Description of Possible Alternative Features to the Exposure Draft Model

The Board discussed a proposal put forward by a Board member describing some additional features (variants) of the classification model developed by the Board. Under this variant:

1. Financial assets with basic loan features that are managed on a contractual yield basis would be measured at fair value in the balance sheet, unless they meet the definition of loans and receivables in IAS 39.
2. Such financial assets would:
   • be measured on an amortised cost basis in profit or loss (including recognition of impairment using the incurred loss provision requirements in IAS 39); with
   • any difference between that amortised costs measure and the fair value change being recognised in other comprehensive income. There would be no recycling between OCI and profit and loss.

The effect of this proposal was that potentially more financial instruments would be measured at fair value on the balance sheet, but the value change would be allocated between profit and loss and other comprehensive income in the statement of comprehensive income.

Board members discussed this variant for a while, suggesting other possible variations. At least one member thought the variant as 'dead on arrival' and would not support it. Another Board member thought that it was unhelpful to mix the measurement of financial instruments between the statement of financial position and the statement of comprehensive income. If an item was reported on the statement of financial position at fair value, changes in that measure should be reported in profit and loss. A mixed allocation method, such as proposed with the amortised cost component being reported in profit and loss and the 'plug' between that amount and the value change being reported in other comprehensive income was likely to lead to problems and the Board developed other aspects of the revised financial instruments package.

In particular, some Board members were concerned about the consequences of this variant on hedge accounting, especially that the mixed allocation might add rather than reduce complexity in some situations. If hedging is designed to manage what is recognised in profit and loss, allocating some of the exposure being hedged to other comprehensive income would create challenges in hedge accounting, in particular assessing effectiveness.

While not commenting on its merits, the Board agreed that the variant should be discussed in the forthcoming exposure draft's Basis for Conclusions (as will all the alternatives considered in detail by the Board) and that comments should be invited on it.