disclosure only for loans and advances. The reconciliation should include appropriate
captions and explanations to highlight the components of the reconciliation.
IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment requires disclosure of non-financial assets pledged as collateral.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 8
Most companies will use a separate allowance account (ie, bad debt reserve) for credit losses only for loans
and receivables, as impairment losses for most other financial assets directly reduce the carrying amount of
the assets. As noted below, financial institutions and corporate companies typically present the
reconciliation for the allowance for credit losses in a similar format:
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.101
Deutsche Telekom Financial Review 2006, p.147
Nordea Annual Report 2006, p.107
Nordea presents a reconciliation of allowances for both the individually and the collectively assessed
impaired loans, whereas most companies disclose a reconciliation of the total allowance for
• Compound financial instruments with multiple embedded derivatives: if a company has issued an
instrument that contains both a liability and an equity component and the instrument has multiple
embedded derivatives whose values are interdependent (eg, callable convertible debt), the existence of
those features must be disclosed.
• Defaults and breaches: disclosure is required of the details of any defaults by the company during the
period, carrying amounts of financial liabilities (other than short-term trade payables on normal credit
terms) that are in default at the reporting date, and whether such defaults were remedied prior to the
issue of the financial statements.
Similar to the minimum balance sheet disclosures, a company is permitted to present the required income
statement disclosures on either the face of the income statement or in the notes to the financial statements.
The income statement disclosures required by IFRS 7 are more detailed than those required by IAS 32,
although not as detailed as the requirements of IAS 30. For example, IAS 32 required separate disclosure
only of the net gains or net losses on financial instruments carried at fair value through profit or loss,
whereas IFRS 7 requires the disclosure of this information for each category of financial assets and
IFRS 7 allows a company to choose how the income statement amounts are determined, and suggests that
the company discloses in its accounting policies how net gains or losses on each category of financial
instrument are determined. For example, interest or dividends earned on financial instruments carried at
fair value through profit or loss may be included in net gains or losses for the category, or in interest or
dividend income, and the policy should make it clear where they are reported.
IAS 32 disclosures retained in IFRS 7 include:
• total interest income and total interest expense (calculated using the effective interest method) for
financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured at fair value through profit or loss
• gains or losses on available-for-sale financial assets recognised in equity and the amounts reclassified
from equity to profit or loss for the period
• interest accrued on impaired financial assets.
Disclosure requirements introduced by IFRS 7:
Net gains or losses for each category of financial asset or financial liability
As already noted, IFRS 7 does not prescribe whether interest and dividends must be included within net
gains or losses for financial instruments at fair value through profit or loss, or in interest or dividend
income. It would be possible to treat the various categories of financial instruments, and possibly even
different classes, differently, as long as there is consistent application from period to period and the
company’s accounting policy is disclosed. For example, a company may present interest income for debt
securities held for trading as a component of total interest income, whereas dividend income received on
equity securities held for trading may be recorded in net gains or losses on financial instruments at fair
value through profit or loss.
Funding costs related to a company’s trading portfolio are not considered to be part of a company’s trading
activities and should be included in interest expense. There are different views as to how to treat interest or
dividend expense on short positions – our view is that they should be classified in a manner consistent with
the treatment of interest and dividends on long positions and included in either interest or dividend
expense, or in gains and losses on financial instruments at fair value through profit or loss, as appropriate.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 10
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.74-75 and 88
Danske Bank provides a detailed analysis of the sources and components of net gains and losses, total
interest income and total interest expense. This disclosure is supplemented by the explanation below:
Deutsche Telekom Financial Review 2006, p.138
Deutsche Telekom discloses the net gains or net losses for each category of financial instruments included
in total interest income and expense:
Impairment losses for each class of financial asset
As already noted, a class of financial instruments is a lower level of aggregation than a category. For
example, a company would probably disclose impairment losses for available-for-sale debt securities
separately from impairment losses for available-for-sale equity securities if the classes are material.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 12
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.152
Deutsche Telekom includes this disclosure in the notes to the financial statements:
Fee income and expense (other than amounts included in the determination of the effective interest rate) for:
• financial assets and financial liabilities not measured at fair value through profit or loss, (such as
certain syndication fees, credit card annual fees and some commitment and guarantee fees)
• fee income and expense from trust and other fiduciary activities (such as fixed management and safe
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.319
HSBC provides information about the components of net operating income in the notes to the financial
IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements requires disclosure of a company’s significant accounting
policies, including the judgments that management has used in their application. The Application Guidance
provides guidance on how these requirements may be applied to financial instruments. It suggests that the
disclosures might include the criteria for (1) designating financial assets and financial liabilities as at fair
value through profit or loss, (2) designating financial assets as available-for-sale, (3) determining when the
carrying amount of impaired financial assets are reduced directly and when the allowance accounted is
used, and (4) writing off amounts charged to the allowance account against the carrying amount of
impaired financial assets.
A key question with accounting policies disclosures is how detailed they should be. For example, in
explaining the criteria used to determine whether there is objective evidence of impairment, as suggested
by the Application Guidance, companies are unlikely to disclose specific thresholds and parameters for
each class of financial asset even though the amount of impairment for each category of financial asset is
required to be disclosed. However, some regulators have expressed concern that some policy disclosures
under IFRS have been too general—summarising the standards rather than setting out how they have been
applied by the company.
The extent of information provided about loan impairment criteria tends to vary from company to
company, as shown by the following illustrations:
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.305-306
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.68
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 14
The table below summarises the hedge accounting disclosures required by IFRS 7. IFRS 7 expands on the
requirements of IAS 32 in that the gain or loss on a hedging instrument in a cash flow hedge that is
transferred from equity to profit or loss must be analysed by income statement caption. Additionally, IFRS 7
introduces the requirement to disclosure the amount of ineffectiveness recognised in profit or loss for cash
flow hedges and hedges of net investments in foreign operations, and the gain or loss during the period on
the hedging instrument and hedged item attributable to the hedged risk for fair value hedges.
Disclosure Fair value
Description of hedged risk and hedging instrument with
related fair values
When hedged cash flows are expected to occur
If forecast transactions are no longer expected to occur
Gain or loss recognised in equity and reclassifications
Gain or loss from hedging instrument and hedged risk
Ineffectiveness recognised in P&L during the period
Companies may wish to separate the types of hedges (eg, into “micro” and “macro” hedges) when
preparing the required hedge accounting disclosures, in order to assist in explaining ineffectiveness.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.355
HSBC provides the following disclosure related to cash flow hedges:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 16
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.188
Although disclosure of the methods used to assess the effectiveness of hedge relationships is not
specifically required by IFRS 7, several early adopters did provide a detailed description of the hedge
effectiveness tests used. Within its disclosures relating to fair value hedges, Deutsche Telekom includes a
description of the hedge effectiveness tests used:
Nordea Annual Report 2006, p.111
Nordea provides the required disclosures of net gains or losses from fair value hedge accounting
relationships separately for individual hedge relationships and portfolio hedge relationships:
IFRS 7 retains the IAS 32 disclosures relating to the methods and significant assumptions used to
determine fair value for the different classes of financial assets and financial liabilities.
The required disclosures include:
• whether the fair value is based on quoted prices or valuation techniques
• whether the fair value is based on a valuation technique that includes assumptions not supported by
market prices or rates, and, if so, the amount of the change in fair value recognised in profit or loss that
arises from the use of the valuation technique
• the effect of reasonably possible alternative assumptions used in a valuation technique.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 18
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.305
HSBC provides the following information about its accounting policies for determining the value of
UBS Financial Report 2006, p.156
Although UBS has not yet adopted IFRS 7, it provides qualitative and quantitative information regarding
the determination of fair value for financial instruments, which includes the effect of changes in fair value
due to reasonably, possible alternative assumptions used in valuation techniques:
UBS Financial Report 2006, p.156 (continued)
IAS 32 currently requires disclosure of the nature and carrying amount of equity instruments that are
recorded at cost because their fair value cannot be reliably measured, including an explanation of why this
is the case. IFRS 7 expands the IAS 32 requirements by requiring information to be given about how the
company intends to dispose of such financial instruments.
‘Day 1’ profit or loss
IAS 39 does not permit a profit or loss to be recorded when a financial instrument is initially recognised (a
‘Day 1’ profit or loss), unless the fair value of the instrument is based on a valuation technique whose
variables include only data from observable markets. IFRS 7 requires disclosure of any Day 1 profit or loss
not recognised in the financial statements, the change in the amount previously deferred, and the company’s
policy for determining when amounts deferred are recognised in profit or loss.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.354
HSBC provides a reconciliation of the Day 1 profit deferred in the notes to the financial statements:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 20
Qualitative risk disclosures
IFRS 7 retains the qualitative disclosures required by IAS 32 relating to risks (ie, credit risk, liquidity risk,
and market risk) arising from financial instruments to which a company is exposed, including a discussion
of management’s objectives and policies for managing such risks. The qualitative disclosures are intended
to complement the required quantitative disclosures and assist readers of the financial statements to
understand the company’s risk management activities. IFRS 7 expands the qualitative risk disclosure
requirements to include information on the processes that a company uses to manage and measure its risks.
Although integrated disclosures of qualitative and quantitative information about market risk are not
specifically required, a company may find that the disclosures will be more understandable when the
qualitative disclosures are combined with the required quantitative disclosures.
The qualitative disclosures should include a narrative description of the risks the company is exposed to
and how they arise. The policies and processes for managing the risks would typically include:
• the structure and organisation of the risk management function, including a discussion of
independence and accountability
• the scope and nature of the risk reporting and measurement systems
• the policies and procedures for hedging or mitigating risks, including the taking of collateral
• processes for monitoring the continuing effectiveness of hedges and other risk mitigating devices
• policies and procedures for avoiding excessive concentrations of risk.
Companies are strongly recommended to keep the description of their risk management processes factual,
and not to make assertions as to their adequacy to meet their risk management objectives. To provide an
assertion would entail a process of evaluation and testing, which would be expensive to carry out and
to audit, similar to the process required for financial information by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for US SEC
The Guidance on Implementing IFRS 7 suggests that the information concerning the nature and extent of
risks will be more helpful if it highlights any relationships between financial instruments that can affect the
amount, timing, or uncertainty of future cash flows.
Disclosure is also required of any changes in the qualitative information from one period to the next that
arises from changes in exposure to risk or from changes in the way those exposures are managed.
Quantitative risk disclosures
IFRS 7 expands on the quantitative disclosures contained in IAS 32, which are intended to provide
information about the extent to which a company is exposed to risks based on the information available to
key management personnel
. If the company uses several methods to manage risk exposures, it should
disclose information using the methods that are most relevant and reliable. There is an expectation that
information provided to management is reliable, although some companies are upgrading the quality of
their risk information to ensure that it is robust enough for disclosure in the annual report.
The Standard requires disclosure of all risk concentrations to which a company is exposed in relation to
financial instruments, based on financial instruments that have similar characteristics (such as geographical
area, currency, industry, market, and type of counterparty) and the amount of the risk exposure concerned.
Additionally, IFRS 7 requires a description of how management determines such concentrations.
When the quantitative data disclosed at the reporting date is not representative of the company’s exposure
to risk during the period, further information that is representative must be provided.
US foreign private issuers should note that the market risk disclosures required by the US SEC include all
‘market risk sensitive instruments’. These are defined as derivative financial instruments, other financial
instruments, and derivative commodity instruments. Whilst some derivative commodity instruments do not
meet the US GAAP definition of a financial instrument, the SEC specifically includes them in the required
disclosures. This will include, for example, the foreign currency or price risk for commodity contracts that
IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures defines key management personnel as “those persons having authority and responsibility for
planning, directing and controlling the activities of the company, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or
otherwise) of that company.”
are considered to be within the company’s ‘expected purchase, sale or usage requirements’. US foreign
private issuers may wish to make similar disclosures in their IFRS financial statements. If so, the amounts
relating to financial instruments within the scope of IFRS 7 should be shown separately from those relating
to financial instruments outside the scope of the Standard.
Credit risk is defined as “the risk that one party to a financial instrument will cause a financial loss for the
other party by failing to discharge an obligation.” For each class of financial instrument, IFRS 7 requires
disclosure of the maximum credit exposure before consideration of collateral or other credit enhancements
received (eg, master netting agreements), plus a description of collateral and other credit enhancements
Maximum credit exposure
The Standard considers the maximum credit exposure for loans and receivables granted and deposits
placed to be the carrying amount, net of any impairment losses, and for derivatives to be the current fair
value. For financial guarantees and loan commitments, this amount would be the maximum amount the
company could be required to pay (or fund), without consideration of the probability of the actual outcome.
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.123
Danske Bank provides the required disclosure of maximum credit exposure in the risk management section
of the notes to the financial statements:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 22
Financial assets that are neither past due nor impaired
IFRS 7 introduces disclosure of information relating to the credit quality of financial assets that are neither
past due nor impaired. This disclosure may include a discussion of the nature of the counterparties, historical
information relating to counterparty default rates, and other information used to assess credit risk (eg, an
analysis of credit exposure using internal or external credit ratings). It should be noted that all financial
assets, except for equity instruments held by a company, have some level of exposure to credit risk.
For financial services companies, the credit risk disclosures in IFRS 7 will likely be a combination of
qualitative discussion and extensive quantitative information, provided in the risk management section of
the notes to the financial statements or the financial review section of the annual report.
Danske Bank Annual Report 2006, p.124-125
The required credit risk disclosures may, among other items, include a distribution of loans by industry
sector and geographical location, such as the following provided by Danske Bank:
For companies outside the financial services industry, the IFRS 7 credit risk disclosures will not normally
be as extensive as those for financial services companies. Accordingly, Deutsche Telekom provides the
required credit risk disclosures in narrative form in the risk management section of the notes to the
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Annual Report, p.188
Financial assets that are either past due or impaired
IFRS 7 introduces disclosure of information relating to financial assets that are either past due or impaired.
This includes (1) an analysis of the age of financial assets that are past due but not impaired, (2) an analysis
of those financial assets that are impaired, and (3) a description and the fair value, unless impracticable, of
collateral held against financial assets that are either past due or impaired.
The disclosures for financial assets that are past due but not impaired may present a number of operational
• information about past due financial assets may not be captured by a company’s credit system until
the assets concerned have been past due for a period of time (eg, 30 days)
• it may not be possible to allocate a collective impairment provision to individual loans and
receivables and an age analysis may need to be prepared gross of any collective impairment provision
• while a bank may evaluate periodically the fair value of its collateral for corporate loans, large
residential mortgages and impaired loans, such updates may not be performed for smaller residential
mortgages and, therefore, the only value available may be that obtained at inception of the loan.
It may be helpful to link this disclosure to the company’s policy for determining whether a loan or
receivable is impaired.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 24
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.146
Deutsche Telekom provides the analysis of the age of past due loans and receivables in the notes to the
Collateral the company has taken control of during the period
IFRS 7 also introduces disclosure of information about the extent of assets recognised by a company
during the period as a result of taking possession of collateral or calling on other credit enhancements such
as guarantees, and their disposition. The required disclosures relate to both financial instruments (eg, cash,
debt securities, equity securities) and non-financial items (eg, property, equipment, and inventory).
Accounting recognition of such assets depends on the recognition criteria in IFRS and not the conditions of
the transaction and/or local law.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p196
HSBC includes the following disclosure in the Management of Risk section that precedes the financial
statements. Note the statement in the note that this information is audited in its annual report. IFRS 7 does
not require the risk disclosures to be included in the primary financial statements and, accordingly, this
information is incorporated in the audited financial statements by reference:
IFRS 7 requires a maturity analysis for financial liabilities to be presented showing their remaining contractual
maturities, and a description of how the company manages those liquidity risks. In practice, most companies
manage liquidity risk based not on contractual cash flows but on expected maturities. This is especially true
for banks where a large proportion of current accounts that are, in theory, repayable on demand can be
expected to remain in place. If this is the case, then the company may wish to provide a separate maturity
analysis based on expected maturity dates, possibly both for financial assets and liabilities, along with the
limits or other measures used by the company to manage its liquidity exposures. However, such an analysis
will not remove the need to produce the contractual liability analysis required by the Standard.
Contractual maturity analysis for financial liabilities
IAS 30 requires banks to disclose contractual maturity information about both financial assets and financial
liabilities. IFRS 7 is less prescriptive and does not require disclosure of contractual maturities of financial
assets. A company may nevertheless decide to present such information in order to provide a complete
view of the company’s contractual commitments.
The Application Guidance on the contractual maturity analysis is one of the most problematic sections of
IFRS 7. According to this guidance:
• Financial liabilities must be disclosed by their contractual maturity, based on undiscounted cash flows.
Note that if they are undiscounted, then the table is unlikely to reconcile easily to information
recorded in the balance sheet and, also, is unlikely to be information which is routinely prepared for
• For derivatives, the contractual amounts to be disclosed should be the gross cash flows to be paid.
Hence, a currency swap will need to be grossed up to show the gross amounts payable, while an
interest rate swap would be shown net. In order to show the true liquidity profile, most companies will
wish also to disclose amounts receivable that are related to the gross cash outflows. Disclosure
practices may well vary. For example, some companies have omitted derivatives from the contractual
liability disclosure using the argument that such instruments form part of a trading portfolio and are
short-term in nature.
• It is unclear how to treat perpetual instruments. Since the cash flows are required to be shown
undiscounted, the cash flows are potentially infinite. Most companies will probably wish to deal with
such instruments using narrative disclosure.
• Financial instruments that give the creditor an option as to when amounts are paid should be analysed
according to their earliest date on which the can be required to pay, without considering the probability of
the option being exercised.
• The analysis should include guarantees and commitments.
It should be noted that IFRS 4 permits insurance companies to disclose the liquidity analysis of recognised
insurance liabilities based on the estimated timing of the net cash outflows from the contracts rather than
on their contractual maturities as required by IFRS 7.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 26
Novartis Annual Report 2006, p.183 and 185
Novartis discloses the contractual maturities of its financial assets, as well as the contractual maturities for
financial liabilities in the notes to the financial statements. This disclosure is supplemented by a discussion
of how the company manages its liquidity risk, also located in the notes to the financial statements:
Description of how liquidity risk inherent in financial liabilities is managed
Factors mentioned in the Implementation Guidance that the “company might consider” in describing how it
manages its liquidity risks include whether the company:
• expects some liabilities may be paid later than the earliest contractual due date
• has undrawn loan commitments that are not expected to be drawn
• holds financial assets for which there is a liquid market and are, therefore, readily saleable to meet
• has committed borrowing facilities which it could use to help provide liquidity
• holds deposits at central banks that it can use to meet liquidity needs
• holds financial assets which are not traded in a liquid market, but which can be expected to generate
cash inflows that will be available to meet cash outflows on liabilities
• has diverse funding sources
• has significant concentration of liquidity risk in either its assets or its funding sources.
HSBC Holdings plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006, p.213-214
HSBC includes both the qualitative discussion of the process used to manage liquidity risk and the required
liquidity analysis of financial liabilities in the financial review section of its annual report:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 28
Market risk is defined as “the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will
fluctuate because of changes in market prices” and includes interest rate risk, foreign currency risk and
“other price risks”, such as equity and commodity risk. All financial instruments are subject to market risk;
however, the required market risk quantitative disclosures are restricted to the sensitivity of profit or loss
and equity to changes in market risks. The disclosures, therefore, focus on accounting (as opposed to
economic) sensitivity and exclude, for example, interest rate risk arising on fixed rate financial assets held
to maturity or loans and receivables. Companies may also provide disclosures about such items but,
arguably, they would need to be shown separately.
There are two ways in which market risk sensitivity may be disclosed:
• a separate sensitivity analysis for each type of market risk to which the company is exposed at the
reporting date, based on changes in the risk variable that are considered “reasonably possible” at that
• an analysis such as Value at Risk (VaR) that takes into account the interdependencies between market
risk variables, if this method is used by the company to manage its financial risks.
All sensitivity analyses should take account of the effects of hedges but, as the amounts to be disclosed are
the expected effect on profit or loss or equity, the Standard implies that the accounting treatment of the
hedges needs to be taken into account in the analysis.
IFRS 7 does not prescribe the format in which a sensitivity analysis should be presented, although
exposures to risks from significantly different economic environments should not be combined. For
example, (1) a company that trades financial instruments might disclose sensitivity information separately
for financial instruments held for trading and for those not held for trading, and (2) exposure to market
risks in hyperinflationary economies might be disclosed separately from exposure to the same market risks
arising in economies with low inflation rates.
Companies with significant non-financial commodity contracts may wish to present a sensitivity analysis
both for contracts that are recognised in the financial statements (ie, those within the scope of IAS 39) and
those that are not recognised, in order to provide a complete picture of the company’s exposure to
commodity price risk.
The Application Guidance indicates that it is possible to use different sensitivity methodologies for
different classes of financial instruments or business segments. For example, a bank with insurance
operations might manage its risks related to the two businesses differently and may wish to present its
sensitivity analysis in accordance with the manner in which it manages the risks.
The Implementation Guidance identifies two types of interest rate sensitivity. These are the effects of
changes in interest rates on:
• fixed rate financial assets and liabilities; and
• variable rate financial assets and liabilities.
The first of these measures the impact on profit or loss for the year (for items recorded at fair value through
profit or loss) and on equity (for available-for-sale securities and financial instruments used as cash flow
hedges and net investment hedges) that would arise from a reasonably possible change in interest rates at
the balance sheet date on financial instruments held at the period end. The second of these measures the
change in interest income or expense over the period of a year attributable to a reasonably possible change
in interest rates, based on the floating rate assets and liabilities held at the balance sheet date.
The Application Guidance makes it clear that the sensitivity analysis should show the effects of changes
that are reasonably possible over the period until the company will next present its risk disclosures, ie
usually the next year. The sensitivity test should exclude remote or ‘worst case’ scenarios or ‘stress tests’.
Banks currently use a wide range of assumptions for their non-trading interest rate risk sensitivity, varying
from 0.01% to 1%.
The foreign currency risk sensitivity information required by IFRS 7 is limited to the risks that arise on
financial instruments denominated in currencies other than the functional currency in which they are
measured. As a result, there is no requirement in IFRS 7 to provide quantitative disclosures of the currency
risks posed by overseas net investments (and so revalued on consolidation through equity). Similarly, there
is no requirement to provide disclosures about hedges of overseas net investments.
VaR and similar models
If the company uses a method such as VaR analysis that reflects interdependencies between risk variables it
must explain the method used in preparing the sensitivity analysis and the parameters and assumptions
underlying the data provided. This will usually include:
• the period over which positions are expected to be held (and so the modelled losses incurred)
• the confidence level at which the calculation is made, ie the percentage number of days in which
losses are expected to be less than the disclosed VaR.
We would also expect companies to provide sufficient narrative information to explain what these
parameters mean and how they should be interpreted.
When VaR is used, there is no reference in IFRS 7 to “reasonably possible changes” – the assumptions are
left to the company to select, based on those it uses to measure its risks for management purposes. Banks
currently use a wide variety of assumptions, for example one bank may use a 95% confidence level and
a one-day holding period, while another bank may use a 99% confidence level and a ten-day holding
period. Such differences in assumptions will make it difficult for readers to compare the risk profiles of
If a methodology such as VaR is used, then the company also needs to disclose the limitations of the
method, which might include:
• the measure is a point-in-time calculation, reflecting positions as recorded at that date, which do not
necessarily reflect the risk positions held at any other time
• that VaR is a statistical estimation and therefore it is possible that there could be, in any period, a
greater number of days in which losses could exceed the calculated VaR than implied by the
• that although losses are not expected to exceed the calculated VaR on, say, 95% of occasions, on the
other 5% of occasions losses will be greater and might be substantially greater than the calculated VaR.
Most companies that use VaR make reference to their use of stress testing to help manage losses arising
from lower frequency, higher magnitude movements in market prices than those modelled using VaR. As
there is no requirement to disclose stress test sensitivities, these companies do not normally quantify the
losses expected to arise in stress circumstances.
Whatever form of sensitivity analysis is presented, if the sensitivities based on year end positions are not
representative of the risks managed during the year, the company must provide further disclosure to show
the level of risk that would be a better indicator. For example, a company may disclose maximum,
minimum, and/or average amounts in addition to the required year-end amount.
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 30
Deutsche Telekom 2006 Financial Review, p.186-187
Deutsche Telekom provides a sensitivity analysis in the notes to the financial statements to illustrate the
impact on profit or loss and equity of changes in currency rates. The following is an excerpt that describes
the risk and the impact on the financial statements:
Novartis Annual Report 2006, p.184
Novartis uses a VaR model to measure the impact of the market risk relating to its financial instruments
and includes the average, maximum, and minimum VaR, along with the year-end amounts:
I F R S 7 F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S : D I S C L O S U R E S 32
If you would like to discuss financial instruments in more detail, please contact your regular Ernst & Young
representative or one of the people below:
Michiel van der Lof Amsterdam +31 20 546 6030
George de Meris Amsterdam +31 20 549 7240
Bernard Roeders Amsterdam +31 20 549 7451
Eric Tarleton Bahrain +973 1753 5455
Ashwani Siotia Bahrain +973 17 521 676
Roland Ruprecht Bern +41 58 286 61 87
Jean-Francois Hubin Brussels +32 2 774 92 66
Kim Tang Lassen Copenhagen +45 3587 2651
Jesper Slot Copenhagen +45 3587 2529
Claus-Peter Wagner Frankfurt +49 6196 996 26512
Marja Tikka Helsinki +358 9 1727 7236
Päivi Virtanen Helsinki +358 9 1727 7533
Keith Pogson Hong Kong +852 2849 9227
Tony Clifford London +44 (0)20 7951 2250
Melinda Evans London +44 (0)20 7980 0108
Neville Gray London +44 (0)20 7951 1261
Jane Hurworth London +44 (0)20 7951 4155
Richard Solomon London +44 (0)20 7951 5308
Ian Wilson London +44 (0)20 7951 0282
Thierry Bertrand Luxembourg +352 42 124 8845
Bernard Lhoest Luxembourg +352 42 124 8315
Jose Carlos Herandez Madrid +34 91 572 72 28
Wilson Tan Manila +632 894 8127
Josephine Abarca Manila +632 894 8317
Mark Seddon Melbourne +61 3 8650 7444
Andreas Loetscher Melbourne +61 3 9655 2634
Gianpiero Tedesco Milan +39 02 7221 2451
Avet Mirakyan Moscow +7 095 938 6667
Dmitry Weinstein Moscow +7 095 938 6689
Ken Marshall New York +1 212 773 2279
Tara Kengla New York +1 212 773 8828
Bjarne Moller Oslo +47 2 400 2860
Bernard Heller Paris +33 1 46 93 73 68
Sophie Ganter Paris +33 1 55 61 00 62
Laure Guegan Paris +33 1 55 61 08 25
Michaela Kubyova Prague +420 225 335 608
Leo van der Tas Rotterdam +31 10 406 8114
Wilson Woo Singapore +65 6309 6750
Winston Ngan Singapore +65 6309 6918
Anna Peyron Stockholm +46 8 520 593 81
Steffen Kuhn Stuttgart +49 711 9881 14063
Lynn Kraus Sydney +61 2 9248 4244
Lee Roche Sydney +61 2 9248 4796
Joost Hendriks The Hague +61 2 9248 4351
Mike Modena Tokyo +81 3 3503 1791
Andre deHaan Toronto +1 416 943 3705
Ambrogio Virgilio Turin +39 01 1516 1611
Piotr Gajek Warsaw +48 22 557 7488
Pawel Preuss Warsaw +48 22 557 7530
John Alton Zurich +41 58 286 42 69
Reinhold Sturny Zurich +41 58 286 4635
ERNST & YOUNG
© 2007 EYGM Limited
All Rights Reserved.
EYG No. AU0050
About Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young, a global leader in professional services, is committed to restoring the
public's trust in professional services firms and in the quality of financial reporting.
Its 114,000 people in 140 countries pursue the highest levels of integrity, quality, and
professionalism in providing a range of sophisticated services centered on our core
competencies of auditing, accounting, tax, and transactions. Further information
about Ernst & Young and its approach to a variety of business issues can be found at
www.ey.com/perspectives. Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of
member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal
entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited does not provide services to clients.
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for
general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the
exercise of professional judgment. Neither EYGM Limited nor any other member of the
global Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to
any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication.
On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.