AASB 9

The objective of this Standard is to establish principles for the financial reporting of financial assets and financial liabilities that will present relevant and useful information to users of financial statements for their assessment of the amounts, timing and uncertainty of an entity’s future cash flows.

AusCF entities are:

(a) not-for-profit entities; and

(b) for-profit entities that are not applying the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting (as identified in AASB 1048 Interpretation of Standards).

For AusCF entities, the term ‘reporting entity’ is defined in AASB 1057 Application of Australian Accounting Standards and Statement of Accounting Concepts SAC 1 Definition of the Reporting Entity also applies. For-profit entities applying the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting are set out in paragraph Aus1.1 of the Conceptual Framework.

[Deleted by the AASB]

This Standard applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018.

This Standard may be applied to reporting periods beginning after 24 July 2014 but before 1 January 2018. However, except as specified by paragraph 7.1.2, if an entity elects to apply this Standard early, it must disclose that fact and apply all of the requirements in this Standard at the same time (but see also paragraphs Aus1.4 and 7.2.21 of this Standard). It shall also, at the same time, apply the amendments in AASB 2010-7 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards arising from AASB 9 (December 2010) (as amended), Part E of AASB 2014-1 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards and AASB 2014-7 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards arising from AASB 9 (December 2014).

When applied or operative, this Standard supersedes AASB 9 Financial Instruments (December 2009, as amended) and AASB 9 Financial Instruments (December 2010, as amended). However, for annual reporting periods ending on or after 31 December 2009 that begin before 1 January 2018, an entity may elect to apply AASB 9 (December 2009) or AASB 9 (December 2010) instead of applying this Standard if, and only if, the entity’s relevant date of initial application is before 1 February 2015, and except that AASB 9 (December 2010) may be applied early only as set out in that Standard.

When applied or operative, this Standard supersedes Interpretation 9 Reassessment of Embedded Derivatives, as identified in AASB 1048 Interpretation of Standards. The requirements added to AASB 9 in December 2010 incorporate the requirements previously set out in paragraphs 5 and 7 of Interpretation 9. As a consequential amendment, AASB 1 First-time Adoption of Australian Accounting Standards incorporates the requirements previously set out in paragraph 8 of Interpretation 9.

[Repealed]

This Standard shall be applied by all entities to all types of financial instruments except:

(a) those interests in subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures that are accounted for in accordance with AASB 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, AASB 127 Separate Financial Statements or AASB 128 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures. However, in some cases, AASB 10, AASB 127 or AASB 128 require or permit an entity to account for an interest in a subsidiary, associate or joint venture in accordance with some or all of the requirements of this Standard. Entities shall also apply this Standard to derivatives on an interest in a subsidiary, associate or joint venture unless the derivative meets the definition of an equity instrument of the entity in AASB 132 Financial Instruments: Presentation.

(b) rights and obligations under leases to which AASB 16 Leases applies. However:

(i) finance lease receivables (ie net investments in finance leases) and operating lease receivables recognised by a lessor are subject to the derecognition and impairment requirements of this Standard;

(ii) lease liabilities recognised by a lessee are subject to the derecognition requirements in paragraph 3.3.1 of this Standard; and

(iii) derivatives that are embedded in leases are subject to the embedded derivatives requirements of this Standard.

(c) employers’ rights and obligations under employee benefit plans, to which AASB 119 Employee Benefits applies.

(d) financial instruments issued by the entity that meet the definition of an equity instrument in AASB 132 (including options and warrants) or that are required to be classified as an equity instrument in accordance with paragraphs 16A and 16B or paragraphs 16C and 16D of AASB 132. However, the holder of such equity instruments shall apply this Standard to those instruments, unless they meet the exception in (a).

(e) rights and obligations arising under (i) an insurance contract as defined in AASB 4 Insurance Contracts, other than an issuer’s rights and obligations arising under an insurance contract that meets the definition of a financial guarantee contract, or (ii) a contract that is within the scope of AASB 4 because it contains a discretionary participation feature. However, this Standard applies to a derivative that is embedded in a contract within the scope of AASB 4 if the derivative is not itself a contract within the scope of AASB 4. Moreover, if an issuer of financial guarantee contracts has previously asserted explicitly that it regards such contracts as insurance contracts and has used accounting that is applicable to insurance contracts, the issuer may elect to apply either this Standard or AASB 1023 General Insurance Contracts to such financial guarantee contracts (see paragraphs B2.5–B2.6). The issuer may make that election contract by contract, but the election for each contract is irrevocable.

(f) any forward contract between an acquirer and a selling shareholder to buy or sell an acquiree that will result in a business combination within the scope of AASB 3 Business Combinations at a future acquisition date. The term of the forward contract should not exceed a reasonable period normally necessary to obtain any required approvals and to complete the transaction.

(g) loan commitments other than those loan commitments described in paragraph 2.3. However, an issuer of loan commitments shall apply the impairment requirements of this Standard to loan commitments that are not otherwise within the scope of this Standard. Also, all loan commitments are subject to the derecognition requirements of this Standard.

(h) financial instruments, contracts and obligations under share-based payment transactions to which AASB 2 Share-based Payment applies, except for contracts within the scope of paragraphs 2.4–2.7 of this Standard to which this Standard applies.

(i) rights to payments to reimburse the entity for expenditure that it is required to make to settle a liability that it recognises as a provision in accordance with AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, or for which, in an earlier period, it recognised a provision in accordance with AASB 137.

(j) rights and obligations within the scope of AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers that are financial instruments, except for those that AASB 15 specifies are accounted for in accordance with this Standard.

Notwithstanding paragraph 2.1, in respect of not-for-profit entities, the initial recognition and measurement requirements of this Standard apply to non-contractual receivables arising from statutory requirements as if those receivables are financial instruments.

The impairment requirements of this Standard shall be applied to those rights that AASB 15 specifies are accounted for in accordance with this Standard for the purposes of recognising impairment gains or losses.

The following loan commitments are within the scope of this Standard:

(a) loan commitments that the entity designates as financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss (see paragraph 4.2.2). An entity that has a past practice of selling the assets resulting from its loan commitments shortly after origination shall apply this Standard to all its loan commitments in the same class.

(b) loan commitments that can be settled net in cash or by delivering or issuing another financial instrument. These loan commitments are derivatives. A loan commitment is not regarded as settled net merely because the loan is paid out in instalments (for example, a mortgage construction loan that is paid out in instalments in line with the progress of construction).

(c) commitments to provide a loan at a below-market interest rate (see paragraph 4.2.1(d)).

This Standard shall be applied to those contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, as if the contracts were financial instruments, with the exception of contracts that were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements. However, this Standard shall be applied to those contracts that an entity designates as measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 2.5.

A contract to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, as if the contract was a financial instrument, may be irrevocably designated as measured at fair value through profit or loss even if it was entered into for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements. This designation is available only at inception of the contract and only if it eliminates or significantly reduces a recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) that would otherwise arise from not recognising that contract because it is excluded from the scope of this Standard (see paragraph 2.4).

There are various ways in which a contract to buy or sell a non-financial item can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument or by exchanging financial instruments. These include:

(a) when the terms of the contract permit either party to settle it net in cash or another financial instrument or by exchanging financial instruments;

(b) when the ability to settle net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, is not explicit in the terms of the contract, but the entity has a practice of settling similar contracts net in cash or another financial instrument or by exchanging financial instruments (whether with the counterparty, by entering into offsetting contracts or by selling the contract before its exercise or lapse);

(c) when, for similar contracts, the entity has a practice of taking delivery of the underlying and selling it within a short period after delivery for the purpose of generating a profit from short-term fluctuations in price or dealer’s margin; and

(d) when the non-financial item that is the subject of the contract is readily convertible to cash.

A contract to which (b) or (c) applies is not entered into for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements and, accordingly, is within the scope of this Standard. Other contracts to which paragraph 2.4 applies are evaluated to determine whether they were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements and, accordingly, whether they are within the scope of this Standard.

A written option to buy or sell a non-financial item that can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, in accordance with paragraph 2.6(a) or 2.6(d) is within the scope of this Standard. Such a contract cannot be entered into for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of the non-financial item in accordance with the entity’s expected purchase, sale or usage requirements.

An entity shall recognise a financial asset or a financial liability in its statement of financial position when, and only when, the entity becomes party to the contractual provisions of the instrument (see paragraphs B3.1.1 and B3.1.2). When an entity first recognises a financial asset, it shall classify it in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 and measure it in accordance with paragraphs 5.1.1–5.1.3. When an entity first recognises a financial liability, it shall classify it in accordance with paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and measure it in accordance with paragraph 5.1.1.

A regular way purchase or sale of financial assets shall be recognised and derecognised, as applicable, using trade date accounting or settlement date accounting (see paragraphs B3.1.3–B3.1.6).

In consolidated financial statements, paragraphs 3.2.2–3.2.9, B3.1.1, B3.1.2 and B3.2.1–B3.2.17 are applied at a consolidated level. Hence, an entity first consolidates all subsidiaries in accordance with AASB 10 and then applies those paragraphs to the resulting group.

Before evaluating whether, and to what extent, derecognition is appropriate under paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9, an entity determines whether those paragraphs should be applied to a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets) or a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its entirety, as follows.

(a) Paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets) if, and only if, the part being considered for derecognition meets one of the following three conditions.

(i) The part comprises only specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an interest rate strip whereby the counterparty obtains the right to the interest cash flows, but not the principal cash flows from a debt instrument, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to the interest cash flows.

(ii) The part comprises only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of the cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an arrangement whereby the counterparty obtains the rights to a 90 per cent share of all cash flows of a debt instrument, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to 90 per cent of those cash flows. If there is more than one counterparty, each counterparty is not required to have a proportionate share of the cash flows provided that the transferring entity has a fully proportionate share.

(iii) The part comprises only a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets). For example, when an entity enters into an arrangement whereby the counterparty obtains the rights to a 90 per cent share of interest cash flows from a financial asset, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to 90 per cent of those interest cash flows. If there is more than one counterparty, each counterparty is not required to have a proportionate share of the specifically identified cash flows provided that the transferring entity has a fully proportionate share.

(b) In all other cases, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to the financial asset in its entirety (or to the group of similar financial assets in their entirety). For example, when an entity transfers (i) the rights to the first or the last 90 per cent of cash collections from a financial asset (or a group of financial assets), or (ii) the rights to 90 per cent of the cash flows from a group of receivables, but provides a guarantee to compensate the buyer for any credit losses up to 8 per cent of the principal amount of the receivables, paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.9 are applied to the financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its entirety.

In paragraphs 3.2.3–3.2.12, the term ‘financial asset’ refers to either a part of a financial asset (or a part of a group of similar financial assets) as identified in (a) above or, otherwise, a financial asset (or a group of similar financial assets) in its entirety.

An entity shall derecognise a financial asset when, and only when:

(a) the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset expire, or

(b) it transfers the financial asset as set out in paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 and the transfer qualifies for derecognition in accordance with paragraph 3.2.6.

(See paragraph 3.1.2 for regular way sales of financial assets.)

An entity transfers a financial asset if, and only if, it either:

(a) transfers the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset, or

(b) retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset, but assumes a contractual obligation to pay the cash flows to one or more recipients in an arrangement that meets the conditions in paragraph 3.2.5.

When an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of a financial asset (the ‘original asset’), but assumes a contractual obligation to pay those cash flows to one or more entities (the ‘eventual recipients’), the entity treats the transaction as a transfer of a financial asset if, and only if, all of the following three conditions are met.

(a) The entity has no obligation to pay amounts to the eventual recipients unless it collects equivalent amounts from the original asset. Short-term advances by the entity with the right of full recovery of the amount lent plus accrued interest at market rates do not violate this condition.

(b) The entity is prohibited by the terms of the transfer contract from selling or pledging the original asset other than as security to the eventual recipients for the obligation to pay them cash flows.

(c) The entity has an obligation to remit any cash flows it collects on behalf of the eventual recipients without material delay. In addition, the entity is not entitled to reinvest such cash flows, except for investments in cash or cash equivalents (as defined in AASB 107 Statement of Cash Flows) during the short settlement period from the collection date to the date of required remittance to the eventual recipients, and interest earned on such investments is passed to the eventual recipients.

When an entity transfers a financial asset (see paragraph 3.2.4), it shall evaluate the extent to which it retains the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset. In this case:

(a) if the entity transfers substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset, the entity shall derecognise the financial asset and recognise separately as assets or liabilities any rights and obligations created or retained in the transfer.

(b) if the entity retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset, the entity shall continue to recognise the financial asset.

(c) if the entity neither transfers nor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset, the entity shall determine whether it has retained control of the financial asset. In this case:

(i) if the entity has not retained control, it shall derecognise the financial asset and recognise separately as assets or liabilities any rights and obligations created or retained in the transfer.

(ii) if the entity has retained control, it shall continue to recognise the financial asset to the extent of its continuing involvement in the financial asset (see paragraph 3.2.16).

The transfer of risks and rewards (see paragraph 3.2.6) is evaluated by comparing the entity’s exposure, before and after the transfer, with the variability in the amounts and timing of the net cash flows of the transferred asset. An entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a financial asset if its exposure to the variability in the present value of the future net cash flows from the financial asset does not change significantly as a result of the transfer (eg because the entity has sold a financial asset subject to an agreement to buy it back at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender’s return). An entity has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a financial asset if its exposure to such variability is no longer significant in relation to the total variability in the present value of the future net cash flows associated with the financial asset (eg because the entity has sold a financial asset subject only to an option to buy it back at its fair value at the time of repurchase or has transferred a fully proportionate share of the cash flows from a larger financial asset in an arrangement, such as a loan sub-participation, that meets the conditions in paragraph 3.2.5).

Often it will be obvious whether the entity has transferred or retained substantially all risks and rewards of ownership and there will be no need to perform any computations. In other cases, it will be necessary to compute and compare the entity’s exposure to the variability in the present value of the future net cash flows before and after the transfer. The computation and comparison are made using as the discount rate an appropriate current market interest rate. All reasonably possible variability in net cash flows is considered, with greater weight being given to those outcomes that are more likely to occur.

Whether the entity has retained control (see paragraph 3.2.6(c)) of the transferred asset depends on the transferee’s ability to sell the asset. If the transferee has the practical ability to sell the asset in its entirety to an unrelated third party and is able to exercise that ability unilaterally and without needing to impose additional restrictions on the transfer, the entity has not retained control. In all other cases, the entity has retained control.

If an entity transfers a financial asset in a transfer that qualifies for derecognition in its entirety and retains the right to service the financial asset for a fee, it shall recognise either a servicing asset or a servicing liability for that servicing contract. If the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity adequately for performing the servicing, a servicing liability for the servicing obligation shall be recognised at its fair value. If the fee to be received is expected to be more than adequate compensation for the servicing, a servicing asset shall be recognised for the servicing right at an amount determined on the basis of an allocation of the carrying amount of the larger financial asset in accordance with paragraph 3.2.13.

If, as a result of a transfer, a financial asset is derecognised in its entirety but the transfer results in the entity obtaining a new financial asset or assuming a new financial liability, or a servicing liability, the entity shall recognise the new financial asset, financial liability or servicing liability at fair value.

On derecognition of a financial asset in its entirety, the difference between:

(a) the carrying amount (measured at the date of derecognition) and

(b) the consideration received (including any new asset obtained less any new liability assumed)

shall be recognised in profit or loss.

If the transferred asset is part of a larger financial asset (eg when an entity transfers interest cash flows that are part of a debt instrument, see paragraph 3.2.2(a)) and the part transferred qualifies for derecognition in its entirety, the previous carrying amount of the larger financial asset shall be allocated between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, on the basis of the relative fair values of those parts on the date of the transfer. For this purpose, a retained servicing asset shall be treated as a part that continues to be recognised. The difference between:

(a) the carrying amount (measured at the date of derecognition) allocated to the part derecognised and

(b) the consideration received for the part derecognised (including any new asset obtained less any new liability assumed)

shall be recognised in profit or loss.

When an entity allocates the previous carrying amount of a larger financial asset between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, the fair value of the part that continues to be recognised needs to be measured. When the entity has a history of selling parts similar to the part that continues to be recognised or other market transactions exist for such parts, recent prices of actual transactions provide the best estimate of its fair value. When there are no price quotes or recent market transactions to support the fair value of the part that continues to be recognised, the best estimate of the fair value is the difference between the fair value of the larger financial asset as a whole and the consideration received from the transferee for the part that is derecognised.

If a transfer does not result in derecognition because the entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, the entity shall continue to recognise the transferred asset in its entirety and shall recognise a financial liability for the consideration received. In subsequent periods, the entity shall recognise any income on the transferred asset and any expense incurred on the financial liability.

If an entity neither transfers nor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of a transferred asset, and retains control of the transferred asset, the entity continues to recognise the transferred asset to the extent of its continuing involvement. The extent of the entity’s continuing involvement in the transferred asset is the extent to which it is exposed to changes in the value of the transferred asset. For example:

(a) When the entity’s continuing involvement takes the form of guaranteeing the transferred asset, the extent of the entity’s continuing involvement is the lower of (i) the amount of the asset and (ii) the maximum amount of the consideration received that the entity could be required to repay (‘the guarantee amount’).

(b) When the entity’s continuing involvement takes the form of a written or purchased option (or both) on the transferred asset, the extent of the entity’s continuing involvement is the amount of the transferred asset that the entity may repurchase. However, in the case of a written put option on an asset that is measured at fair value, the extent of the entity’s continuing involvement is limited to the lower of the fair value of the transferred asset and the option exercise price (see paragraph B3.2.13).

(c) When the entity’s continuing involvement takes the form of a cash-settled option or similar provision on the transferred asset, the extent of the entity’s continuing involvement is measured in the same way as that which results from non-cash settled options as set out in (b) above.

When an entity continues to recognise an asset to the extent of its continuing involvement, the entity also recognises an associated liability. Despite the other measurement requirements in this Standard, the transferred asset and the associated liability are measured on a basis that reflects the rights and obligations that the entity has retained. The associated liability is measured in such a way that the net carrying amount of the transferred asset and the associated liability is:

(a) the amortised cost of the rights and obligations retained by the entity, if the transferred asset is measured at amortised cost, or

(b) equal to the fair value of the rights and obligations retained by the entity when measured on a stand-alone basis, if the transferred asset is measured at fair value.

The entity shall continue to recognise any income arising on the transferred asset to the extent of its continuing involvement and shall recognise any expense incurred on the associated liability.

For the purpose of subsequent measurement, recognised changes in the fair value of the transferred asset and the associated liability are accounted for consistently with each other in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1, and shall not be offset.

If an entity’s continuing involvement is in only a part of a financial asset (eg when an entity retains an option to repurchase part of a transferred asset, or retains a residual interest that does not result in the retention of substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership and the entity retains control), the entity allocates the previous carrying amount of the financial asset between the part it continues to recognise under continuing involvement, and the part it no longer recognises on the basis of the relative fair values of those parts on the date of the transfer. For this purpose, the requirements of paragraph 3.2.14 apply. The difference between:

(a) the carrying amount (measured at the date of derecognition) allocated to the part that is no longer recognised and

(b) the consideration received for the part no longer recognised

shall be recognised in profit or loss.

If the transferred asset is measured at amortised cost, the option in this Standard to designate a financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss is not applicable to the associated liability.

If a transferred asset continues to be recognised, the asset and the associated liability shall not be offset. Similarly, the entity shall not offset any income arising from the transferred asset with any expense incurred on the associated liability (see paragraph 42 of AASB 132).

If a transferor provides non-cash collateral (such as debt or equity instruments) to the transferee, the accounting for the collateral by the transferor and the transferee depends on whether the transferee has the right to sell or repledge the collateral and on whether the transferor has defaulted. The transferor and transferee shall account for the collateral as follows:

(a) If the transferee has the right by contract or custom to sell or repledge the collateral, then the transferor shall reclassify that asset in its statement of financial position (eg as a loaned asset, pledged equity instruments or repurchase receivable) separately from other assets.

(b) If the transferee sells collateral pledged to it, it shall recognise the proceeds from the sale and a liability measured at fair value for its obligation to return the collateral.

(c) If the transferor defaults under the terms of the contract and is no longer entitled to redeem the collateral, it shall derecognise the collateral, and the transferee shall recognise the collateral as its asset initially measured at fair value or, if it has already sold the collateral, derecognise its obligation to return the collateral.

(d) Except as provided in (c), the transferor shall continue to carry the collateral as its asset, and the transferee shall not recognise the collateral as an asset.

An entity shall remove a financial liability (or a part of a financial liability) from its statement of financial position when, and only when, it is extinguished – ie when the obligation specified in the contract is discharged or cancelled or expires.

An exchange between an existing borrower and lender of debt instruments with substantially different terms shall be accounted for as an extinguishment of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability. Similarly, a substantial modification of the terms of an existing financial liability or a part of it (whether or not attributable to the financial difficulty of the debtor) shall be accounted for as an extinguishment of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability.

The difference between the carrying amount of a financial liability (or part of a financial liability) extinguished or transferred to another party and the consideration paid, including any non-cash assets transferred or liabilities assumed, shall be recognised in profit or loss.

If an entity repurchases a part of a financial liability, the entity shall allocate the previous carrying amount of the financial liability between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised based on the relative fair values of those parts on the date of the repurchase. The difference between (a) the carrying amount allocated to the part derecognised and (b) the consideration paid, including any non-cash assets transferred or liabilities assumed, for the part derecognised shall be recognised in profit or loss.

Unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies, an entity shall classify financial assets as subsequently measured at amortised cost, fair value through other comprehensive income or fair value through profit or loss on the basis of both:

(a) the entity’s business model for managing the financial assets and

(b) the contractual cash flow characteristics of the financial asset.

A financial asset shall be measured at amortised cost if both of the following conditions are met:

(a) the financial asset is held within a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows and

(b) the contractual terms of the financial asset give rise on specified dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.

Paragraphs B4.1.1–B4.1.26 provide guidance on how to apply these conditions.

A financial asset shall be measured at fair value through other comprehensive income if both of the following conditions are met:

(a) the financial asset is held within a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets and

(b) the contractual terms of the financial asset give rise on specified dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.

Paragraphs B4.1.1–B4.1.26 provide guidance on how to apply these conditions.

For the purpose of applying paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b):

(a) principal is the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition. Paragraph B4.1.7B provides additional guidance on the meaning of principal.

(b) interest consists of consideration for the time value of money, for the credit risk associated with the principal amount outstanding during a particular period of time and for other basic lending risks and costs, as well as a profit margin. Paragraphs B4.1.7A and B4.1.9A–B4.1.9E provide additional guidance on the meaning of interest, including the meaning of the time value of money.

A financial asset shall be measured at fair value through profit or loss unless it is measured at amortised cost in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2 or at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A. However an entity may make an irrevocable election at initial recognition for particular investments in equity instruments that would otherwise be measured at fair value through profit or loss to present subsequent changes in fair value in other comprehensive income (see paragraphs 5.7.5–5.7.6).

Despite paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.4, an entity may, at initial recognition, irrevocably designate a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if doing so eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) that would otherwise arise from measuring assets or liabilities or recognising the gains and losses on them on different bases (see paragraphs B4.1.29–B4.1.32).

An entity shall classify all financial liabilities as subsequently measured at amortised cost, except for:

(a) financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. Such liabilities, including derivatives that are liabilities, shall be subsequently measured at fair value.

(b) financial liabilities that arise when a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition or when the continuing involvement approach applies. Paragraphs 3.2.15 and 3.2.17 apply to the measurement of such financial liabilities.

(c) financial guarantee contracts. After initial recognition, an issuer of such a contract shall (unless paragraph 4.2.1(a) or (b) applies) subsequently measure it at the higher of:

(i) the amount of the loss allowance determined in accordance with Section 5.5 and

(ii) the amount initially recognised (see paragraph 5.1.1) less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in accordance with the principles of AASB 15.

(d) commitments to provide a loan at a below-market interest rate. An issuer of such a commitment shall (unless paragraph 4.2.1(a) applies) subsequently measure it at the higher of:

(i) the amount of the loss allowance determined in accordance with Section 5.5 and

(ii) the amount initially recognised (see paragraph 5.1.1) less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in accordance with the principles of AASB 15.

(e) contingent consideration recognised by an acquirer in a business combination to which AASB 3 applies. Such contingent consideration shall subsequently be measured at fair value with changes recognised in profit or loss.

An entity may, at initial recognition, irrevocably designate a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss when permitted by paragraph 4.3.5, or when doing so results in more relevant information, because either:

(a) it eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as ‘an accounting mismatch’) that would otherwise arise from measuring assets or liabilities or recognising the gains and losses on them on different bases (see paragraphs B4.1.29–B4.1.32); or

(b) a group of financial liabilities or financial assets and financial liabilities is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy, and information about the group is provided internally on that basis to the entity’s key management personnel (as defined in AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures), for example, the entity’s board of directors and chief executive officer (see paragraphs B4.1.33–B4.1.36).

An embedded derivative is a component of a hybrid contract that also includes a non-derivative host – with the effect that some of the cash flows of the combined instrument vary in a way similar to a stand-alone derivative. An embedded derivative causes some or all of the cash flows that otherwise would be required by the contract to be modified according to a specified interest rate, financial instrument price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index of prices or rates, credit rating or credit index, or other variable, provided in the case of a non-financial variable that the variable is not specific to a party to the contract. A derivative that is attached to a financial instrument but is contractually transferable independently of that instrument, or has a different counterparty, is not an embedded derivative, but a separate financial instrument.

If a hybrid contract contains a host that is an asset within the scope of this Standard, an entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 to the entire hybrid contract.

If a hybrid contract contains a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, an embedded derivative shall be separated from the host and accounted for as a derivative under this Standard if, and only if:

(a) the economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative are not closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host (see paragraphs B4.3.5 and B4.3.8);

(b) a separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative would meet the definition of a derivative; and

(c) the hybrid contract is not measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss (ie a derivative that is embedded in a financial liability at fair value through profit or loss is not separated).

If an embedded derivative is separated, the host contract shall be accounted for in accordance with the appropriate Standards. This Standard does not address whether an embedded derivative shall be presented separately in the statement of financial position.

Despite paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, if a contract contains one or more embedded derivatives and the host is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, an entity may designate the entire hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss unless:

(a) the embedded derivative(s) do(es) not significantly modify the cash flows that otherwise would be required by the contract; or

(b) it is clear with little or no analysis when a similar hybrid instrument is first considered that separation of the embedded derivative(s) is prohibited, such as a prepayment option embedded in a loan that permits the holder to prepay the loan for approximately its amortised cost.

If an entity is required by this Standard to separate an embedded derivative from its host, but is unable to measure the embedded derivative separately either at acquisition or at the end of a subsequent financial reporting period, it shall designate the entire hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss.

If an entity is unable to measure reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and conditions, the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid contract and the fair value of the host. If the entity is unable to measure the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 4.3.6 applies and the hybrid contract is designated as at fair value through profit or loss.

When, and only when, an entity changes its business model for managing financial assets it shall reclassify all affected financial assets in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.4. See paragraphs 5.6.1–5.6.7, B4.4.1–B4.4.3 and B5.6.1–B5.6.2 for additional guidance on reclassifying financial assets.

An entity shall not reclassify any financial liability.

The following changes in circumstances are not reclassifications for the purposes of paragraphs 4.4.1–4.4.2:

(a) an item that was previously a designated and effective hedging instrument in a cash flow hedge or net investment hedge no longer qualifies as such;

(b) an item becomes a designated and effective hedging instrument in a cash flow hedge or net investment hedge; and

(c) changes in measurement in accordance with Section 6.7.

Except for trade receivables within the scope of paragraph 5.1.3, at initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset or financial liability at its fair value plus or minus, in the case of a financial asset or financial liability not at fair value through profit or loss, transaction costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition or issue of the financial asset or financial liability.

However, if the fair value of the financial asset or financial liability at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.1.2A.

When an entity uses settlement date accounting for an asset that is subsequently measured at amortised cost, the asset is recognised initially at its fair value on the trade date (see paragraphs B3.1.3–B3.1.6).

Despite the requirement in paragraph 5.1.1, at initial recognition, an entity shall measure trade receivables at their transaction price (as defined in AASB 15) if the trade receivables do not contain a significant financing component in accordance with AASB 15 (or when the entity applies the practical expedient in accordance with paragraph 63 of AASB 15).

After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.1–4.1.5 at:

(a) amortised cost;

(b) fair value through other comprehensive income; or

(c) fair value through profit or loss.

An entity shall apply the impairment requirements in Section 5.5 to financial assets that are measured at amortised cost in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2 and to financial assets that are measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A.

An entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 (and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) to a financial asset that is designated as a hedged item.^[1]

After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial liability in accordance with paragraphs 4.2.1–4.2.2.

An entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 (and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) to a financial liability that is designated as a hedged item.

Effective interest method

Interest revenue shall be calculated by using the effective interest method (see Appendix A and paragraphs B5.4.1–B5.4.7). This shall be calculated by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount of a financial asset except for:

(a) purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets. For those financial assets, the entity shall apply the credit-adjusted effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset from initial recognition.

(b) financial assets that are not purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets but subsequently have become credit-impaired financial assets. For those financial assets, the entity shall apply the effective interest rate to the amortised cost of the financial asset in subsequent reporting periods.

An entity that, in a reporting period, calculates interest revenue by applying the effective interest method to the amortised cost of a financial asset in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1(b), shall, in subsequent reporting periods, calculate the interest revenue by applying the effective interest rate to the gross carrying amount if the credit risk on the financial instrument improves so that the financial asset is no longer credit-impaired and the improvement can be related objectively to an event occurring after the requirements in paragraph 5.4.1(b) were applied (such as an improvement in the borrower’s credit rating).

Modification of contractual cash flows

When the contractual cash flows of a financial asset are renegotiated or otherwise modified and the renegotiation or modification does not result in the derecognition of that financial asset in accordance with this Standard, an entity shall recalculate the gross carrying amount of the financial asset and shall recognise a modification gain or loss in profit or loss. The gross carrying amount of the financial asset shall be recalculated as the present value of the renegotiated or modified contractual cash flows that are discounted at the financial asset’s original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. Any costs or fees incurred adjust the carrying amount of the modified financial asset and are amortised over the remaining term of the modified financial asset.

Write-off

An entity shall directly reduce the gross carrying amount of a financial asset when the entity has no reasonable expectations of recovering a financial asset in its entirety or a portion thereof. A write-off constitutes a derecognition event (see paragraph B3.2.16(r)).

An entity shall apply paragraphs 5.4.6‒5.4.9 to a financial asset or financial liability if, and only if, the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of that financial asset or financial liability changes as a result of interest rate benchmark reform. For this purpose, the term ‘interest rate benchmark reform’ refers to the market-wide reform of an interest rate benchmark as described in paragraph 6.8.2.

The basis for determining the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability can change:

(a) by amending the contractual terms specified at the initial recognition of the financial instrument (for example, the contractual terms are amended to replace the referenced interest rate benchmark with an alternative benchmark rate);

(b) in a way that was not considered by – or contemplated in – the contractual terms at the initial recognition of the financial instrument, without amending the contractual terms (for example, the method for calculating the interest rate benchmark is altered without amending the contractual terms); and/or

(c) because of the activation of an existing contractual term (for example, an existing fallback clause is triggered).

As a practical expedient, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.4.5 to account for a change in the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability that is required by interest rate benchmark reform. This practical expedient applies only to such changes and only to the extent the change is required by interest rate benchmark reform (see also paragraph 5.4.9). For this purpose, a change in the basis for determining the contractual cash flows is required by interest rate benchmark reform if, and only if, both these conditions are met:

(a) the change is necessary as a direct consequence of interest rate benchmark reform; and

(b) the new basis for determining the contractual cash flows is economically equivalent to the previous basis (ie the basis immediately preceding the change).

Examples of changes that give rise to a new basis for determining the contractual cash flows that is economically equivalent to the previous basis (ie the basis immediately preceding the change) are:

(a) the replacement of an existing interest rate benchmark used to determine the contractual cash flows of a financial asset or financial liability with an alternative benchmark rate – or the implementation of such a reform of an interest rate benchmark by altering the method used to calculate the interest rate benchmark – with the addition of a fixed spread necessary to compensate for the basis difference between the existing interest rate benchmark and the alternative benchmark rate;

(b) changes to the reset period, reset dates or the number of days between coupon payment dates in order to implement the reform of an interest rate benchmark; and

(c) the addition of a fallback provision to the contractual terms of a financial asset or financial liability to enable any change described in (a) and (b) above to be implemented.

If changes are made to a financial asset or financial liability in addition to changes to the basis for determining the contractual cash flows required by interest rate benchmark reform, an entity shall first apply the practical expedient in paragraph 5.4.7 to the changes required by interest rate benchmark reform. The entity shall then apply the applicable requirements in this Standard to any additional changes to which the practical expedient does not apply. If the additional change does not result in the derecognition of the financial asset or financial liability, the entity shall apply paragraph 5.4.3 or paragraph B5.4.6, as applicable, to account for that additional change. If the additional change results in the derecognition of the financial asset or financial liability, the entity shall apply the derecognition requirements.

General approach

An entity shall recognise a loss allowance for expected credit losses on a financial asset that is measured in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.2 or 4.1.2A, a lease receivable, a contract asset or a loan commitment and a financial guarantee contract to which the impairment requirements apply in accordance with paragraphs 2.1(g), 4.2.1(c) or 4.2.1(d).

An entity shall apply the impairment requirements for the recognition and measurement of a loss allowance for financial assets that are measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A. However, the loss allowance shall be recognised in other comprehensive income and shall not reduce the carrying amount of the financial asset in the statement of financial position.

Subject to paragraphs 5.5.13–5.5.16, at each reporting date, an entity shall measure the loss allowance for a financial instrument at an amount equal to the lifetime expected credit losses if the credit risk on that financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition.

The objective of the impairment requirements is to recognise lifetime expected credit losses for all financial instruments for which there have been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition – whether assessed on an individual or collective basis – considering all reasonable and supportable information, including that which is forward-looking.

Subject to paragraphs 5.5.13–5.5.16, if, at the reporting date, the credit risk on a financial instrument has not increased significantly since initial recognition, an entity shall measure the loss allowance for that financial instrument at an amount equal to 12-month expected credit losses.

For loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts, the date that the entity becomes a party to the irrevocable commitment shall be considered to be the date of initial recognition for the purposes of applying the impairment requirements.

If an entity has measured the loss allowance for a financial instrument at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses in the previous reporting period, but determines at the current reporting date that paragraph 5.5.3 is no longer met, the entity shall measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to 12-month expected credit losses at the current reporting date.

An entity shall recognise in profit or loss, as an impairment gain or loss, the amount of expected credit losses (or reversal) that is required to adjust the loss allowance at the reporting date to the amount that is required to be recognised in accordance with this Standard.

Determining significant increases in credit risk

At each reporting date, an entity shall assess whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition. When making the assessment, an entity shall use the change in the risk of a default occurring over the expected life of the financial instrument instead of the change in the amount of expected credit losses. To make that assessment, an entity shall compare the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the reporting date with the risk of a default occurring on the financial instrument as at the date of initial recognition and consider reasonable and supportable information, that is available without undue cost or effort, that is indicative of significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition.

An entity may assume that the credit risk on a financial instrument has not increased significantly since initial recognition if the financial instrument is determined to have low credit risk at the reporting date (see paragraphs B5.5.22‒B5.5.24).

If reasonable and supportable forward-looking information is available without undue cost or effort, an entity cannot rely solely on past due information when determining whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition. However, when information that is more forward-looking than past due status (either on an individual or a collective basis) is not available without undue cost or effort, an entity may use past due information to determine whether there have been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. Regardless of the way in which an entity assesses significant increases in credit risk, there is a rebuttable presumption that the credit risk on a financial asset has increased significantly since initial recognition when contractual payments are more than 30 days past due. An entity can rebut this presumption if the entity has reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort, that demonstrates that the credit risk has not increased significantly since initial recognition even though the contractual payments are more than 30 days past due. When an entity determines that there have been significant increases in credit risk before contractual payments are more than 30 days past due, the rebuttable presumption does not apply.

Modified financial assets

If the contractual cash flows on a financial asset have been renegotiated or modified and the financial asset was not derecognised, an entity shall assess whether there has been a significant increase in the credit risk of the financial instrument in accordance with paragraph 5.5.3 by comparing:

(a) the risk of a default occurring at the reporting date (based on the modified contractual terms); and

(b) the risk of a default occurring at initial recognition (based on the original, unmodified contractual terms).

Purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets

Despite paragraphs 5.5.3 and 5.5.5, at the reporting date, an entity shall only recognise the cumulative changes in lifetime expected credit losses since initial recognition as a loss allowance for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets.

At each reporting date, an entity shall recognise in profit or loss the amount of the change in lifetime expected credit losses as an impairment gain or loss. An entity shall recognise favourable changes in lifetime expected credit losses as an impairment gain, even if the lifetime expected credit losses are less than the amount of expected credit losses that were included in the estimated cash flows on initial recognition.

Despite paragraphs 5.5.3 and 5.5.5, an entity shall always measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses for:

(a) trade receivables or contract assets that result from transactions that are within the scope of AASB 15, and that:

(i) do not contain a significant financing component in accordance with AASB 15 (or when the entity applies the practical expedient in accordance with paragraph 63 of AASB 15); or

(ii) contain a significant financing component in accordance with AASB 15, if the entity chooses as its accounting policy to measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses. That accounting policy shall be applied to all such trade receivables or contract assets but may be applied separately to trade receivables and contract assets.

(b) lease receivables that result from transactions that are within the scope of AASB 16, if the entity chooses as its accounting policy to measure the loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses. That accounting policy shall be applied to all lease receivables but may be applied separately to finance and operating lease receivables.

An entity may select its accounting policy for trade receivables, lease receivables and contract assets independently of each other.

An entity shall measure expected credit losses of a financial instrument in a way that reflects:

(a) an unbiased and probability-weighted amount that is determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes;

(b) the time value of money; and

(c) reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort at the reporting date about past events, current conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions.

When measuring expected credit losses, an entity need not necessarily identify every possible scenario. However, it shall consider the risk or probability that a credit loss occurs by reflecting the possibility that a credit loss occurs and the possibility that no credit loss occurs, even if the possibility of a credit loss occurring is very low.

The maximum period to consider when measuring expected credit losses is the maximum contractual period (including extension options) over which the entity is exposed to credit risk and not a longer period, even if that longer period is consistent with business practice.

However, some financial instruments include both a loan and an undrawn commitment component and the entity’s contractual ability to demand repayment and cancel the undrawn commitment does not limit the entity’s exposure to credit losses to the contractual notice period. For such financial instruments, and only those financial instruments, the entity shall measure expected credit losses over the period that the entity is exposed to credit risk and expected credit losses would not be mitigated by credit risk management actions, even if that period extends beyond the maximum contractual period.

If an entity reclassifies financial assets in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1, it shall apply the reclassification prospectively from the reclassification date. The entity shall not restate any previously recognised gains, losses (including impairment gains or losses) or interest. Paragraphs 5.6.2–5.6.7 set out the requirements for reclassifications.

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the amortised cost measurement category and into the fair value through profit or loss measurement category, its fair value is measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous amortised cost of the financial asset and fair value is recognised in profit or loss.

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through profit or loss measurement category and into the amortised cost measurement category, its fair value at the reclassification date becomes its new gross carrying amount. (See paragraph B5.6.2 for guidance on determining an effective interest rate and a loss allowance at the reclassification date.)

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the amortised cost measurement category and into the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, its fair value is measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous amortised cost of the financial asset and fair value is recognised in other comprehensive income. The effective interest rate and the measurement of expected credit losses are not adjusted as a result of the reclassification. (See paragraph B5.6.1.)

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category and into the amortised cost measurement category, the financial asset is reclassified at its fair value at the reclassification date. However, the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is removed from equity and adjusted against the fair value of the financial asset at the reclassification date. As a result, the financial asset is measured at the reclassification date as if it had always been measured at amortised cost. This adjustment affects other comprehensive income but does not affect profit or loss and therefore is not a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements). The effective interest rate and the measurement of expected credit losses are not adjusted as a result of the reclassification. (See paragraph B5.6.1.)

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through profit or loss measurement category and into the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, the financial asset continues to be measured at fair value. (See paragraph B5.6.2 for guidance on determining an effective interest rate and a loss allowance at the reclassification date.)

If an entity reclassifies a financial asset out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category and into the fair value through profit or loss measurement category, the financial asset continues to be measured at fair value. The cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) at the reclassification date.

A gain or loss on a financial asset or financial liability that is measured at fair value shall be recognised in profit or loss unless:

(a) it is part of a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk);

(b) it is an investment in an equity instrument and the entity has elected to present gains and losses on that investment in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5;

(c) it is a financial liability designated as at fair value through profit or loss and the entity is required to present the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.7; or

(d) it is a financial asset measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A and the entity is required to recognise some changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.10.

Dividends are recognised in profit or loss only when:

(a) the entity’s right to receive payment of the dividend is established;

(b) it is probable that the economic benefits associated with the dividend will flow to the entity; and

(c) the amount of the dividend can be measured reliably.

A gain or loss on a financial asset that is measured at amortised cost and is not part of a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) shall be recognised in profit or loss when the financial asset is derecognised, reclassified in accordance with paragraph 5.6.2, through the amortisation process or in order to recognise impairment gains or losses. An entity shall apply paragraphs 5.6.2 and 5.6.4 if it reclassifies financial assets out of the amortised cost measurement category. A gain or loss on a financial liability that is measured at amortised cost and is not part of a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk) shall be recognised in profit or loss when the financial liability is derecognised and through the amortisation process. (See paragraph B5.7.2 for guidance on foreign exchange gains or losses.)

A gain or loss on financial assets or financial liabilities that are hedged items in a hedging relationship shall be recognised in accordance with paragraphs 6.5.8–6.5.14 and, if applicable, paragraphs 89–94 of AASB 139 for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk.

If an entity recognises financial assets using settlement date accounting (see paragraphs 3.1.2, B3.1.3 and B3.1.6), any change in the fair value of the asset to be received during the period between the trade date and the settlement date is not recognised for assets measured at amortised cost. For assets measured at fair value, however, the change in fair value shall be recognised in profit or loss or in other comprehensive income, as appropriate in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1. The trade date shall be considered the date of initial recognition for the purposes of applying the impairment requirements.

At initial recognition, an entity may make an irrevocable election to present in other comprehensive income subsequent changes in the fair value of an investment in an equity instrument within the scope of this Standard that is neither held for trading nor contingent consideration recognised by an acquirer in a business combination to which AASB 3 applies. (See paragraph B5.7.3 for guidance on foreign exchange gains or losses.)

If an entity makes the election in paragraph 5.7.5, it shall recognise in profit or loss dividends from that investment in accordance with paragraph 5.7.1A.

An entity shall present a gain or loss on a financial liability that is designated as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2 or paragraph 4.3.5 as follows:

(a) The amount of change in the fair value of the financial liability that is attributable to changes in the credit risk of that liability shall be presented in other comprehensive income (see paragraphs B5.7.13–B5.7.20), and

(b) the remaining amount of change in the fair value of the liability shall be presented in profit or loss

unless the treatment of the effects of changes in the liability’s credit risk described in (a) would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss (in which case paragraph 5.7.8 applies). Paragraphs B5.7.5–B5.7.7 and B5.7.10–B5.7.12 provide guidance on determining whether an accounting mismatch would be created or enlarged.

If the requirements in paragraph 5.7.7 would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss, an entity shall present all gains or losses on that liability (including the effects of changes in the credit risk of that liability) in profit or loss.

Despite the requirements in paragraphs 5.7.7 and 5.7.8, an entity shall present in profit or loss all gains and losses on loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts that are designated as at fair value through profit or loss.

A gain or loss on a financial asset measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A shall be recognised in other comprehensive income, except for impairment gains or losses (see Section 5.5) and foreign exchange gains and losses (see paragraphs B5.7.2–B5.7.2A), until the financial asset is derecognised or reclassified. When the financial asset is derecognised the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income is reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101). If the financial asset is reclassified out of the fair value through other comprehensive income measurement category, the entity shall account for the cumulative gain or loss that was previously recognised in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraphs 5.6.5 and 5.6.7. Interest calculated using the effective interest method is recognised in profit or loss.

As described in paragraph 5.7.10, if a financial asset is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the amounts that are recognised in profit or loss are the same as the amounts that would have been recognised in profit or loss if the financial asset had been measured at amortised cost.

The objective of hedge accounting is to represent, in the financial statements, the effect of an entity’s risk management activities that use financial instruments to manage exposures arising from particular risks that could affect profit or loss (or other comprehensive income, in the case of investments in equity instruments for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5). This approach aims to convey the context of hedging instruments for which hedge accounting is applied in order to allow insight into their purpose and effect.

An entity may choose to designate a hedging relationship between a hedging instrument and a hedged item in accordance with paragraphs 6.2.1–6.3.7 and B6.2.1–B6.3.25. For hedging relationships that meet the qualifying criteria, an entity shall account for the gain or loss on the hedging instrument and the hedged item in accordance with paragraphs 6.5.1–6.5.14 and B6.5.1–B6.5.28. When the hedged item is a group of items, an entity shall comply with the additional requirements in paragraphs 6.6.1–6.6.6 and B6.6.1–B6.6.16.

For a fair value hedge of the interest rate exposure of a portfolio of financial assets or financial liabilities (and only for such a hedge), an entity may apply the hedge accounting requirements in AASB 139 instead of those in this Standard. In that case, the entity must also apply the specific requirements for the fair value hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk and designate as the hedged item a portion that is a currency amount (see paragraphs 81A, 89A and AG114–AG132 of AASB 139).

A derivative measured at fair value through profit or loss may be designated as a hedging instrument, except for some written options (see paragraph B6.2.4).

A non-derivative financial asset or a non-derivative financial liability measured at fair value through profit or loss may be designated as a hedging instrument unless it is a financial liability designated as at fair value through profit or loss for which the amount of its change in fair value that is attributable to changes in the credit risk of that liability is presented in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.7. For a hedge of foreign currency risk, the foreign currency risk component of a non-derivative financial asset or a non-derivative financial liability may be designated as a hedging instrument provided that it is not an investment in an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5.

For hedge accounting purposes, only contracts with a party external to the reporting entity (ie external to the group or individual entity that is being reported on) can be designated as hedging instruments.

A qualifying instrument must be designated in its entirety as a hedging instrument. The only exceptions permitted are:

(a) separating the intrinsic value and time value of an option contract and designating as the hedging instrument only the change in intrinsic value of an option and not the change in its time value (see paragraphs 6.5.15 and B6.5.29–B6.5.33);

(b) separating the forward element and the spot element of a forward contract and designating as the hedging instrument only the change in the value of the spot element of a forward contract and not the forward element; similarly, the foreign currency basis spread may be separated and excluded from the designation of a financial instrument as the hedging instrument (see paragraphs 6.5.16 and B6.5.34–B6.5.39); and

(c) a proportion of the entire hedging instrument, such as 50 per cent of the nominal amount, may be designated as the hedging instrument in a hedging relationship. However, a hedging instrument may not be designated for a part of its change in fair value that results from only a portion of the time period during which the hedging instrument remains outstanding.

An entity may view in combination, and jointly designate as the hedging instrument, any combination of the following (including those circumstances in which the risk or risks arising from some hedging instruments offset those arising from others):

(a) derivatives or a proportion of them; and

(b) non-derivatives or a proportion of them.

However, a derivative instrument that combines a written option and a purchased option (for example, an interest rate collar) does not qualify as a hedging instrument if it is, in effect, a net written option at the date of designation (unless it qualifies in accordance with paragraph B6.2.4). Similarly, two or more instruments (or proportions of them) may be jointly designated as the hedging instrument only if, in combination, they are not, in effect, a net written option at the date of designation (unless it qualifies in accordance with paragraph B6.2.4).

A hedged item can be a recognised asset or liability, an unrecognised firm commitment, a forecast transaction or a net investment in a foreign operation. The hedged item can be:

(a) a single item; or

(b) a group of items (subject to paragraphs 6.6.1–6.6.6 and B6.6.1–B6.6.16).

A hedged item can also be a component of such an item or group of items (see paragraphs 6.3.7 and B6.3.7–B6.3.25).

The hedged item must be reliably measurable.

If a hedged item is a forecast transaction (or a component thereof), that transaction must be highly probable.

An aggregated exposure that is a combination of an exposure that could qualify as a hedged item in accordance with paragraph 6.3.1 and a derivative may be designated as a hedged item (see paragraphs B6.3.3–B6.3.4). This includes a forecast transaction of an aggregated exposure (ie uncommitted but anticipated future transactions that would give rise to an exposure and a derivative) if that aggregated exposure is highly probable and, once it has occurred and is therefore no longer forecast, is eligible as a hedged item.

For hedge accounting purposes, only assets, liabilities, firm commitments or highly probable forecast transactions with a party external to the reporting entity can be designated as hedged items. Hedge accounting can be applied to transactions between entities in the same group only in the individual or separate financial statements of those entities and not in the consolidated financial statements of the group, except for the consolidated financial statements of an investment entity, as defined in AASB 10, where transactions between an investment entity and its subsidiaries measured at fair value through profit or loss will not be eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.

However, as an exception to paragraph 6.3.5, the foreign currency risk of an intragroup monetary item (for example, a payable/receivable between two subsidiaries) may qualify as a hedged item in the consolidated financial statements if it results in an exposure to foreign exchange rate gains or losses that are not fully eliminated on consolidation in accordance with AASB 121 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates. In accordance with AASB 121, foreign exchange rate gains and losses on intragroup monetary items are not fully eliminated on consolidation when the intragroup monetary item is transacted between two group entities that have different functional currencies. In addition, the foreign currency risk of a highly probable forecast intragroup transaction may qualify as a hedged item in consolidated financial statements provided that the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss.

An entity may designate an item in its entirety or a component of an item as the hedged item in a hedging relationship. An entire item comprises all changes in the cash flows or fair value of an item. A component comprises less than the entire fair value change or cash flow variability of an item. In that case, an entity may designate only the following types of components (including combinations) as hedged items:

(a) only changes in the cash flows or fair value of an item attributable to a specific risk or risks (risk component), provided that, based on an assessment within the context of the particular market structure, the risk component is separately identifiable and reliably measurable (see paragraphs B6.3.8–B6.3.15). Risk components include a designation of only changes in the cash flows or the fair value of a hedged item above or below a specified price or other variable (a one-sided risk).

(b) one or more selected contractual cash flows.

(c) components of a nominal amount, ie a specified part of the amount of an item (see paragraphs B6.3.16–B6.3.20).

A hedging relationship qualifies for hedge accounting only if all of the following criteria are met:

(a) the hedging relationship consists only of eligible hedging instruments and eligible hedged items.

(b) at the inception of the hedging relationship there is formal designation and documentation of the hedging relationship and the entity’s risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge. That documentation shall include identification of the hedging instrument, the hedged item, the nature of the risk being hedged and how the entity will assess whether the hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements (including its analysis of the sources of hedge ineffectiveness and how it determines the hedge ratio).

(c) the hedging relationship meets all of the following hedge effectiveness requirements:

(i) there is an economic relationship between the hedged item and the hedging instrument (see paragraphs B6.4.4–B6.4.6);

(ii) the effect of credit risk does not dominate the value changes that result from that economic relationship (see paragraphs B6.4.7–B6.4.8); and

(iii) the hedge ratio of the hedging relationship is the same as that resulting from the quantity of the hedged item that the entity actually hedges and the quantity of the hedging instrument that the entity actually uses to hedge that quantity of hedged item. However, that designation shall not reflect an imbalance between the weightings of the hedged item and the hedging instrument that would create hedge ineffectiveness (irrespective of whether recognised or not) that could result in an accounting outcome that would be inconsistent with the purpose of hedge accounting (see paragraphs B6.4.9–B6.4.11).

An entity applies hedge accounting to hedging relationships that meet the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1 (which include the entity’s decision to designate the hedging relationship).

There are three types of hedging relationships:

(a) fair value hedge: a hedge of the exposure to changes in fair value of a recognised asset or liability or an unrecognised firm commitment, or a component of any such item, that is attributable to a particular risk and could affect profit or loss.

(b) cash flow hedge: a hedge of the exposure to variability in cash flows that is attributable to a particular risk associated with all, or a component of, a recognised asset or liability (such as all or some future interest payments on variable-rate debt) or a highly probable forecast transaction, and could affect profit or loss.

(c) hedge of a net investment in a foreign operation as defined in AASB 121.

If the hedged item is an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5, the hedged exposure referred to in paragraph 6.5.2(a) must be one that could affect other comprehensive income. In that case, and only in that case, the recognised hedge ineffectiveness is presented in other comprehensive income.

A hedge of the foreign currency risk of a firm commitment may be accounted for as a fair value hedge or a cash flow hedge.

If a hedging relationship ceases to meet the hedge effectiveness requirement relating to the hedge ratio (see paragraph 6.4.1(c)(iii)) but the risk management objective for that designated hedging relationship remains the same, an entity shall adjust the hedge ratio of the hedging relationship so that it meets the qualifying criteria again (this is referred to in this Standard as ‘rebalancing’ – see paragraphs B6.5.7–B6.5.21).

An entity shall discontinue hedge accounting prospectively only when the hedging relationship (or a part of a hedging relationship) ceases to meet the qualifying criteria (after taking into account any rebalancing of the hedging relationship, if applicable). This includes instances when the hedging instrument expires or is sold, terminated or exercised. For this purpose, the replacement or rollover of a hedging instrument into another hedging instrument is not an expiration or termination if such a replacement or rollover is part of, and consistent with, the entity’s documented risk management objective. Additionally, for this purpose there is not an expiration or termination of the hedging instrument if:

(a) as a consequence of laws or regulations or the introduction of laws or regulations, the parties to the hedging instrument agree that one or more clearing counterparties replace their original counterparty to become the new counterparty to each of the parties. For this purpose, a clearing counterparty is a central counterparty (sometimes called a ‘clearing organisation’ or ‘clearing agency’) or an entity or entities, for example, a clearing member of a clearing organisation or a client of a clearing member of a clearing organisation, that are acting as a counterparty in order to effect clearing by a central counterparty. However, when the parties to the hedging instrument replace their original counterparties with different counterparties the requirement in this subparagraph is met only if each of those parties effects clearing with the same central counterparty.

(b) other changes, if any, to the hedging instrument are limited to those that are necessary to effect such a replacement of the counterparty. Such changes are limited to those that are consistent with the terms that would be expected if the hedging instrument were originally cleared with the clearing counterparty. These changes include changes in the collateral requirements, rights to offset receivables and payables balances, and charges levied.

Discontinuing hedge accounting can either affect a hedging relationship in its entirety or only a part of it (in which case hedge accounting continues for the remainder of the hedging relationship).

An entity shall apply:

(a) paragraph 6.5.10 when it discontinues hedge accounting for a fair value hedge for which the hedged item is (or is a component of) a financial instrument measured at amortised cost; and

(b) paragraph 6.5.12 when it discontinues hedge accounting for cash flow hedges.

As long as a fair value hedge meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, the hedging relationship shall be accounted for as follows:

(a) the gain or loss on the hedging instrument shall be recognised in profit or loss (or other comprehensive income, if the hedging instrument hedges an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5).

(b) the hedging gain or loss on the hedged item shall adjust the carrying amount of the hedged item (if applicable) and be recognised in profit or loss. If the hedged item is a financial asset (or a component thereof) that is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the hedging gain or loss on the hedged item shall be recognised in profit or loss. However, if the hedged item is an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5, those amounts shall remain in other comprehensive income. When a hedged item is an unrecognised firm commitment (or a component thereof), the cumulative change in the fair value of the hedged item subsequent to its designation is recognised as an asset or a liability with a corresponding gain or loss recognised in profit or loss.

When a hedged item in a fair value hedge is a firm commitment (or a component thereof) to acquire an asset or assume a liability, the initial carrying amount of the asset or the liability that results from the entity meeting the firm commitment is adjusted to include the cumulative change in the fair value of the hedged item that was recognised in the statement of financial position.

Any adjustment arising from paragraph 6.5.8(b) shall be amortised to profit or loss if the hedged item is a financial instrument (or a component thereof) measured at amortised cost. Amortisation may begin as soon as an adjustment exists and shall begin no later than when the hedged item ceases to be adjusted for hedging gains and losses. The amortisation is based on a recalculated effective interest rate at the date that amortisation begins. In the case of a financial asset (or a component thereof) that is a hedged item and that is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, amortisation applies in the same manner but to the amount that represents the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in accordance with paragraph 6.5.8(b) instead of by adjusting the carrying amount.

As long as a cash flow hedge meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, the hedging relationship shall be accounted for as follows:

(a) the separate component of equity associated with the hedged item (cash flow hedge reserve) is adjusted to the lower of the following (in absolute amounts):

(i) the cumulative gain or loss on the hedging instrument from inception of the hedge; and

(ii) the cumulative change in fair value (present value) of the hedged item (ie the present value of the cumulative change in the hedged expected future cash flows) from inception of the hedge.

(b) the portion of the gain or loss on the hedging instrument that is determined to be an effective hedge (ie the portion that is offset by the change in the cash flow hedge reserve calculated in accordance with (a)) shall be recognised in other comprehensive income.

(c) any remaining gain or loss on the hedging instrument (or any gain or loss required to balance the change in the cash flow hedge reserve calculated in accordance with (a)) is hedge ineffectiveness that shall be recognised in profit or loss.

(d) the amount that has been accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve in accordance with (a) shall be accounted for as follows:

(i) if a hedged forecast transaction subsequently results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or non-financial liability, or a hedged forecast transaction for a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability becomes a firm commitment for which fair value hedge accounting is applied, the entity shall remove that amount from the cash flow hedge reserve and include it directly in the initial cost or other carrying amount of the asset or the liability. This is not a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) and hence it does not affect other comprehensive income.

(ii) for cash flow hedges other than those covered by (i), that amount shall be reclassified from the cash flow hedge reserve to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) in the same period or periods during which the hedged expected future cash flows affect profit or loss (for example, in the periods that interest income or interest expense is recognised or when a forecast sale occurs).

(iii) however, if that amount is a loss and an entity expects that all or a portion of that loss will not be recovered in one or more future periods, it shall immediately reclassify the amount that is not expected to be recovered into profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101).

When an entity discontinues hedge accounting for a cash flow hedge (see paragraphs 6.5.6 and 6.5.7(b)) it shall account for the amount that has been accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve in accordance with paragraph 6.5.11(a) as follows:

(a) if the hedged future cash flows are still expected to occur, that amount shall remain in the cash flow hedge reserve until the future cash flows occur or until paragraph 6.5.11(d)(iii) applies. When the future cash flows occur, paragraph 6.5.11(d) applies.

(b) if the hedged future cash flows are no longer expected to occur, that amount shall be immediately reclassified from the cash flow hedge reserve to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101). A hedged future cash flow that is no longer highly probable to occur may still be expected to occur.

Hedges of a net investment in a foreign operation, including a hedge of a monetary item that is accounted for as part of the net investment (see AASB 121), shall be accounted for similarly to cash flow hedges:

(a) the portion of the gain or loss on the hedging instrument that is determined to be an effective hedge shall be recognised in other comprehensive income (see paragraph 6.5.11); and

(b) the ineffective portion shall be recognised in profit or loss.

The cumulative gain or loss on the hedging instrument relating to the effective portion of the hedge that has been accumulated in the foreign currency translation reserve shall be reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) in accordance with paragraphs 48–49 of AASB 121 on the disposal or partial disposal of the foreign operation.

When an entity separates the intrinsic value and time value of an option contract and designates as the hedging instrument only the change in intrinsic value of the option (see paragraph 6.2.4(a)), it shall account for the time value of the option as follows (see paragraphs B6.5.29–B6.5.33):

(a) an entity shall distinguish the time value of options by the type of hedged item that the option hedges (see paragraph B6.5.29):

(i) a transaction related hedged item; or

(ii) a time-period related hedged item.

(b) the change in fair value of the time value of an option that hedges a transaction related hedged item shall be recognised in other comprehensive income to the extent that it relates to the hedged item and shall be accumulated in a separate component of equity. The cumulative change in fair value arising from the time value of the option that has been accumulated in a separate component of equity (the ‘amount’) shall be accounted for as follows:

(i) if the hedged item subsequently results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, or a firm commitment for a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability for which fair value hedge accounting is applied, the entity shall remove the amount from the separate component of equity and include it directly in the initial cost or other carrying amount of the asset or the liability. This is not a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) and hence does not affect other comprehensive income.

(ii) for hedging relationships other than those covered by (i), the amount shall be reclassified from the separate component of equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101) in the same period or periods during which the hedged expected future cash flows affect profit or loss (for example, when a forecast sale occurs).

(iii) however, if all or a portion of that amount is not expected to be recovered in one or more future periods, the amount that is not expected to be recovered shall be immediately reclassified into profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101).

(c) the change in fair value of the time value of an option that hedges a time-period related hedged item shall be recognised in other comprehensive income to the extent that it relates to the hedged item and shall be accumulated in a separate component of equity. The time value at the date of designation of the option as a hedging instrument, to the extent that it relates to the hedged item, shall be amortised on a systematic and rational basis over the period during which the hedge adjustment for the option’s intrinsic value could affect profit or loss (or other comprehensive income, if the hedged item is an equity instrument for which an entity has elected to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5). Hence, in each reporting period, the amortisation amount shall be reclassified from the separate component of equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101). However, if hedge accounting is discontinued for the hedging relationship that includes the change in intrinsic value of the option as the hedging instrument, the net amount (ie including cumulative amortisation) that has been accumulated in the separate component of equity shall be immediately reclassified into profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101).

When an entity separates the forward element and the spot element of a forward contract and designates as the hedging instrument only the change in the value of the spot element of the forward contract, or when an entity separates the foreign currency basis spread from a financial instrument and excludes it from the designation of that financial instrument as the hedging instrument (see paragraph 6.2.4(b)), the entity may apply paragraph 6.5.15 to the forward element of the forward contract or to the foreign currency basis spread in the same manner as it is applied to the time value of an option. In that case, the entity shall apply the application guidance in paragraphs B6.5.34–B6.5.39.

A group of items (including a group of items that constitute a net position; see paragraphs B6.6.1–B6.6.8) is an eligible hedged item only if:

(a) it consists of items (including components of items) that are, individually, eligible hedged items;

(b) the items in the group are managed together on a group basis for risk management purposes; and

(c) in the case of a cash flow hedge of a group of items whose variabilities in cash flows are not expected to be approximately proportional to the overall variability in cash flows of the group so that offsetting risk positions arise:

(i) it is a hedge of foreign currency risk; and

(ii) the designation of that net position specifies the reporting period in which the forecast transactions are expected to affect profit or loss, as well as their nature and volume (see paragraphs B6.6.7–B6.6.8).

A component that is a proportion of an eligible group of items is an eligible hedged item provided that designation is consistent with the entity’s risk management objective.

A layer component of an overall group of items (for example, a bottom layer) is eligible for hedge accounting only if:

(a) it is separately identifiable and reliably measurable;

(b) the risk management objective is to hedge a layer component;

(c) the items in the overall group from which the layer is identified are exposed to the same hedged risk (so that the measurement of the hedged layer is not significantly affected by which particular items from the overall group form part of the hedged layer);

(d) for a hedge of existing items (for example, an unrecognised firm commitment or a recognised asset) an entity can identify and track the overall group of items from which the hedged layer is defined (so that the entity is able to comply with the requirements for the accounting for qualifying hedging relationships); and

(e) any items in the group that contain prepayment options meet the requirements for components of a nominal amount (see paragraph B6.3.20).

For a hedge of a group of items with offsetting risk positions (ie in a hedge of a net position) whose hedged risk affects different line items in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, any hedging gains or losses in that statement shall be presented in a separate line from those affected by the hedged items. Hence, in that statement the amount in the line item that relates to the hedged item itself (for example, revenue or cost of sales) remains unaffected.

For assets and liabilities that are hedged together as a group in a fair value hedge, the gain or loss in the statement of financial position on the individual assets and liabilities shall be recognised as an adjustment of the carrying amount of the respective individual items comprising the group in accordance with paragraph 6.5.8(b).

When the hedged item is a group that is a nil net position (ie the hedged items among themselves fully offset the risk that is managed on a group basis), an entity is permitted to designate it in a hedging relationship that does not include a hedging instrument, provided that:

(a) the hedge is part of a rolling net risk hedging strategy, whereby the entity routinely hedges new positions of the same type as time moves on (for example, when transactions move into the time horizon for which the entity hedges);

(b) the hedged net position changes in size over the life of the rolling net risk hedging strategy and the entity uses eligible hedging instruments to hedge the net risk (ie when the net position is not nil);

(c) hedge accounting is normally applied to such net positions when the net position is not nil and it is hedged with eligible hedging instruments; and

(d) not applying hedge accounting to the nil net position would give rise to inconsistent accounting outcomes, because the accounting would not recognise the offsetting risk positions that would otherwise be recognised in a hedge of a net position.

If an entity uses a credit derivative that is measured at fair value through profit or loss to manage the credit risk of all, or a part of, a financial instrument (credit exposure) it may designate that financial instrument to the extent that it is so managed (ie all or a proportion of it) as measured at fair value through profit or loss if:

(a) the name of the credit exposure (for example, the borrower, or the holder of a loan commitment) matches the reference entity of the credit derivative (‘name matching’); and

(b) the seniority of the financial instrument matches that of the instruments that can be delivered in accordance with the credit derivative.

An entity may make this designation irrespective of whether the financial instrument that is managed for credit risk is within the scope of this Standard (for example, an entity may designate loan commitments that are outside the scope of this Standard). The entity may designate that financial instrument at, or subsequent to, initial recognition, or while it is unrecognised. The entity shall document the designation concurrently.

If a financial instrument is designated in accordance with paragraph 6.7.1 as measured at fair value through profit or loss after its initial recognition, or was previously not recognised, the difference at the time of designation between the carrying amount, if any, and the fair value shall immediately be recognised in profit or loss. For financial assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the cumulative gain or loss previously recognised in other comprehensive income shall immediately be reclassified from equity to profit or loss as a reclassification adjustment (see AASB 101).

An entity shall discontinue measuring the financial instrument that gave rise to the credit risk, or a proportion of that financial instrument, at fair value through profit or loss if:

(a) the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.7.1 are no longer met, for example:

(i) the credit derivative or the related financial instrument that gives rise to the credit risk expires or is sold, terminated or settled; or

(ii) the credit risk of the financial instrument is no longer managed using credit derivatives. For example, this could occur because of improvements in the credit quality of the borrower or the loan commitment holder or changes to capital requirements imposed on an entity; and

(b) the financial instrument that gives rise to the credit risk is not otherwise required to be measured at fair value through profit or loss (ie the entity’s business model has not changed in the meantime so that a reclassification in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1 was required).

When an entity discontinues measuring the financial instrument that gives rise to the credit risk, or a proportion of that financial instrument, at fair value through profit or loss, that financial instrument’s fair value at the date of discontinuation becomes its new carrying amount. Subsequently, the same measurement that was used before designating the financial instrument at fair value through profit or loss shall be applied (including amortisation that results from the new carrying amount). For example, a financial asset that had originally been classified as measured at amortised cost would revert to that measurement and its effective interest rate would be recalculated based on its new gross carrying amount on the date of discontinuing measurement at fair value through profit or loss.

An entity shall apply paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12 and paragraphs 7.1.8 and 7.2.26(d) to all hedging relationships directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform. These paragraphs apply only to such hedging relationships. A hedging relationship is directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform only if the reform gives rise to uncertainties about:

(a) the interest rate benchmark (contractually or non-contractually specified) designated as a hedged risk; and/or

(b) the timing or the amount of interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of the hedged item or of the hedging instrument.

For the purpose of applying paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12, the term ‘interest rate benchmark reform’ refers to the market-wide reform of an interest rate benchmark, including the replacement of an interest rate benchmark with an alternative benchmark rate such as that resulting from the recommendations set out in the Financial Stability Board’s July 2014 report ‘Reforming Major Interest Rate Benchmarks’.^[2]

Paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.12 provide exceptions only to the requirements specified in these paragraphs. An entity shall continue to apply all other hedge accounting requirements to hedging relationships directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform.

For the purpose of determining whether a forecast transaction (or a component thereof) is highly probable as required by paragraph 6.3.3, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform.

For the purpose of applying the requirement in paragraph 6.5.12 in order to determine whether the hedged future cash flows are expected to occur, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform.

For the purpose of applying the requirements in paragraphs 6.4.1(c)(i) and B6.4.4–B6.4.6, an entity shall assume that the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged cash flows and/or the hedged risk (contractually or non-contractually specified) are based, or the interest rate benchmark on which the cash flows of the hedging instrument are based, is not altered as a result of interest rate benchmark reform.

Unless paragraph 6.8.8 applies, for a hedge of a non-contractually specified benchmark component of interest rate risk, an entity shall apply the requirement in paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8—that the risk component shall be separately identifiable—only at the inception of the hedging relationship.

When an entity, consistent with its hedge documentation, frequently resets (ie discontinues and restarts) a hedging relationship because both the hedging instrument and the hedged item frequently change (ie the entity uses a dynamic process in which both the hedged items and the hedging instruments used to manage that exposure do not remain the same for long), the entity shall apply the requirement in paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8—that the risk component is separately identifiable—only when it initially designates a hedged item in that hedging relationship. A hedged item that has been assessed at the time of its initial designation in the hedging relationship, whether it was at the time of the hedge inception or subsequently, is not reassessed at any subsequent redesignation in the same hedging relationship.

An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.4 to a hedged item at the earlier of:

(a) when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of the hedged item; and

(b) when the hedging relationship that the hedged item is part of is discontinued.

An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.5 at the earlier of:

(a) when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based future cash flows of the hedged item; and

(b) when the entire amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve with respect to that discontinued hedging relationship has been reclassified to profit or loss.

An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.6:

(a) to a hedged item, when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the hedged risk or the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of the hedged item; and

(b) to a hedging instrument, when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of the hedging instrument.

If the hedging relationship that the hedged item and the hedging instrument are part of is discontinued earlier than the date specified in paragraph 6.8.11(a) or the date specified in paragraph 6.8.11(b), the entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraph 6.8.6 to that hedging relationship at the date of discontinuation.

When designating a group of items as the hedged item, or a combination of financial instruments as the hedging instrument, an entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.6 to an individual item or financial instrument in accordance with paragraphs 6.8.9, 6.8.10, or 6.8.11, as relevant, when the uncertainty arising from interest rate benchmark reform is no longer present with respect to the hedged risk and/or the timing and the amount of the interest rate benchmark-based cash flows of that item or financial instrument.

An entity shall prospectively cease applying paragraphs 6.8.7 and 6.8.8 at the earlier of:

(a) when changes required by interest rate benchmark reform are made to the non-contractually specified risk component applying paragraph 6.9.1; or

(b) when the hedging relationship in which the non-contractually specified risk component is designated is discontinued.

As and when the requirements in paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.8 cease to apply to a hedging relationship (see paragraphs 6.8.9–6.8.13), an entity shall amend the formal designation of that hedging relationship as previously documented to reflect the changes required by interest rate benchmark reform, ie the changes are consistent with the requirements in paragraphs 5.4.6–5.4.8. In this context, the hedge designation shall be amended only to make one or more of these changes:

(a) designating an alternative benchmark rate (contractually or non-contractually specified) as a hedged risk;

(b) amending the description of the hedged item, including the description of the designated portion of the cash flows or fair value being hedged; or

(c) amending the description of the hedging instrument.

An entity also shall apply the requirement in paragraph 6.9.1(c) if these three conditions are met:

(a) the entity makes a change required by interest rate benchmark reform using an approach other than changing the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of the hedging instrument (as described in paragraph 5.4.6);

(b) the original hedging instrument is not derecognised; and

(c) the chosen approach is economically equivalent to changing the basis for determining the contractual cash flows of the original hedging instrument (as described in paragraphs 5.4.7 and 5.4.8).

The requirements in paragraphs 6.8.4–6.8.8 may cease to apply at different times. Therefore, in applying paragraph 6.9.1, an entity may be required to amend the formal designation of its hedging relationships at different times, or may be required to amend the formal designation of a hedging relationship more than once. When, and only when, such a change is made to the hedge designation, an entity shall apply paragraphs 6.9.7–6.9.12 as applicable. An entity also shall apply paragraph 6.5.8 (for a fair value hedge) or paragraph 6.5.11 (for a cash flow hedge) to account for any changes in the fair value of the hedged item or the hedging instrument.

An entity shall amend a hedging relationship as required in paragraph 6.9.1 by the end of the reporting period during which a change required by interest rate benchmark reform is made to the hedged risk, hedged item or hedging instrument. For the avoidance of doubt, such an amendment to the formal designation of a hedging relationship constitutes neither the discontinuation of the hedging relationship nor the designation of a new hedging relationship.

If changes are made in addition to those changes required by interest rate benchmark reform to the financial asset or financial liability designated in a hedging relationship (as described in paragraphs 5.4.6–5.4.8) or to the designation of the hedging relationship (as required by paragraph 6.9.1), an entity shall first apply the applicable requirements in this Standard to determine if those additional changes result in the discontinuation of hedge accounting. If the additional changes do not result in the discontinuation of hedge accounting, an entity shall amend the formal designation of the hedging relationship as specified in paragraph 6.9.1.

Paragraphs 6.9.7–6.9.13 provide exceptions to the requirements specified in those paragraphs only. An entity shall apply all other hedge accounting requirements in this Standard, including the qualifying criteria in paragraph 6.4.1, to hedging relationships that were directly affected by interest rate benchmark reform.

Cash flow hedges

For the purpose of applying paragraph 6.5.11, at the point when an entity amends the description of a hedged item as required in paragraph 6.9.1(b), the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve shall be deemed to be based on the alternative benchmark rate on which the hedged future cash flows are determined.

For a discontinued hedging relationship, when the interest rate benchmark on which the hedged future cash flows had been based is changed as required by interest rate benchmark reform, for the purpose of applying paragraph 6.5.12 in order to determine whether the hedged future cash flows are expected to occur, the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve for that hedging relationship shall be deemed to be based on the alternative benchmark rate on which the hedged future cash flows will be based.

When an entity applies paragraph 6.9.1 to groups of items designated as hedged items in a fair value or cash flow hedge, the entity shall allocate the hedged items to subgroups based on the benchmark rate being hedged and designate the benchmark rate as the hedged risk for each subgroup. For example, in a hedging relationship in which a group of items is hedged for changes in an interest rate benchmark subject to interest rate benchmark reform, the hedged cash flows or fair value of some items in the group could be changed to reference an alternative benchmark rate before other items in the group are changed. In this example, in applying paragraph 6.9.1, the entity would designate the alternative benchmark rate as the hedged risk for that relevant subgroup of hedged items. The entity would continue to designate the existing interest rate benchmark as the hedged risk for the other subgroup of hedged items until the hedged cash flows or fair value of those items are changed to reference the alternative benchmark rate or the items expire and are replaced with hedged items that reference the alternative benchmark rate.

An entity shall assess separately whether each subgroup meets the requirements in paragraph 6.6.1 to be an eligible hedged item. If any subgroup fails to meet the requirements in paragraph 6.6.1, the entity shall discontinue hedge accounting prospectively for the hedging relationship in its entirety. An entity also shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 6.5.8 and 6.5.11 to account for ineffectiveness related to the hedging relationship in its entirety.

An alternative benchmark rate designated as a non-contractually specified risk component that is not separately identifiable (see paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8) at the date it is designated shall be deemed to have met that requirement at that date, if, and only if, the entity reasonably expects the alternative benchmark rate will be separately identifiable within 24 months. The 24-month period applies to each alternative benchmark rate separately and starts from the date the entity designates the alternative benchmark rate as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time (ie the 24-month period applies on a rate-by-rate basis).

If subsequently an entity reasonably expects that the alternative benchmark rate will not be separately identifiable within 24 months from the date the entity designated it as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time, the entity shall cease applying the requirement in paragraph 6.9.11 to that alternative benchmark rate and discontinue hedge accounting prospectively from the date of that reassessment for all hedging relationships in which the alternative benchmark rate was designated as a non-contractually specified risk component.

In addition to those hedging relationships specified in paragraph 6.9.1, an entity shall apply the requirements in paragraphs 6.9.11 and 6.9.12 to new hedging relationships in which an alternative benchmark rate is designated as a non-contractually specified risk component (see paragraphs 6.3.7(a) and B6.3.8) when, because of interest rate benchmark reform, that risk component is not separately identifiable at the date it is designated.

[Deleted by the AASB – see paragraphs Aus1.2 and Aus1.3]

Despite the requirements in paragraph Aus1.3, for annual reporting periods beginning before 1 January 2018, an entity may elect to early apply only the requirements for the presentation of gains and losses on financial liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss in paragraphs 5.7.1(c), 5.7.7–5.7.9, 7.2.14 and B5.7.5–B5.7.20 without applying the other requirements in this Standard. If an entity elects to apply only those paragraphs, it shall disclose that fact and provide on an ongoing basis the related disclosures set out in paragraphs 10–11 of AASB 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures (as amended by AASB 2010-7 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards arising from AASB 9 (December 2010)). (See also paragraphs 7.2.2 and 7.2.15.)

[Deleted by the AASB]

[Deleted by the AASB]

AASB 16, issued in February 2016, amended paragraphs 2.1, 5.5.15, B4.3.8, B5.5.34 and B5.5.46. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies AASB 16.

AASB 2017-6 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation, issued in December 2017, added paragraphs 7.2.29–7.2.34 and B4.1.12A and amended paragraphs B4.1.11(b) and B4.1.12(b). An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact.

AASB 2019-3 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Interest Rate Benchmark Reform, which amended AASB 9, AASB 139 and AASB 7, issued in October 2019, added Section 6.8 and amended paragraph 7.2.26. An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2020. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact.

AASB 2020-3 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Annual Improvements 2018–2020 and Other Amendments, issued in June 2020, added paragraphs 7.2.35 and B3.3.6A and amended paragraph B3.3.6. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2022. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the amendment for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact.

AASB 2020-8 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Interest Rate Benchmark Reform – Phase 2, which amended AASB 4, AASB 7, AASB 9, AASB 16 and AASB 139, issued in September 2020, added paragraphs 5.4.5–5.4.9, 6.8.13, Section 6.9 and paragraphs 7.2.43–7.2.46. An entity shall apply these amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies these amendments for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact.

An entity shall apply this Standard retrospectively, in accordance with AASB 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.4–7.2.26 and 7.2.28. This Standard shall not be applied to items that have already been derecognised at the date of initial application.

For the purposes of the transition provisions in paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.3–7.2.28 and Aus1.4, the date of initial application is the date when an entity first applies those requirements of this Standard and must be the beginning of a reporting period after 24 July 2014^[3]. Depending on the entity’s chosen approach to applying AASB 9, the transition can involve one or more than one date of initial application for different requirements.

At the date of initial application, an entity shall assess whether a financial asset meets the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(a) or 4.1.2A(a) on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at that date. The resulting classification shall be applied retrospectively irrespective of the entity’s business model in prior reporting periods.

If, at the date of initial application, it is impracticable (as defined in AASB 108) for an entity to assess a modified time value of money element in accordance with paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset, an entity shall assess the contractual cash flow characteristics of that financial asset on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset without taking into account the requirements related to the modification of the time value of money element in paragraphs B4.1.9B–B4.1.9D. (See also paragraph 42R of AASB 7.)

If, at the date of initial application, it is impracticable (as defined in AASB 108) for an entity to assess whether the fair value of a prepayment feature was insignificant in accordance with paragraph B4.1.12(c) on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset, an entity shall assess the contractual cash flow characteristics of that financial asset on the basis of the facts and circumstances that existed at the initial recognition of the financial asset without taking into account the exception for prepayment features in paragraph B4.1.12. (See also paragraph 42S of AASB 7.)

If an entity measures a hybrid contract at fair value in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.2A, 4.1.4 or 4.1.5 but the fair value of the hybrid contract had not been measured in comparative reporting periods, the fair value of the hybrid contract in the comparative reporting periods shall be the sum of the fair values of the components (ie the non-derivative host and the embedded derivative) at the end of each comparative reporting period if the entity restates prior periods (see paragraph 7.2.15).

If an entity has applied paragraph 7.2.6 then at the date of initial application the entity shall recognise any difference between the fair value of the entire hybrid contract at the date of initial application and the sum of the fair values of the components of the hybrid contract at the date of initial application in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.

At the date of initial application an entity may designate:

(a) a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.1.5; or

(b) an investment in an equity instrument as at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5.

Such a designation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively.

At the date of initial application an entity:

(a) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraph 4.1.5.

(b) may revoke its previous designation of a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that financial asset meets the condition in paragraph 4.1.5.

Such a revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively.

At the date of initial application, an entity:

(a) may designate a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2(a).

(b) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if such designation was made at initial recognition in accordance with the condition now in paragraph 4.2.2(a) and such designation does not satisfy that condition at the date of initial application.

(c) may revoke its previous designation of a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if such designation was made at initial recognition in accordance with the condition now in paragraph 4.2.2(a) and such designation satisfies that condition at the date of initial application.

Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. That classification shall be applied retrospectively.

If it is impracticable (as defined in AASB 108) for an entity to apply retrospectively the effective interest method, the entity shall treat:

(a) the fair value of the financial asset or the financial liability at the end of each comparative period presented as the gross carrying amount of that financial asset or the amortised cost of that financial liability if the entity restates prior periods; and

(b) the fair value of the financial asset or the financial liability at the date of initial application as the new gross carrying amount of that financial asset or the new amortised cost of that financial liability at the date of initial application of this Standard.

If an entity previously accounted at cost (in accordance with AASB 139), for an investment in an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (or for a derivative asset that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an equity instrument) it shall measure that instrument at fair value at the date of initial application. Any difference between the previous carrying amount and the fair value shall be recognised in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.

If an entity previously accounted for a derivative liability that is linked to, and must be settled by, delivery of an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) at cost in accordance with AASB 139, it shall measure that derivative liability at fair value at the date of initial application. Any difference between the previous carrying amount and the fair value shall be recognised in the opening retained earnings of the reporting period that includes the date of initial application.

At the date of initial application, an entity shall determine whether the treatment in paragraph 5.7.7 would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application. This Standard shall be applied retrospectively on the basis of that determination.

At the date of initial application, an entity is permitted to make the designation in paragraph 2.5 for contracts that already exist on the date but only if it designates all similar contracts. The change in the net assets resulting from such designations shall be recognised in retained earnings at the date of initial application.

Despite the requirement in paragraph 7.2.1, an entity that adopts the classification and measurement requirements of this Standard (which include the requirements related to amortised cost measurement for financial assets and impairment in Sections 5.4 and 5.5) shall provide the disclosures set out in paragraphs 42L–42O of AASB 7 but need not restate prior periods. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application. However, if an entity restates prior periods, the restated financial statements must reflect all of the requirements in this Standard. If an entity’s chosen approach to applying AASB 9 results in more than one date of initial application for different requirements, this paragraph applies at each date of initial application (see paragraph 7.2.2). This would be the case, for example, if an entity elects to early apply only the requirements for the presentation of gains and losses on financial liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 7.1.2 before applying the other requirements in this Standard.

If an entity prepares interim financial reports in accordance with AASB 134 Interim Financial Reporting the entity need not apply the requirements in this Standard to interim periods prior to the date of initial application if it is impracticable (as defined in AASB 108).

Impairment (Section 5.5)

An entity shall apply the impairment requirements in Section 5.5 retrospectively in accordance with AASB 108 subject to paragraphs 7.2.15 and 7.2.18–7.2.20.

At the date of initial application, an entity shall use reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort to determine the credit risk at the date that a financial instrument was initially recognised (or for loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts at the date that the entity became a party to the irrevocable commitment in accordance with paragraph 5.5.6) and compare that to the credit risk at the date of initial application of this Standard.

When determining whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition, an entity may apply:

(a) the requirements in paragraphs 5.5.10 and B5.5.22–B5.5.24; and

(b) the rebuttable presumption in paragraph 5.5.11 for contractual payments that are more than 30 days past due if an entity will apply the impairment requirements by identifying significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition for those financial instruments on the basis of past due information.

If, at the date of initial application, determining whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition would require undue cost or effort, an entity shall recognise a loss allowance at an amount equal to lifetime expected credit losses at each reporting date until that financial instrument is derecognised (unless that financial instrument is low credit risk at a reporting date, in which case paragraph 7.2.19(a) applies).

When an entity first applies this Standard, it may choose as its accounting policy to continue to apply the hedge accounting requirements of AASB 139 instead of the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard. An entity shall apply that policy to all of its hedging relationships. An entity that chooses that policy shall also apply Interpretation 16 Hedges of a Net Investment in a Foreign Operation without the amendments that conform that Interpretation to the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard.

AASB 2014-1 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards and AASB 2014-7 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards arising from AASB 9 (December 2014) amend paragraphs 3, 5–7, 14, 16, AG1, AG8 and IE5 of Interpretation 16 and add paragraphs 18A–18B to conform Interpretation 16 to the requirements in Chapter 6 of this Standard.

Except as provided in paragraph 7.2.26, an entity shall apply the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard prospectively.

To apply hedge accounting from the date of initial application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, all qualifying criteria must be met as at that date.

Hedging relationships that qualified for hedge accounting in accordance with AASB 139 that also qualify for hedge accounting in accordance with the criteria of this Standard (see paragraph 6.4.1), after taking into account any rebalancing of the hedging relationship on transition (see paragraph 7.2.25(b)), shall be regarded as continuing hedging relationships.

On initial application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, an entity:

(a) may start to apply those requirements from the same point in time as it ceases to apply the hedge accounting requirements of AASB 139; and

(b) shall consider the hedge ratio in accordance with AASB 139 as the starting point for rebalancing the hedge ratio of a continuing hedging relationship, if applicable. Any gain or loss from such a rebalancing shall be recognised in profit or loss.

As an exception to prospective application of the hedge accounting requirements of this Standard, an entity:

(a) shall apply the accounting for the time value of options in accordance with paragraph 6.5.15 retrospectively if, in accordance with AASB 139, only the change in an option’s intrinsic value was designated as a hedging instrument in a hedging relationship. This retrospective application applies only to those hedging relationships that existed at the beginning of the earliest comparative period or were designated thereafter.

(b) may apply the accounting for the forward element of forward contracts in accordance with paragraph 6.5.16 retrospectively if, in accordance with AASB 139, only the change in the spot element of a forward contract was designated as a hedging instrument in a hedging relationship. This retrospective application applies only to those hedging relationships that existed at the beginning of the earliest comparative period or were designated thereafter. In addition, if an entity elects retrospective application of this accounting, it shall be applied to all hedging relationships that qualify for this election (ie on transition this election is not available on a hedging-relationship-by-hedging-relationship basis). The accounting for foreign currency basis spreads (see paragraph 6.5.16) may be applied retrospectively for those hedging relationships that existed at the beginning of the earliest comparative period or were designated thereafter.

(c) shall apply retrospectively the requirement of paragraph 6.5.6 that there is not an expiration or termination of the hedging instrument if:

(i) as a consequence of laws or regulations, or the introduction of laws or regulations, the parties to the hedging instrument agree that one or more clearing counterparties replace their original counterparty to become the new counterparty to each of the parties; and

(ii) other changes, if any, to the hedging instrument are limited to those that are necessary to effect such a replacement of the counterparty.

(d) shall apply the requirements in Section 6.8 retrospectively. This retrospective application applies only to those hedging relationships that existed at the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies those requirements or were designated thereafter, and to the amount accumulated in the cash flow hedge reserve that existed at the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies those requirements.

An entity shall apply the transition requirements in paragraphs 7.2.1–7.2.26 at the relevant date of initial application. An entity shall apply each of the transition provisions in paragraphs 7.2.3–7.2.14A and 7.2.17–7.2.26 only once (ie if an entity chooses an approach of applying AASB 9 that involves more than one date of initial application, it cannot apply any of those provisions again if they were already applied at an earlier date). (See paragraphs 7.2.2 and Aus1.4).

An entity’s chosen approach to applying AASB 9 may include applying AASB 9 (December 2009) or AASB 9 (December 2010) in advance of the Standard’s mandatory application date. In these instances, an entity will have more than one date of initial application, and will have previously applied some or all of the transition provisions specified by AASB 9 (December 2009) or AASB 9 (December 2010). An entity cannot apply again a transition provision specified by paragraphs 7.2.3–7.2.14A and 7.2.17–7.2.26 of this Standard to the extent a similar provision has already been applied at an earlier date on early adoption of AASB 9 (December 2009) or AASB 9 (December 2010).

An entity that applied AASB 9 (December 2009) or AASB 9 (December 2010) and subsequently applies this Standard:

(a) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation was previously made in accordance with the condition in paragraph 4.1.5 but that condition is no longer satisfied as a result of the application of this Standard;

(b) may designate a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation would not have previously satisfied the condition in paragraph 4.1.5 but that condition is now satisfied as a result of the application of this Standard;

(c) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation was previously made in accordance with the condition in paragraph 4.2.2(a) but that condition is no longer satisfied as a result of the application of this Standard; and

(d) may designate a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation would not have previously satisfied the condition in paragraph 4.2.2(a) but that condition is now satisfied as a result of the application of this Standard.

Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application of this Standard. That classification shall be applied retrospectively.

An entity shall apply AASB 2017-6 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation retrospectively in accordance with AASB 108, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.30–7.2.34.

An entity that first applies these amendments at the same time it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.1–7.2.28 instead of paragraphs 7.2.31–7.2.34.

An entity that first applies these amendments after it first applies this Standard shall apply paragraphs 7.2.32–7.2.34. The entity shall also apply the other transition requirements in this Standard necessary for applying these amendments. For that purpose, references to the date of initial application shall be read as referring to the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies these amendments (date of initial application of these amendments).

With regard to designating a financial asset or financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss, an entity:

(a) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation was previously made in accordance with the condition in paragraph 4.1.5 but that condition is no longer satisfied as a result of the application of these amendments;

(b) may designate a financial asset as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation would not have previously satisfied the condition in paragraph 4.1.5 but that condition is now satisfied as a result of the application of these amendments;

(c) shall revoke its previous designation of a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation was previously made in accordance with the condition in paragraph 4.2.2(a) but that condition is no longer satisfied as a result of the application of these amendments; and

(d) may designate a financial liability as measured at fair value through profit or loss if that designation would not have previously satisfied the condition in paragraph 4.2.2(a) but that condition is now satisfied as a result of the application of these amendments.

Such a designation and revocation shall be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances that exist at the date of initial application of these amendments. That classification shall be applied retrospectively.

An entity is not required to restate prior periods to reflect the application of these amendments. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight and the restated financial statements reflect all the requirements in this Standard. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments.

In the reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments, the entity shall disclose the following information as at that date of initial application for each class of financial assets and financial liabilities that were affected by these amendments:

(a) the previous measurement category and carrying amount determined immediately before applying these amendments;

(b) the new measurement category and carrying amount determined after applying these amendments;

(c) the carrying amount of any financial assets and financial liabilities in the statement of financial position that were previously designated as measured at fair value through profit or loss but are no longer so designated; and

(d) the reasons for any designation or de-designation of financial assets or financial liabilities as measured at fair value through profit or loss.

An entity shall apply AASB 2020-3 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Annual Improvements 2018–2020 and Other Amendments to financial liabilities that are modified or exchanged on or after the beginning of the annual reporting period in which the entity first applies the amendment.

An entity shall apply AASB 2020-8 Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Interest Rate Benchmark Reform – Phase 2 retrospectively in accordance with AASB 108, except as specified in paragraphs 7.2.44–7.2.46.

An entity shall designate a new hedging relationship (for example, as described in paragraph 6.9.13) only prospectively (ie an entity is prohibited from designating a new hedge accounting relationship in prior periods). However, an entity shall reinstate a discontinued hedging relationship if, and only if, these conditions are met:

(a) the entity had discontinued that hedging relationship solely due to changes required by interest rate benchmark reform and the entity would not have been required to discontinue that hedging relationship if these amendments had been applied at that time; and

(b) at the beginning of the reporting period in which an entity first applies these amendments (date of initial application of these amendments), that discontinued hedging relationship meets the qualifying criteria for hedge accounting (after taking into account these amendments).

If, in applying paragraph 7.2.44, an entity reinstates a discontinued hedging relationship, the entity shall read references in paragraphs 6.9.11 and 6.9.12 to the date the alternative benchmark rate is designated as a non-contractually specified risk component for the first time as referring to the date of initial application of these amendments (ie the 24-month period for that alternative benchmark rate designated as a non-contractually specified risk component begins from the date of initial application of these amendments).

An entity is not required to restate prior periods to reflect the application of these amendments. The entity may restate prior periods if, and only if, it is possible without the use of hindsight. If an entity does not restate prior periods, the entity shall recognise any difference between the previous carrying amount and the carrying amount at the beginning of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments in the opening retained earnings (or other component of equity, as appropriate) of the annual reporting period that includes the date of initial application of these amendments.

[Deleted by the AASB – see paragraph Aus1.5]

[Deleted by the AASB – see paragraph Aus1.4]

The portion of lifetime expected credit losses that represent the expected credit losses that result from default events on a financial instrument that are possible within the 12 months after the reporting date.

The amount at which the financial asset or financial liability is measured at initial recognition minus the principal repayments, plus or minus the cumulative amortisation using the effective interest method of any difference between that initial amount and the maturity amount and, for financial assets, adjusted for any loss allowance.

Those rights that AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers specifies are accounted for in accordance with this Standard for the purposes of recognising and measuring impairment gains or losses.

A financial asset is credit-impaired when one or more events that have a detrimental impact on the estimated future cash flows of that financial asset have occurred. Evidence that a financial asset is credit-impaired include observable data about the following events:

(a) significant financial difficulty of the issuer or the borrower;

(b) a breach of contract, such as a default or past due event;

(c) the lender(s) of the borrower, for economic or contractual reasons relating to the borrower’s financial difficulty, having granted to the borrower a concession(s) that the lender(s) would not otherwise consider;

(d) it is becoming probable that the borrower will enter bankruptcy or other financial reorganisation;

(e) the disappearance of an active market for that financial asset because of financial difficulties; or

(f) the purchase or origination of a financial asset at a deep discount that reflects the incurred credit losses.

It may not be possible to identify a single discrete event – instead, the combined effect of several events may have caused financial assets to become credit-impaired.

The difference between all contractual cash flows that are due to an entity in accordance with the contract and all the cash flows that the entity expects to receive (ie all cash shortfalls), discounted at the original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets). An entity shall estimate cash flows by considering all contractual terms of the financial instrument (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) through the expected life of that financial instrument. The cash flows that are considered shall include cash flows from the sale of collateral held or other credit enhancements that are integral to the contractual terms. There is a presumption that the expected life of a financial instrument can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the expected life of a financial instrument, the entity shall use the remaining contractual term of the financial instrument.

The rate that exactly discounts the estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the financial asset to the amortised cost of a financial asset that is a purchased or originated credit-impaired financial asset. When calculating the credit-adjusted effective interest rate, an entity shall estimate the expected cash flows by considering all contractual terms of the financial asset (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) and expected credit losses. The calculation includes all fees and points paid or received between parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest rate (see paragraphs B5.4.1‒B5.4.3), transaction costs, and all other premiums or discounts. There is a presumption that the cash flows and the expected life of a group of similar financial instruments can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the cash flows or the remaining life of a financial instrument (or group of financial instruments), the entity shall use the contractual cash flows over the full contractual term of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments).

The removal of a previously recognised financial asset or financial liability from an entity’s statement of financial position.

A financial instrument or other contract within the scope of this Standard with all three of the following characteristics.

(a) its value changes in response to the change in a specified interest rate, financial instrument price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index of prices or rates, credit rating or credit index, or other variable, provided in the case of a non-financial variable that the variable is not specific to a party to the contract (sometimes called the ‘underlying’).

(b) it requires no initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors.

(c) it is settled at a future date.

Distributions of profits to holders of equity instruments in proportion to their holdings of a particular class of capital.

The method that is used in the calculation of the amortised cost of a financial asset or a financial liability and in the allocation and recognition of the interest revenue or interest expense in profit or loss over the relevant period.

The rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the financial asset or financial liability to the gross carrying amount of a financial asset or to the amortised cost of a financial liability. When calculating the effective interest rate, an entity shall estimate the expected cash flows by considering all the contractual terms of the financial instrument (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) but shall not consider the expected credit losses. The calculation includes all fees and points paid or received between parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest rate (see paragraphs B5.4.1–B5.4.3), transaction costs, and all other premiums or discounts. There is a presumption that the cash flows and the expected life of a group of similar financial instruments can be estimated reliably. However, in those rare cases when it is not possible to reliably estimate the cash flows or the expected life of a financial instrument (or group of financial instruments), the entity shall use the contractual cash flows over the full contractual term of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments).

The weighted average of credit losses with the respective risks of a default occurring as the weights.

A contract that requires the issuer to make specified payments to reimburse the holder for a loss it incurs because a specified debtor fails to make payment when due in accordance with the original or modified terms of a debt instrument.

A financial liability that meets one of the following conditions.

(a) it meets the definition of held for trading.

(b) upon initial recognition it is designated by the entity as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2 or 4.3.5.

(c) it is designated either upon initial recognition or subsequently as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 6.7.1.

A binding agreement for the exchange of a specified quantity of resources at a specified price on a specified future date or dates.

An uncommitted but anticipated future transaction.

The amortised cost of a financial asset, before adjusting for any loss allowance.

The relationship between the quantity of the hedging instrument and the quantity of the hedged item in terms of their relative weighting.

A financial asset or financial liability that:

(a) is acquired or incurred principally for the purpose of selling or repurchasing it in the near term;

(b) on initial recognition is part of a portfolio of identified financial instruments that are managed together and for which there is evidence of a recent actual pattern of short-term profit-taking; or

(c) is a derivative (except for a derivative that is a financial guarantee contract or a designated and effective hedging instrument).

Gains or losses that are recognised in profit or loss in accordance with paragraph 5.5.8 and that arise from applying the impairment requirements in Section 5.5.

The expected credit losses that result from all possible default events over the expected life of a financial instrument.

The allowance for expected credit losses on financial assets measured in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2, lease receivables and contract assets, the accumulated impairment amount for financial assets measured in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A and the provision for expected credit losses on loan commitments and financial guarantee contracts.

The amount arising from adjusting the gross carrying amount of a financial asset to reflect the renegotiated or modified contractual cash flows. The entity recalculates the gross carrying amount of a financial asset as the present value of the estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the renegotiated or modified financial asset that are discounted at the financial asset’s original effective interest rate (or the original credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. When estimating the expected cash flows of a financial asset, an entity shall consider all contractual terms of the financial asset (for example, prepayment, call and similar options) but shall not consider the expected credit losses, unless the financial asset is a purchased or originated credit-impaired financial asset, in which case an entity shall also consider the initial expected credit losses that were considered when calculating the original credit-adjusted effective interest rate.

A financial asset is past due when a counterparty has failed to make a payment when that payment was contractually due.

Purchased or originated financial asset(s) that are credit-impaired on initial recognition.

The first day of the first reporting period following the change in business model that results in an entity reclassifying financial assets.

A purchase or sale of a financial asset under a contract whose terms require delivery of the asset within the time frame established generally by regulation or convention in the marketplace concerned.

Incremental costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition, issue or disposal of a financial asset or financial liability (see paragraph B5.4.8). An incremental cost is one that would not have been incurred if the entity had not acquired, issued or disposed of the financial instrument.

The following terms are defined in paragraph 11 of AASB 132, Appendix A of AASB 7, Appendix A of AASB 13 or Appendix A of AASB 15 and are used in this Standard with the meanings specified in AASB 132, AASB 7, AASB 13 or AASB 15:

(a) credit risk;^[4]

(b) equity instrument;

(c) fair value;

(d) financial asset;

(e) financial instrument;

(f) financial liability;

(g) transaction price.

Some contracts require a payment based on climatic, geological or other physical variables. (Those based on climatic variables are sometimes referred to as ‘weather derivatives’.) If those contracts are not within the scope of AASB 4 Insurance Contracts or AASB 1023 General Insurance Contracts, they are within the scope of this Standard.

This Standard does not change the requirements relating to employee benefit plans that comply with AASB 1056 Superannuation Entities and royalty agreements based on the volume of sales or service revenues that are accounted for under AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers.

Sometimes, an entity makes what it views as a ‘strategic investment’ in equity instruments issued by another entity, with the intention of establishing or maintaining a long-term operating relationship with the entity in which the investment is made. The investor or joint venturer entity uses AASB 128 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures to determine whether the equity method of accounting shall be applied to such an investment.

This Standard applies to the financial assets and financial liabilities of insurers, other than rights and obligations that paragraph 2.1(e) excludes because they arise under contracts within the scope of AASB 4.

Financial guarantee contracts may have various legal forms, such as a guarantee, some types of letter of credit, a credit default contract or an insurance contract. Their accounting treatment does not depend on their legal form. The following are examples of the appropriate treatment (see paragraph 2.1(e)):

(a) Although a financial guarantee contract meets the definition of an insurance contract in AASB 4 if the risk transferred is significant, the issuer applies this Standard. Nevertheless, if the issuer has previously asserted explicitly that it regards such contracts as insurance contracts and has used accounting that is applicable to insurance contracts, the issuer may elect to apply either this Standard or AASB 1023 to such financial guarantee contracts. If this Standard applies, paragraph 5.1.1 requires the issuer to recognise a financial guarantee contract initially at fair value. If the financial guarantee contract was issued to an unrelated party in a stand-alone arm’s length transaction, its fair value at inception is likely to equal the premium received, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Subsequently, unless the financial guarantee contract was designated at inception as at fair value through profit or loss or unless paragraphs 3.2.15–3.2.23 and B3.2.12–B3.2.17 apply (when a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition or the continuing involvement approach applies), the issuer measures it at the higher of:

(i) the amount determined in accordance with Section 5.5; and

(ii) the amount initially recognised less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in accordance with the principles of AASB 15 (see paragraph 4.2.1(c)).

(b) Some credit-related guarantees do not, as a precondition for payment, require that the holder is exposed to, and has incurred a loss on, the failure of the debtor to make payments on the guaranteed asset when due. An example of such a guarantee is one that requires payments in response to changes in a specified credit rating or credit index. Such guarantees are not financial guarantee contracts as defined in this Standard, and are not insurance contracts as defined in AASB 4. Such guarantees are derivatives and the issuer applies this Standard to them.

(c) If a financial guarantee contract was issued in connection with the sale of goods, the issuer applies AASB 15 in determining when it recognises the revenue from the guarantee and from the sale of goods.

Assertions that an issuer regards contracts as insurance contracts are typically found throughout the issuer’s communications with customers and regulators, contracts, business documentation and financial statements. Furthermore, insurance contracts are often subject to accounting requirements that are distinct from the requirements for other types of transaction, such as contracts issued by banks or commercial companies. In such cases, an issuer’s financial statements typically include a statement that the issuer has used those accounting requirements.

As a consequence of the principle in paragraph 3.1.1, an entity recognises all of its contractual rights and obligations under derivatives in its statement of financial position as assets and liabilities, respectively, except for derivatives that prevent a transfer of financial assets from being accounted for as a sale (see paragraph B3.2.14). If a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferee does not recognise the transferred asset as its asset (see paragraph B3.2.15).

The following are examples of applying the principle in paragraph 3.1.1:

(a) Unconditional receivables and payables are recognised as assets or liabilities when the entity becomes a party to the contract and, as a consequence, has a legal right to receive or a legal obligation to pay cash.

(b) Assets to be acquired and liabilities to be incurred as a result of a firm commitment to purchase or sell goods or services are generally not recognised until at least one of the parties has performed under the agreement. For example, an entity that receives a firm order does not generally recognise an asset (and the entity that places the order does not recognise a liability) at the time of the commitment but, instead, delays recognition until the ordered goods or services have been shipped, delivered or rendered. If a firm commitment to buy or sell non-financial items is within the scope of this Standard in accordance with paragraphs 2.4–2.7, its net fair value is recognised as an asset or a liability on the commitment date (see paragraph B4.1.30(c)). In addition, if a previously unrecognised firm commitment is designated as a hedged item in a fair value hedge, any change in the net fair value attributable to the hedged risk is recognised as an asset or a liability after the inception of the hedge (see paragraphs 6.5.8(b) and 6.5.9).

(c) A forward contract that is within the scope of this Standard (see paragraph 2.1) is recognised as an asset or a liability on the commitment date, instead of on the date on which settlement takes place. When an entity becomes a party to a forward contract, the fair values of the right and obligation are often equal, so that the net fair value of the forward is zero. If the net fair value of the right and obligation is not zero, the contract is recognised as an asset or liability.

(d) Option contracts that are within the scope of this Standard (see paragraph 2.1) are recognised as assets or liabilities when the holder or writer becomes a party to the contract.

(e) Planned future transactions, no matter how likely, are not assets and liabilities because the entity has not become a party to a contract.

A regular way purchase or sale of financial assets is recognised using either trade date accounting or settlement date accounting as described in paragraphs B3.1.5 and B3.1.6. An entity shall apply the same method consistently for all purchases and sales of financial assets that are classified in the same way in accordance with this Standard. For this purpose assets that are mandatorily measured at fair value through profit or loss form a separate classification from assets designated as measured at fair value through profit or loss. In addition, investments in equity instruments accounted for using the option provided in paragraph 5.7.5 form a separate classification.

A contract that requires or permits net settlement of the change in the value of the contract is not a regular way contract. Instead, such a contract is accounted for as a derivative in the period between the trade date and the settlement date.

The trade date is the date that an entity commits itself to purchase or sell an asset. Trade date accounting refers to (a) the recognition of an asset to be received and the liability to pay for it on the trade date, and (b) derecognition of an asset that is sold, recognition of any gain or loss on disposal and the recognition of a receivable from the buyer for payment on the trade date. Generally, interest does not start to accrue on the asset and corresponding liability until the settlement date when title passes.

The settlement date is the date that an asset is delivered to or by an entity. Settlement date accounting refers to (a) the recognition of an asset on the day it is received by the entity, and (b) the derecognition of an asset and recognition of any gain or loss on disposal on the day that it is delivered by the entity. When settlement date accounting is applied an entity accounts for any change in the fair value of the asset to be received during the period between the trade date and the settlement date in the same way as it accounts for the acquired asset. In other words, the change in value is not recognised for assets measured at amortised cost; it is recognised in profit or loss for assets classified as financial assets measured at fair value through profit or loss; and it is recognised in other comprehensive income for financial assets measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A and for investments in equity instruments accounted for in accordance with paragraph 5.7.5.

The following flow chart illustrates the evaluation of whether and to what extent a financial asset is derecognised.

The situation described in paragraph 3.2.4(b) (when an entity retains the contractual rights to receive the cash flows of the financial asset, but assumes a contractual obligation to pay the cash flows to one or more recipients) occurs, for example, if the entity is a trust, and issues to investors beneficial interests in the underlying financial assets that it owns and provides servicing of those financial assets. In that case, the financial assets qualify for derecognition if the conditions in paragraphs 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 are met.

In applying paragraph 3.2.5, the entity could be, for example, the originator of the financial asset, or it could be a group that includes a subsidiary that has acquired the financial asset and passes on cash flows to unrelated third party investors.

Examples of when an entity has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are:

(a) an unconditional sale of a financial asset;

(b) a sale of a financial asset together with an option to repurchase the financial asset at its fair value at the time of repurchase; and

(c) a sale of a financial asset together with a put or call option that is deeply out of the money (ie an option that is so far out of the money it is highly unlikely to go into the money before expiry).

Examples of when an entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership are:

(a) a sale and repurchase transaction where the repurchase price is a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender’s return;

(b) a securities lending agreement;

(c) a sale of a financial asset together with a total return swap that transfers the market risk exposure back to the entity;

(d) a sale of a financial asset together with a deep in-the-money put or call option (ie an option that is so far in the money that it is highly unlikely to go out of the money before expiry); and

(e) a sale of short-term receivables in which the entity guarantees to compensate the transferee for credit losses that are likely to occur.

If an entity determines that as a result of the transfer, it has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, it does not recognise the transferred asset again in a future period, unless it reacquires the transferred asset in a new transaction.

An entity has not retained control of a transferred asset if the transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset. An entity has retained control of a transferred asset if the transferee does not have the practical ability to sell the transferred asset. A transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset if it is traded in an active market because the transferee could repurchase the transferred asset in the market if it needs to return the asset to the entity. For example, a transferee may have the practical ability to sell a transferred asset if the transferred asset is subject to an option that allows the entity to repurchase it, but the transferee can readily obtain the transferred asset in the market if the option is exercised. A transferee does not have the practical ability to sell the transferred asset if the entity retains such an option and the transferee cannot readily obtain the transferred asset in the market if the entity exercises its option.

The transferee has the practical ability to sell the transferred asset only if the transferee can sell the transferred asset in its entirety to an unrelated third party and is able to exercise that ability unilaterally and without imposing additional restrictions on the transfer. The critical question is what the transferee is able to do in practice, not what contractual rights the transferee has concerning what it can do with the transferred asset or what contractual prohibitions exist. In particular:

(a) a contractual right to dispose of the transferred asset has little practical effect if there is no market for the transferred asset, and

(b) an ability to dispose of the transferred asset has little practical effect if it cannot be exercised freely. For that reason:

(i) the transferee’s ability to dispose of the transferred asset must be independent of the actions of others (ie it must be a unilateral ability), and

(ii) the transferee must be able to dispose of the transferred asset without needing to attach restrictive conditions or ‘strings’ to the transfer (eg conditions about how a loan asset is serviced or an option giving the transferee the right to repurchase the asset).

That the transferee is unlikely to sell the transferred asset does not, of itself, mean that the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset. However, if a put option or guarantee constrains the transferee from selling the transferred asset, then the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset. For example, if a put option or guarantee is sufficiently valuable it constrains the transferee from selling the transferred asset because the transferee would, in practice, not sell the transferred asset to a third party without attaching a similar option or other restrictive conditions. Instead, the transferee would hold the transferred asset so as to obtain payments under the guarantee or put option. Under these circumstances the transferor has retained control of the transferred asset.

An entity may retain the right to a part of the interest payments on transferred assets as compensation for servicing those assets. The part of the interest payments that the entity would give up upon termination or transfer of the servicing contract is allocated to the servicing asset or servicing liability. The part of the interest payments that the entity would not give up is an interest-only strip receivable. For example, if the entity would not give up any interest upon termination or transfer of the servicing contract, the entire interest spread is an interest-only strip receivable. For the purposes of applying paragraph 3.2.13, the fair values of the servicing asset and interest-only strip receivable are used to allocate the carrying amount of the receivable between the part of the asset that is derecognised and the part that continues to be recognised. If there is no servicing fee specified or the fee to be received is not expected to compensate the entity adequately for performing the servicing, a liability for the servicing obligation is recognised at fair value.

When measuring the fair values of the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised for the purposes of applying paragraph 3.2.13, an entity applies the fair value measurement requirements in AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement in addition to paragraph 3.2.14.

The following is an application of the principle outlined in paragraph 3.2.15. If a guarantee provided by the entity for default losses on the transferred asset prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised because the entity has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, the transferred asset continues to be recognised in its entirety and the consideration received is recognised as a liability.

The following are examples of how an entity measures a transferred asset and the associated liability under paragraph 3.2.16.

All assets

(a) If a guarantee provided by an entity to pay for default losses on a transferred asset prevents the transferred asset from being derecognised to the extent of the continuing involvement, the transferred asset at the date of the transfer is measured at the lower of (i) the carrying amount of the asset and (ii) the maximum amount of the consideration received in the transfer that the entity could be required to repay (‘the guarantee amount’). The associated liability is initially measured at the guarantee amount plus the fair value of the guarantee (which is normally the consideration received for the guarantee). Subsequently, the initial fair value of the guarantee is recognised in profit or loss when (or as) the obligation is satisfied (in accordance with the principles of AASB 15) and the carrying value of the asset is reduced by any loss allowance.

Assets measured at amortised cost

(b) If a put option obligation written by an entity or call option right held by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at amortised cost, the associated liability is measured at its cost (ie the consideration received) adjusted for the amortisation of any difference between that cost and the gross carrying amount of the transferred asset at the expiration date of the option. For example, assume that the gross carrying amount of the asset on the date of the transfer is CU98 and that the consideration received is CU95. The gross carrying amount of the asset on the option exercise date will be CU100. The initial carrying amount of the associated liability is CU95 and the difference between CU95 and CU100 is recognised in profit or loss using the effective interest method. If the option is exercised, any difference between the carrying amount of the associated liability and the exercise price is recognised in profit or loss.

Assets measured at fair value

(c) If a call option right retained by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at fair value, the asset continues to be measured at its fair value. The associated liability is measured at (i) the option exercise price less the time value of the option if the option is in or at the money, or (ii) the fair value of the transferred asset less the time value of the option if the option is out of the money. The adjustment to the measurement of the associated liability ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the call option right. For example, if the fair value of the underlying asset is CU80, the option exercise price is CU95 and the time value of the option is CU5, the carrying amount of the associated liability is CU75 (CU80 – CU5) and the carrying amount of the transferred asset is CU80 (ie its fair value).

(d) If a put option written by an entity prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the transferred asset at fair value, the associated liability is measured at the option exercise price plus the time value of the option. The measurement of the asset at fair value is limited to the lower of the fair value and the option exercise price because the entity has no right to increases in the fair value of the transferred asset above the exercise price of the option. This ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the put option obligation. For example, if the fair value of the underlying asset is CU120, the option exercise price is CU100 and the time value of the option is CU5, the carrying amount of the associated liability is CU105 (CU100 + CU5) and the carrying amount of the asset is CU100 (in this case the option exercise price).

(e) If a collar, in the form of a purchased call and written put, prevents a transferred asset from being derecognised and the entity measures the asset at fair value, it continues to measure the asset at fair value. The associated liability is measured at (i) the sum of the call exercise price and fair value of the put option less the time value of the call option, if the call option is in or at the money, or (ii) the sum of the fair value of the asset and the fair value of the put option less the time value of the call option if the call option is out of the money. The adjustment to the associated liability ensures that the net carrying amount of the asset and the associated liability is the fair value of the options held and written by the entity. For example, assume an entity transfers a financial asset that is measured at fair value while simultaneously purchasing a call with an exercise price of CU120 and writing a put with an exercise price of CU80. Assume also that the fair value of the asset is CU100 at the date of the transfer. The time value of the put and call are CU1 and CU5 respectively. In this case, the entity recognises an asset of CU100 (the fair value of the asset) and a liability of CU96 [(CU100 + CU1) – CU5]. This gives a net asset value of CU4, which is the fair value of the options held and written by the entity.

To the extent that a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferor’s contractual rights or obligations related to the transfer are not accounted for separately as derivatives if recognising both the derivative and either the transferred asset or the liability arising from the transfer would result in recognising the same rights or obligations twice. For example, a call option retained by the transferor may prevent a transfer of financial assets from being accounted for as a sale. In that case, the call option is not separately recognised as a derivative asset.

To the extent that a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition, the transferee does not recognise the transferred asset as its asset. The transferee derecognises the cash or other consideration paid and recognises a receivable from the transferor. If the transferor has both a right and an obligation to reacquire control of the entire transferred asset for a fixed amount (such as under a repurchase agreement), the transferee may measure its receivable at amortised cost if it meets the criteria in paragraph 4.1.2.

The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard.

(a) Repurchase agreements and securities lending. If a financial asset is sold under an agreement to repurchase it at a fixed price or at the sale price plus a lender’s return or if it is loaned under an agreement to return it to the transferor, it is not derecognised because the transferor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership. If the transferee obtains the right to sell or pledge the asset, the transferor reclassifies the asset in its statement of financial position, for example, as a loaned asset or repurchase receivable.

(b) Repurchase agreements and securities lending – assets that are substantially the same. If a financial asset is sold under an agreement to repurchase the same or substantially the same asset at a fixed price or at the sale price plus a lender’s return or if a financial asset is borrowed or loaned under an agreement to return the same or substantially the same asset to the transferor, it is not derecognised because the transferor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(c) Repurchase agreements and securities lending – right of substitution. If a repurchase agreement at a fixed repurchase price or a price equal to the sale price plus a lender’s return, or a similar securities lending transaction, provides the transferee with a right to substitute assets that are similar and of equal fair value to the transferred asset at the repurchase date, the asset sold or lent under a repurchase or securities lending transaction is not derecognised because the transferor retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(d) Repurchase right of first refusal at fair value. If an entity sells a financial asset and retains only a right of first refusal to repurchase the transferred asset at fair value if the transferee subsequently sells it, the entity derecognises the asset because it has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender’s return, then the asset is not derecognised.

(f) Put options and call options that are deeply in the money. If a transferred financial asset can be called back by the transferor and the call option is deeply in the money, the transfer does not qualify for derecognition because the transferor has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership. Similarly, if the financial asset can be put back by the transferee and the put option is deeply in the money, the transfer does not qualify for derecognition because the transferor has retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(g) Put options and call options that are deeply out of the money. A financial asset that is transferred subject only to a deep out-of-the-money put option held by the transferee or a deep out-of-the-money call option held by the transferor is derecognised. This is because the transferor has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(h) Readily obtainable assets subject to a call option that is neither deeply in the money nor deeply out of the money. If an entity holds a call option on an asset that is readily obtainable in the market and the option is neither deeply in the money nor deeply out of the money, the asset is derecognised. This is because the entity (i) has neither retained nor transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership, and (ii) has not retained control. However, if the asset is not readily obtainable in the market, derecognition is precluded to the extent of the amount of the asset that is subject to the call option because the entity has retained control of the asset.

(i) A not readily obtainable asset subject to a put option written by an entity that is neither deeply in the money nor deeply out of the money. If an entity transfers a financial asset that is not readily obtainable in the market, and writes a put option that is not deeply out of the money, the entity neither retains nor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership because of the written put option. The entity retains control of the asset if the put option is sufficiently valuable to prevent the transferee from selling the asset, in which case the asset continues to be recognised to the extent of the transferor’s continuing involvement (see paragraph B3.2.9). The entity transfers control of the asset if the put option is not sufficiently valuable to prevent the transferee from selling the asset, in which case the asset is derecognised.

(j) Assets subject to a fair value put or call option or a forward repurchase agreement. A transfer of a financial asset that is subject only to a put or call option or a forward repurchase agreement that has an exercise or repurchase price equal to the fair value of the financial asset at the time of repurchase results in derecognition because of the transfer of substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership.

(k) Cash-settled call or put options. An entity evaluates the transfer of a financial asset that is subject to a put or call option or a forward repurchase agreement that will be settled net in cash to determine whether it has retained or transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership. If the entity has not retained substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, it determines whether it has retained control of the transferred asset. That the put or the call or the forward repurchase agreement is settled net in cash does not automatically mean that the entity has transferred control (see paragraphs B3.2.9 and (g), (h) and (i) above). 

(l) Removal of accounts provision. A removal of accounts provision is an unconditional repurchase (call) option that gives an entity the right to reclaim assets transferred subject to some restrictions. Provided that such an option results in the entity neither retaining nor transferring substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership, it precludes derecognition only to the extent of the amount subject to repurchase (assuming that the transferee cannot sell the assets). For example, if the carrying amount and proceeds from the transfer of loan assets are CU100,000 and any individual loan could be called back but the aggregate amount of loans that could be repurchased could not exceed CU10,000, CU90,000 of the loans would qualify for derecognition.

(m) Clean-up calls. An entity, which may be a transferor, that services transferred assets may hold a clean-up call to purchase remaining transferred assets when the amount of outstanding assets falls to a specified level at which the cost of servicing those assets becomes burdensome in relation to the benefits of servicing. Provided that such a clean-up call results in the entity neither retaining nor transferring substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership and the transferee cannot sell the assets, it precludes derecognition only to the extent of the amount of the assets that is subject to the call option.

(n) Subordinated retained interests and credit guarantees. An entity may provide the transferee with credit enhancement by subordinating some or all of its interest retained in the transferred asset. Alternatively, an entity may provide the transferee with credit enhancement in the form of a credit guarantee that could be unlimited or limited to a specified amount. If the entity retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the transferred asset, the asset continues to be recognised in its entirety. If the entity retains some, but not substantially all, of the risks and rewards of ownership and has retained control, derecognition is precluded to the extent of the amount of cash or other assets that the entity could be required to pay.

(o) Total return swaps. An entity may sell a financial asset to a transferee and enter into a total return swap with the transferee, whereby all of the interest payment cash flows from the underlying asset are remitted to the entity in exchange for a fixed payment or variable rate payment and any increases or declines in the fair value of the underlying asset are absorbed by the entity. In such a case, derecognition of all of the asset is prohibited.

(p) Interest rate swaps. An entity may transfer to a transferee a fixed rate financial asset and enter into an interest rate swap with the transferee to receive a fixed interest rate and pay a variable interest rate based on a notional amount that is equal to the principal amount of the transferred financial asset. The interest rate swap does not preclude derecognition of the transferred asset provided the payments on the swap are not conditional on payments being made on the transferred asset.

(q) Amortising interest rate swaps. An entity may transfer to a transferee a fixed rate financial asset that is paid off over time, and enter into an amortising interest rate swap with the transferee to receive a fixed interest rate and pay a variable interest rate based on a notional amount. If the notional amount of the swap amortises so that it equals the principal amount of the transferred financial asset outstanding at any point in time, the swap would generally result in the entity retaining substantial prepayment risk, in which case the entity either continues to recognise all of the transferred asset or continues to recognise the transferred asset to the extent of its continuing involvement. Conversely, if the amortisation of the notional amount of the swap is not linked to the principal amount outstanding of the transferred asset, such a swap would not result in the entity retaining prepayment risk on the asset. Hence, it would not preclude derecognition of the transferred asset provided the payments on the swap are not conditional on interest payments being made on the transferred asset and the swap does not result in the entity retaining any other significant risks and rewards of ownership on the transferred asset.

(r) Write-off. An entity has no reasonable expectations of recovering the contractual cash flows on a financial asset in its entirety or a portion thereof.

This paragraph illustrates the application of the continuing involvement approach when the entity’s continuing involvement is in a part of a financial asset.

A financial liability (or part of it) is extinguished when the debtor either:

(a) discharges the liability (or part of it) by paying the creditor, normally with cash, other financial assets, goods or services; or

(b) is legally released from primary responsibility for the liability (or part of it) either by process of law or by the creditor. (If the debtor has given a guarantee this condition may still be met.)

If an issuer of a debt instrument repurchases that instrument, the debt is extinguished even if the issuer is a market maker in that instrument or intends to resell it in the near term.

Payment to a third party, including a trust (sometimes called ‘in-substance defeasance’), does not, by itself, relieve the debtor of its primary obligation to the creditor, in the absence of legal release.

If a debtor pays a third party to assume an obligation and notifies its creditor that the third party has assumed its debt obligation, the debtor does not derecognise the debt obligation unless the condition in paragraph B3.3.1(b) is met. If the debtor pays a third party to assume an obligation and obtains a legal release from its creditor, the debtor has extinguished the debt. However, if the debtor agrees to make payments on the debt to the third party or direct to its original creditor, the debtor recognises a new debt obligation to the third party.

Although legal release, whether judicially or by the creditor, results in derecognition of a liability, the entity may recognise a new liability if the derecognition criteria in paragraphs 3.2.1–3.2.23 are not met for the financial assets transferred. If those criteria are not met, the transferred assets are not derecognised, and the entity recognises a new liability relating to the transferred assets.

For the purpose of paragraph 3.3.2, the terms are substantially different if the discounted present value of the cash flows under the new terms, including any fees paid net of any fees received and discounted using the original effective interest rate, is at least 10 per cent different from the discounted present value of the remaining cash flows of the original financial liability. In determining those fees paid net of fees received, a borrower includes only fees paid or received between the borrower and the lender, including fees paid or received by either the borrower or lender on the other’s behalf.

If an exchange of debt instruments or modification of terms is accounted for as an extinguishment, any costs or fees incurred are recognised as part of the gain or loss on the extinguishment. If the exchange or modification is not accounted for as an extinguishment, any costs or fees incurred adjust the carrying amount of the liability and are amortised over the remaining term of the modified liability.

In some cases, a creditor releases a debtor from its present obligation to make payments, but the debtor assumes a guarantee obligation to pay if the party assuming primary responsibility defaults. In these circumstances the debtor:

(a) recognises a new financial liability based on the fair value of its obligation for the guarantee, and

(b) recognises a gain or loss based on the difference between (i) any proceeds paid and (ii) the carrying amount of the original financial liability less the fair value of the new financial liability.

Paragraph 4.1.1(a) requires an entity to classify financial assets on the basis of the entity’s business model for managing the financial assets, unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies. An entity assesses whether its financial assets meet the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(a) or the condition in paragraph 4.1.2A(a) on the basis of the business model as determined by the entity’s key management personnel (as defined in AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures).

An entity’s business model is determined at a level that reflects how groups of financial assets are managed together to achieve a particular business objective. The entity’s business model does not depend on management’s intentions for an individual instrument. Accordingly, this condition is not an instrument-by-instrument approach to classification and should be determined on a higher level of aggregation. However, a single entity may have more than one business model for managing its financial instruments. Consequently, classification need not be determined at the reporting entity level. For example, an entity may hold a portfolio of investments that it manages in order to collect contractual cash flows and another portfolio of investments that it manages in order to trade to realise fair value changes. Similarly, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate to separate a portfolio of financial assets into subportfolios in order to reflect the level at which an entity manages those financial assets. For example, that may be the case if an entity originates or purchases a portfolio of mortgage loans and manages some of the loans with an objective of collecting contractual cash flows and manages the other loans with an objective of selling them.

An entity’s business model refers to how an entity manages its financial assets in order to generate cash flows. That is, the entity’s business model determines whether cash flows will result from collecting contractual cash flows, selling financial assets or both. Consequently, this assessment is not performed on the basis of scenarios that the entity does not reasonably expect to occur, such as so-called ‘worst case’ or ‘stress case’ scenarios. For example, if an entity expects that it will sell a particular portfolio of financial assets only in a stress case scenario, that scenario would not affect the entity’s assessment of the business model for those assets if the entity reasonably expects that such a scenario will not occur. If cash flows are realised in a way that is different from the entity’s expectations at the date that the entity assessed the business model (for example, if the entity sells more or fewer financial assets than it expected when it classified the assets), that does not give rise to a prior period error in the entity’s financial statements (see AASB 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors) nor does it change the classification of the remaining financial assets held in that business model (ie those assets that the entity recognised in prior periods and still holds) as long as the entity considered all relevant information that was available at the time that it made the business model assessment. However, when an entity assesses the business model for newly originated or newly purchased financial assets, it must consider information about how cash flows were realised in the past, along with all other relevant information.

An entity’s business model for managing financial assets is a matter of fact and not merely an assertion. It is typically observable through the activities that the entity undertakes to achieve the objective of the business model. An entity will need to use judgement when it assesses its business model for managing financial assets and that assessment is not determined by a single factor or activity. Instead, the entity must consider all relevant evidence that is available at the date of the assessment. Such relevant evidence includes, but is not limited to:

(a) how the performance of the business model and the financial assets held within that business model are evaluated and reported to the entity’s key management personnel;

(b) the risks that affect the performance of the business model (and the financial assets held within that business model) and, in particular, the way in which those risks are managed; and

(c) how managers of the business are compensated (for example, whether the compensation is based on the fair value of the assets managed or on the contractual cash flows collected).

Financial assets that are held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets in order to collect contractual cash flows are managed to realise cash flows by collecting contractual payments over the life of the instrument. That is, the entity manages the assets held within the portfolio to collect those particular contractual cash flows (instead of managing the overall return on the portfolio by both holding and selling assets). In determining whether cash flows are going to be realised by collecting the financial assets’ contractual cash flows, it is necessary to consider the frequency, value and timing of sales in prior periods, the reasons for those sales and expectations about future sales activity. However sales in themselves do not determine the business model and therefore cannot be considered in isolation. Instead, information about past sales and expectations about future sales provide evidence related to how the entity’s stated objective for managing the financial assets is achieved and, specifically, how cash flows are realised. An entity must consider information about past sales within the context of the reasons for those sales and the conditions that existed at that time as compared to current conditions.

Although the objective of an entity’s business model may be to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows, the entity need not hold all of those instruments until maturity. Thus an entity’s business model can be to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows even when sales of financial assets occur or are expected to occur in the future.

The business model may be to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows even if the entity sells financial assets when there is an increase in the assets’ credit risk. To determine whether there has been an increase in the assets’ credit risk, the entity considers reasonable and supportable information, including forward looking information. Irrespective of their frequency and value, sales due to an increase in the assets’ credit risk are not inconsistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows because the credit quality of financial assets is relevant to the entity’s ability to collect contractual cash flows. Credit risk management activities that are aimed at minimising potential credit losses due to credit deterioration are integral to such a business model. Selling a financial asset because it no longer meets the credit criteria specified in the entity’s documented investment policy is an example of a sale that has occurred due to an increase in credit risk. However, in the absence of such a policy, the entity may demonstrate in other ways that the sale occurred due to an increase in credit risk.

Sales that occur for other reasons, such as sales made to manage credit concentration risk (without an increase in the assets’ credit risk), may also be consistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows. In particular, such sales may be consistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows if those sales are infrequent (even if significant in value) or insignificant in value both individually and in aggregate (even if frequent). If more than an infrequent number of such sales are made out of a portfolio and those sales are more than insignificant in value (either individually or in aggregate), the entity needs to assess whether and how such sales are consistent with an objective of collecting contractual cash flows. Whether a third party imposes the requirement to sell the financial assets, or that activity is at the entity’s discretion, is not relevant to this assessment. An increase in the frequency or value of sales in a particular period is not necessarily inconsistent with an objective to hold financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows, if an entity can explain the reasons for those sales and demonstrate why those sales do not reflect a change in the entity’s business model. In addition, sales may be consistent with the objective of holding financial assets in order to collect contractual cash flows if the sales are made close to the maturity of the financial assets and the proceeds from the sales approximate the collection of the remaining contractual cash flows.

The following are examples of when the objective of an entity’s business model may be to hold financial assets to collect the contractual cash flows. This list of examples is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the examples are not intended to discuss all factors that may be relevant to the assessment of the entity’s business model nor specify the relative importance of the factors.

An entity may hold financial assets in a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. In this type of business model, the entity’s key management personnel have made a decision that both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets are integral to achieving the objective of the business model. There are various objectives that may be consistent with this type of business model. For example, the objective of the business model may be to manage everyday liquidity needs, to maintain a particular interest yield profile or to match the duration of the financial assets to the duration of the liabilities that those assets are funding. To achieve such an objective, the entity will both collect contractual cash flows and sell financial assets.

Compared to a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows, this business model will typically involve greater frequency and value of sales. This is because selling financial assets is integral to achieving the business model’s objective instead of being only incidental to it. However, there is no threshold for the frequency or value of sales that must occur in this business model because both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets are integral to achieving its objective.

The following are examples of when the objective of the entity’s business model may be achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. This list of examples is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the examples are not intended to describe all the factors that may be relevant to the assessment of the entity’s business model nor specify the relative importance of the factors.

Financial assets are measured at fair value through profit or loss if they are not held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows or within a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets (but see also paragraph 5.7.5). One business model that results in measurement at fair value through profit or loss is one in which an entity manages the financial assets with the objective of realising cash flows through the sale of the assets. The entity makes decisions based on the assets’ fair values and manages the assets to realise those fair values. In this case, the entity’s objective will typically result in active buying and selling. Even though the entity will collect contractual cash flows while it holds the financial assets, the objective of such a business model is not achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets. This is because the collection of contractual cash flows is not integral to achieving the business model’s objective; instead, it is incidental to it.

A portfolio of financial assets that is managed and whose performance is evaluated on a fair value basis (as described in paragraph 4.2.2(b)) is neither held to collect contractual cash flows nor held both to collect contractual cash flows and to sell financial assets. The entity is primarily focused on fair value information and uses that information to assess the assets’ performance and to make decisions. In addition, a portfolio of financial assets that meets the definition of held for trading is not held to collect contractual cash flows or held both to collect contractual cash flows and to sell financial assets. For such portfolios, the collection of contractual cash flows is only incidental to achieving the business model’s objective. Consequently, such portfolios of financial assets must be measured at fair value through profit or loss.

Paragraph 4.1.1(b) requires an entity to classify a financial asset on the basis of its contractual cash flow characteristics if the financial asset is held within a business model whose objective is to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows or within a business model whose objective is achieved by both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets, unless paragraph 4.1.5 applies. To do so, the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) requires an entity to determine whether the asset’s contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.

Contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding are consistent with a basic lending arrangement. In a basic lending arrangement, consideration for the time value of money (see paragraphs B4.1.9A–B4.1.9E) and credit risk are typically the most significant elements of interest. However, in such an arrangement, interest can also include consideration for other basic lending risks (for example, liquidity risk) and costs (for example, administrative costs) associated with holding the financial asset for a particular period of time. In addition, interest can include a profit margin that is consistent with a basic lending arrangement. In extreme economic circumstances, interest can be negative if, for example, the holder of a financial asset either explicitly or implicitly pays for the deposit of its money for a particular period of time (and that fee exceeds the consideration that the holder receives for the time value of money, credit risk and other basic lending risks and costs). However, contractual terms that introduce exposure to risks or volatility in the contractual cash flows that is unrelated to a basic lending arrangement, such as exposure to changes in equity prices or commodity prices, do not give rise to contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. An originated or a purchased financial asset can be a basic lending arrangement irrespective of whether it is a loan in its legal form.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.3(a), principal is the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition. However that principal amount may change over the life of the financial asset (for example, if there are repayments of principal).

An entity shall assess whether contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding for the currency in which the financial asset is denominated.

Leverage is a contractual cash flow characteristic of some financial assets. Leverage increases the variability of the contractual cash flows with the result that they do not have the economic characteristics of interest. Stand-alone option, forward and swap contracts are examples of financial assets that include such leverage. Thus, such contracts do not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) and cannot be subsequently measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income.

Time value of money is the element of interest that provides consideration for only the passage of time. That is, the time value of money element does not provide consideration for other risks or costs associated with holding the financial asset. In order to assess whether the element provides consideration for only the passage of time, an entity applies judgement and considers relevant factors such as the currency in which the financial asset is denominated and the period for which the interest rate is set.

However, in some cases, the time value of money element may be modified (ie imperfect). That would be the case, for example, if a financial asset’s interest rate is periodically reset but the frequency of that reset does not match the tenor of the interest rate (for example, the interest rate resets every month to a one-year rate) or if a financial asset’s interest rate is periodically reset to an average of particular short- and long-term interest rates. In such cases, an entity must assess the modification to determine whether the contractual cash flows represent solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. In some circumstances, the entity may be able to make that determination by performing a qualitative assessment of the time value of money element whereas, in other circumstances, it may be necessary to perform a quantitative assessment.

When assessing a modified time value of money element, the objective is to determine how different the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows could be from the (undiscounted) cash flows that would arise if the time value of money element was not modified (the benchmark cash flows). For example, if the financial asset under assessment contains a variable interest rate that is reset every month to a one-year interest rate, the entity would compare that financial asset to a financial instrument with identical contractual terms and the identical credit risk except the variable interest rate is reset monthly to a one-month interest rate. If the modified time value of money element could result in contractual (undiscounted) cash flows that are significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). To make this determination, the entity must consider the effect of the modified time value of money element in each reporting period and cumulatively over the life of the financial instrument. The reason for the interest rate being set in this way is not relevant to the analysis. If it is clear, with little or no analysis, whether the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows on the financial asset under the assessment could (or could not) be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, an entity need not perform a detailed assessment.

When assessing a modified time value of money element, an entity must consider factors that could affect future contractual cash flows. For example, if an entity is assessing a bond with a five-year term and the variable interest rate is reset every six months to a five-year rate, the entity cannot conclude that the contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding simply because the interest rate curve at the time of the assessment is such that the difference between a five-year interest rate and a six-month interest rate is not significant. Instead, the entity must also consider whether the relationship between the five-year interest rate and the six-month interest rate could change over the life of the instrument such that the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows over the life of the instrument could be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows. However, an entity must consider only reasonably possible scenarios instead of every possible scenario. If an entity concludes that the contractual (undiscounted) cash flows could be significantly different from the (undiscounted) benchmark cash flows, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) and therefore cannot be measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income.

In some jurisdictions, the government or a regulatory authority sets interest rates. For example, such government regulation of interest rates may be part of a broad macroeconomic policy or it may be introduced to encourage entities to invest in a particular sector of the economy. In some of these cases, the objective of the time value of money element is not to provide consideration for only the passage of time. However, despite paragraphs B4.1.9A–B4.1.9D, a regulated interest rate shall be considered a proxy for the time value of money element for the purpose of applying the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) if that regulated interest rate provides consideration that is broadly consistent with the passage of time and does not provide exposure to risks or volatility in the contractual cash flows that are inconsistent with a basic lending arrangement.

If a financial asset contains a contractual term that could change the timing or amount of contractual cash flows (for example, if the asset can be prepaid before maturity or its term can be extended), the entity must determine whether the contractual cash flows that could arise over the life of the instrument due to that contractual term are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. To make this determination, the entity must assess the contractual cash flows that could arise both before, and after, the change in contractual cash flows. The entity may also need to assess the nature of any contingent event (ie the trigger) that would change the timing or amount of the contractual cash flows. While the nature of the contingent event in itself is not a determinative factor in assessing whether the contractual cash flows are solely payments of principal and interest, it may be an indicator. For example, compare a financial instrument with an interest rate that is reset to a higher rate if the debtor misses a particular number of payments to a financial instrument with an interest rate that is reset to a higher rate if a specified equity index reaches a particular level. It is more likely in the former case that the contractual cash flows over the life of the instrument will be solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding because of the relationship between missed payments and an increase in credit risk. (See also paragraph B4.1.18.)

The following are examples of contractual terms that result in contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding:

(a) a variable interest rate that consists of consideration for the time value of money, the credit risk associated with the principal amount outstanding during a particular period of time (the consideration for credit risk may be determined at initial recognition only, and so may be fixed) and other basic lending risks and costs, as well as a profit margin;

(b) a contractual term that permits the issuer (ie the debtor) to prepay a debt instrument or permits the holder (ie the creditor) to put a debt instrument back to the issuer before maturity and the prepayment amount substantially represents unpaid amounts of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding, which may include reasonable compensation for the early termination of the contract; and

(c) a contractual term that permits the issuer or the holder to extend the contractual term of a debt instrument (ie an extension option) and the terms of the extension option result in contractual cash flows during the extension period that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding, which may include reasonable additional compensation for the extension of the contract.

Despite paragraph B4.1.10, a financial asset that would otherwise meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b) but does not do so only as a result of a contractual term that permits (or requires) the issuer to prepay a debt instrument or permits (or requires) the holder to put a debt instrument back to the issuer before maturity is eligible to be measured at amortised cost or fair value through other comprehensive income (subject to meeting the condition in paragraph 4.1.2(a) or the condition in paragraph 4.1.2A(a)) if:

(a) the entity acquires or originates the financial asset at a premium or discount to the contractual par amount;

(b) the prepayment amount substantially represents the contractual par amount and accrued (but unpaid) contractual interest, which may include reasonable compensation for the early termination of the contract; and

(c) when the entity initially recognises the financial asset, the fair value of the prepayment feature is insignificant.

For the purpose of applying paragraphs B4.1.11(b) and B4.1.12(b), irrespective of the event or circumstance that causes the early termination of the contract, a party may pay or receive reasonable compensation for that early termination. For example, a party may pay or receive reasonable compensation when it chooses to terminate the contract early (or otherwise causes the early termination to occur).

The following examples illustrate contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. This list of examples is not exhaustive.

The following examples illustrate contractual cash flows that are not solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. This list of examples is not exhaustive.

In some cases a financial asset may have contractual cash flows that are described as principal and interest but those cash flows do not represent the payment of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding as described in paragraphs 4.1.2(b), 4.1.2A(b) and 4.1.3 of this Standard.

This may be the case if the financial asset represents an investment in particular assets or cash flows and hence the contractual cash flows are not solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. For example, if the contractual terms stipulate that the financial asset’s cash flows increase as more automobiles use a particular toll road, those contractual cash flows are inconsistent with a basic lending arrangement. As a result, the instrument would not satisfy the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). This could be the case when a creditor’s claim is limited to specified assets of the debtor or the cash flows from specified assets (for example, a ‘non-recourse’ financial asset).

However, the fact that a financial asset is non-recourse does not in itself necessarily preclude the financial asset from meeting the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). In such situations, the creditor is required to assess (‘look through to’) the particular underlying assets or cash flows to determine whether the contractual cash flows of the financial asset being classified are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. If the terms of the financial asset give rise to any other cash flows or limit the cash flows in a manner inconsistent with payments representing principal and interest, the financial asset does not meet the condition in paragraphs 4.1.2(b) and 4.1.2A(b). Whether the underlying assets are financial assets or non-financial assets does not in itself affect this assessment.

A contractual cash flow characteristic does not affect the classification of the financial asset if it could have only a de minimis effect on the contractual cash flows of the financial asset. To make this determination, an entity must consider the possible effect of the contractual cash flow characteristic in each reporting period and cumulatively over the life of the financial instrument. In addition, if a contractual cash flow characteristic could have an effect on the contractual cash flows that is more than de minimis (either in a single reporting period or cumulatively) but that cash flow characteristic is not genuine, it does not affect the classification of a financial asset. A cash flow characteristic is not genuine if it affects the instrument’s contractual cash flows only on the occurrence of an event that is extremely rare, highly abnormal and very unlikely to occur.

In almost every lending transaction the creditor’s instrument is ranked relative to the instruments of the debtor’s other creditors. An instrument that is subordinated to other instruments may have contractual cash flows that are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding if the debtor’s non-payment is a breach of contract and the holder has a contractual right to unpaid amounts of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding even in the event of the debtor’s bankruptcy. For example, a trade receivable that ranks its creditor as a general creditor would qualify as having payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. This is the case even if the debtor issued loans that are collateralised, which in the event of bankruptcy would give that loan holder priority over the claims of the general creditor in respect of the collateral but does not affect the contractual right of the general creditor to unpaid principal and other amounts due.

In some types of transactions, an issuer may prioritise payments to the holders of financial assets using multiple contractually linked instruments that create concentrations of credit risk (tranches). Each tranche has a subordination ranking that specifies the order in which any cash flows generated by the issuer are allocated to the tranche. In such situations, the holders of a tranche have the right to payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding only if the issuer generates sufficient cash flows to satisfy higher-ranking tranches.

In such transactions, a tranche has cash flow characteristics that are payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding only if:

(a) the contractual terms of the tranche being assessed for classification (without looking through to the underlying pool of financial instruments) give rise to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding (eg the interest rate on the tranche is not linked to a commodity index);

(b) the underlying pool of financial instruments has the cash flow characteristics set out in paragraphs B4.1.23 and B4.1.24; and

(c) the exposure to credit risk in the underlying pool of financial instruments inherent in the tranche is equal to or lower than the exposure to credit risk of the underlying pool of financial instruments (for example, the credit rating of the tranche being assessed for classification is equal to or higher than the credit rating that would apply to a single tranche that funded the underlying pool of financial instruments).

An entity must look through until it can identify the underlying pool of instruments that are creating (instead of passing through) the cash flows. This is the underlying pool of financial instruments.

The underlying pool must contain one or more instruments that have contractual cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding.

The underlying pool of instruments may also include instruments that:

(a) reduce the cash flow variability of the instruments in paragraph B4.1.23 and, when combined with the instruments in paragraph B4.1.23, result in cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding (eg an interest rate cap or floor or a contract that reduces the credit risk on some or all of the instruments in paragraph B4.1.23); or

(b) align the cash flows of the tranches with the cash flows of the pool of underlying instruments in paragraph B4.1.23 to address differences in and only in:

(i) whether the interest rate is fixed or floating;

(ii) the currency in which the cash flows are denominated, including inflation in that currency; or

(iii) the timing of the cash flows.

If any instrument in the pool does not meet the conditions in either paragraph B4.1.23 or paragraph B4.1.24, the condition in paragraph B4.1.21(b) is not met. In performing this assessment, a detailed instrument-by-instrument analysis of the pool may not be necessary. However, an entity must use judgement and perform sufficient analysis to determine whether the instruments in the pool meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24. (See also paragraph B4.1.18 for guidance on contractual cash flow characteristics that have only a de minimis effect.)

If the holder cannot assess the conditions in paragraph B4.1.21 at initial recognition, the tranche must be measured at fair value through profit or loss. If the underlying pool of instruments can change after initial recognition in such a way that the pool may not meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24, the tranche does not meet the conditions in paragraph B4.1.21 and must be measured at fair value through profit or loss. However, if the underlying pool includes instruments that are collateralised by assets that do not meet the conditions in paragraphs B4.1.23–B4.1.24, the ability to take possession of such assets shall be disregarded for the purposes of applying this paragraph unless the entity acquired the tranche with the intention of controlling the collateral.

Subject to the conditions in paragraphs 4.1.5 and 4.2.2, this Standard allows an entity to designate a financial asset, a financial liability, or a group of financial instruments (financial assets, financial liabilities or both) as at fair value through profit or loss provided that doing so results in more relevant information.

The decision of an entity to designate a financial asset or financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss is similar to an accounting policy choice (although, unlike an accounting policy choice, it is not required to be applied consistently to all similar transactions). When an entity has such a choice, paragraph 14(b) of AASB 108 requires the chosen policy to result in the financial statements providing reliable and more relevant information about the effects of transactions, other events and conditions on the entity’s financial position, financial performance or cash flows. For example, in the case of designation of a financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss, paragraph 4.2.2 sets out the two circumstances when the requirement for more relevant information will be met. Accordingly, to choose such designation in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2, the entity needs to demonstrate that it falls within one (or both) of these two circumstances.

Measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and classification of recognised changes in its value are determined by the item’s classification and whether the item is part of a designated hedging relationship. Those requirements can create a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an ‘accounting mismatch’) when, for example, in the absence of designation as at fair value through profit or loss, a financial asset would be classified as subsequently measured at fair value through profit or loss and a liability the entity considers related would be subsequently measured at amortised cost (with changes in fair value not recognised). In such circumstances, an entity may conclude that its financial statements would provide more relevant information if both the asset and the liability were measured as at fair value through profit or loss.

The following examples show when this condition could be met. In all cases, an entity may use this condition to designate financial assets or financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss only if it meets the principle in paragraph 4.1.5 or 4.2.2(a):

(a) an entity has liabilities under insurance contracts whose measurement incorporates current information (as permitted by paragraph 24 of AASB 4) and financial assets that it considers to be related and that would otherwise be measured at either fair value through other comprehensive income or amortised cost.

(b) an entity has financial assets, financial liabilities or both that share a risk, such as interest rate risk, and that gives rise to opposite changes in fair value that tend to offset each other. However, only some of the instruments would be measured at fair value through profit or loss (for example, those that are derivatives, or are classified as held for trading). It may also be the case that the requirements for hedge accounting are not met because, for example, the requirements for hedge effectiveness in paragraph 6.4.1 are not met.

(c) an entity has financial assets, financial liabilities or both that share a risk, such as interest rate risk, that gives rise to opposite changes in fair value that tend to offset each other and none of the financial assets or financial liabilities qualifies for designation as a hedging instrument because they are not measured at fair value through profit or loss. Furthermore, in the absence of hedge accounting there is a significant inconsistency in the recognition of gains and losses. For example, the entity has financed a specified group of loans by issuing traded bonds whose changes in fair value tend to offset each other. If, in addition, the entity regularly buys and sells the bonds but rarely, if ever, buys and sells the loans, reporting both the loans and the bonds at fair value through profit or loss eliminates the inconsistency in the timing of the recognition of the gains and losses that would otherwise result from measuring them both at amortised cost and recognising a gain or loss each time a bond is repurchased.

In cases such as those described in the preceding paragraph, to designate, at initial recognition, the financial assets and financial liabilities not otherwise so measured as at fair value through profit or loss may eliminate or significantly reduce the measurement or recognition inconsistency and produce more relevant information. For practical purposes, the entity need not enter into all of the assets and liabilities giving rise to the measurement or recognition inconsistency at exactly the same time. A reasonable delay is permitted provided that each transaction is designated as at fair value through profit or loss at its initial recognition and, at that time, any remaining transactions are expected to occur.

It would not be acceptable to designate only some of the financial assets and financial liabilities giving rise to the inconsistency as at fair value through profit or loss if to do so would not eliminate or significantly reduce the inconsistency and would therefore not result in more relevant information. However, it would be acceptable to designate only some of a number of similar financial assets or similar financial liabilities if doing so achieves a significant reduction (and possibly a greater reduction than other allowable designations) in the inconsistency. For example, assume an entity has a number of similar financial liabilities that sum to CU100 and a number of similar financial assets that sum to CU50 but are measured on a different basis. The entity may significantly reduce the measurement inconsistency by designating at initial recognition all of the assets but only some of the liabilities (for example, individual liabilities with a combined total of CU45) as at fair value through profit or loss. However, because designation as at fair value through profit or loss can be applied only to the whole of a financial instrument, the entity in this example must designate one or more liabilities in their entirety. It could not designate either a component of a liability (eg changes in value attributable to only one risk, such as changes in a benchmark interest rate) or a proportion (ie percentage) of a liability.

An entity may manage and evaluate the performance of a group of financial liabilities or financial assets and financial liabilities in such a way that measuring that group at fair value through profit or loss results in more relevant information. The focus in this instance is on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance, instead of on the nature of its financial instruments.

For example, an entity may use this condition to designate financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss if it meets the principle in paragraph 4.2.2(b) and the entity has financial assets and financial liabilities that share one or more risks and those risks are managed and evaluated on a fair value basis in accordance with a documented policy of asset and liability management. An example could be an entity that has issued ‘structured products’ containing multiple embedded derivatives and manages the resulting risks on a fair value basis using a mix of derivative and non-derivative financial instruments.

As noted above, this condition relies on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance of the group of financial instruments under consideration. Accordingly, (subject to the requirement of designation at initial recognition) an entity that designates financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss on the basis of this condition shall so designate all eligible financial liabilities that are managed and evaluated together.

Documentation of the entity’s strategy need not be extensive but should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 4.2.2(b). Such documentation is not required for each individual item, but may be on a portfolio basis. For example, if the performance management system for a department – as approved by the entity’s key management personnel – clearly demonstrates that its performance is evaluated on this basis, no further documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 4.2.2(b).

When an entity becomes a party to a hybrid contract with a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard, paragraph 4.3.3 requires the entity to identify any embedded derivative, assess whether it is required to be separated from the host contract and, for those that are required to be separated, measure the derivatives at fair value at initial recognition and subsequently at fair value through profit or loss.

If a host contract has no stated or predetermined maturity and represents a residual interest in the net assets of an entity, then its economic characteristics and risks are those of an equity instrument, and an embedded derivative would need to possess equity characteristics related to the same entity to be regarded as closely related. If the host contract is not an equity instrument and meets the definition of a financial instrument, then its economic characteristics and risks are those of a debt instrument.

An embedded non-option derivative (such as an embedded forward or swap) is separated from its host contract on the basis of its stated or implied substantive terms, so as to result in it having a fair value of zero at initial recognition. An embedded option-based derivative (such as an embedded put, call, cap, floor or swaption) is separated from its host contract on the basis of the stated terms of the option feature. The initial carrying amount of the host instrument is the residual amount after separating the embedded derivative.

Generally, multiple embedded derivatives in a single hybrid contract are treated as a single compound embedded derivative. However, embedded derivatives that are classified as equity (see AASB 132 Financial Instruments: Presentation) are accounted for separately from those classified as assets or liabilities. In addition, if a hybrid contract has more than one embedded derivative and those derivatives relate to different risk exposures and are readily separable and independent of each other, they are accounted for separately from each other.

The economic characteristics and risks of an embedded derivative are not closely related to the host contract (paragraph 4.3.3(a)) in the following examples. In these examples, assuming the conditions in paragraph 4.3.3(b) and (c) are met, an entity accounts for the embedded derivative separately from the host contract.

(a) A put option embedded in an instrument that enables the holder to require the issuer to reacquire the instrument for an amount of cash or other assets that varies on the basis of the change in an equity or commodity price or index is not closely related to a host debt instrument.

(b) An option or automatic provision to extend the remaining term to maturity of a debt instrument is not closely related to the host debt instrument unless there is a concurrent adjustment to the approximate current market rate of interest at the time of the extension. If an entity issues a debt instrument and the holder of that debt instrument writes a call option on the debt instrument to a third party, the issuer regards the call option as extending the term to maturity of the debt instrument provided the issuer can be required to participate in or facilitate the remarketing of the debt instrument as a result of the call option being exercised.

(c) Equity-indexed interest or principal payments embedded in a host debt instrument or insurance contract – by which the amount of interest or principal is indexed to the value of equity instruments – are not closely related to the host instrument because the risks inherent in the host and the embedded derivative are dissimilar.

(d) Commodity-indexed interest or principal payments embedded in a host debt instrument or insurance contract – by which the amount of interest or principal is indexed to the price of a commodity (such as gold) – are not closely related to the host instrument because the risks inherent in the host and the embedded derivative are dissimilar.

(e) A call, put, or prepayment option embedded in a host debt contract or host insurance contract is not closely related to the host contract unless:

(i) the option’s exercise price is approximately equal on each exercise date to the amortised cost of the host debt instrument or the carrying amount of the host insurance contract; or

(ii) the exercise price of a prepayment option reimburses the lender for an amount up to the approximate present value of lost interest for the remaining term of the host contract. Lost interest is the product of the principal amount prepaid multiplied by the interest rate differential. The interest rate differential is the excess of the effective interest rate of the host contract over the effective interest rate the entity would receive at the prepayment date if it reinvested the principal amount prepaid in a similar contract for the remaining term of the host contract.

The assessment of whether the call or put option is closely related to the host debt contract is made before separating the equity element of a convertible debt instrument in accordance with AASB 132.

(f) Credit derivatives that are embedded in a host debt instrument and allow one party (the ‘beneficiary’) to transfer the credit risk of a particular reference asset, which it may not own, to another party (the ‘guarantor’) are not closely related to the host debt instrument. Such credit derivatives allow the guarantor to assume the credit risk associated with the reference asset without directly owning it.

An example of a hybrid contract is a financial instrument that gives the holder a right to put the financial instrument back to the issuer in exchange for an amount of cash or other financial assets that varies on the basis of the change in an equity or commodity index that may increase or decrease (a ‘puttable instrument’). Unless the issuer on initial recognition designates the puttable instrument as a financial liability at fair value through profit or loss, it is required to separate an embedded derivative (ie the indexed principal payment) under paragraph 4.3.3 because the host contract is a debt instrument under paragraph B4.3.2 and the indexed principal payment is not closely related to a host debt instrument under paragraph B4.3.5(a). Because the principal payment can increase and decrease, the embedded derivative is a non-option derivative whose value is indexed to the underlying variable.

In the case of a puttable instrument that can be put back at any time for cash equal to a proportionate share of the net asset value of an entity (such as units of an open-ended mutual fund or some unit-linked investment products), the effect of separating an embedded derivative and accounting for each component is to measure the hybrid contract at the redemption amount that is payable at the end of the reporting period if the holder exercised its right to put the instrument back to the issuer.

The economic characteristics and risks of an embedded derivative are closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract in the following examples. In these examples, an entity does not account for the embedded derivative separately from the host contract.

(a) An embedded derivative in which the underlying is an interest rate or interest rate index that can change the amount of interest that would otherwise be paid or received on an interest-bearing host debt contract or insurance contract is closely related to the host contract unless the hybrid contract can be settled in such a way that the holder would not recover substantially all of its recognised investment or the embedded derivative could at least double the holder’s initial rate of return on the host contract and could result in a rate of return that is at least twice what the market return would be for a contract with the same terms as the host contract.

(b) An embedded floor or cap on the interest rate on a debt contract or insurance contract is closely related to the host contract, provided the cap is at or above the market rate of interest and the floor is at or below the market rate of interest when the contract is issued, and the cap or floor is not leveraged in relation to the host contract. Similarly, provisions included in a contract to purchase or sell an asset (eg a commodity) that establish a cap and a floor on the price to be paid or received for the asset are closely related to the host contract if both the cap and floor were out of the money at inception and are not leveraged.

(c) An embedded foreign currency derivative that provides a stream of principal or interest payments that are denominated in a foreign currency and is embedded in a host debt instrument (for example, a dual currency bond) is closely related to the host debt instrument. Such a derivative is not separated from the host instrument because AASB 121 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates requires foreign currency gains and losses on monetary items to be recognised in profit or loss.

(d) An embedded foreign currency derivative in a host contract that is an insurance contract or not a financial instrument (such as a contract for the purchase or sale of a non-financial item where the price is denominated in a foreign currency) is closely related to the host contract provided it is not leveraged, does not contain an option feature, and requires payments denominated in one of the following currencies:

(i) the functional currency of any substantial party to that contract;

(ii) the currency in which the price of the related good or service that is acquired or delivered is routinely denominated in commercial transactions around the world (such as the US dollar for crude oil transactions); or

(iii) a currency that is commonly used in contracts to purchase or sell non-financial items in the economic environment in which the transaction takes place (eg a relatively stable and liquid currency that is commonly used in local business transactions or external trade).

(e) An embedded prepayment option in an interest-only or principal-only strip is closely related to the host contract provided the host contract (i) initially resulted from separating the right to receive contractual cash flows of a financial instrument that, in and of itself, did not contain an embedded derivative, and (ii) does not contain any terms not present in the original host debt contract.

(f) An embedded derivative in a host lease contract is closely related to the host contract if the embedded derivative is (i) an inflation-related index such as an index of lease payments to a consumer price index (provided that the lease is not leveraged and the index relates to inflation in the entity’s own economic environment), (ii) variable lease payments based on related sales or (iii) variable lease payments based on variable interest rates.

(g) A unit-linking feature embedded in a host financial instrument or host insurance contract is closely related to the host instrument or host contract if the unit-denominated payments are measured at current unit values that reflect the fair values of the assets of the fund. A unit-linking feature is a contractual term that requires payments denominated in units of an internal or external investment fund.

(h) A derivative embedded in an insurance contract is closely related to the host insurance contract if the embedded derivative and host insurance contract are so interdependent that an entity cannot measure the embedded derivative separately (ie without considering the host contract).

As noted in paragraph B4.3.1, when an entity becomes a party to a hybrid contract with a host that is not an asset within the scope of this Standard and with one or more embedded derivatives, paragraph 4.3.3 requires the entity to identify any such embedded derivative, assess whether it is required to be separated from the host contract and, for those that are required to be separated, measure the derivatives at fair value at initial recognition and subsequently. These requirements can be more complex, or result in less reliable measures, than measuring the entire instrument at fair value through profit or loss. For that reason this Standard permits the entire hybrid contract to be designated as at fair value through profit or loss.

Such designation may be used whether paragraph 4.3.3 requires the embedded derivatives to be separated from the host contract or prohibits such separation. However, paragraph 4.3.5 would not justify designating the hybrid contract as at fair value through profit or loss in the cases set out in paragraph 4.3.5(a) and (b) because doing so would not reduce complexity or increase reliability.

In accordance with paragraph 4.3.3, an entity shall assess whether an embedded derivative is required to be separated from the host contract and accounted for as a derivative when the entity first becomes a party to the contract. Subsequent reassessment is prohibited unless there is a change in the terms of the contract that significantly modifies the cash flows that otherwise would be required under the contract, in which case reassessment is required. An entity determines whether a modification to cash flows is significant by considering the extent to which the expected future cash flows associated with the embedded derivative, the host contract or both have changed and whether the change is significant relative to the previously expected cash flows on the contract.

Paragraph B4.3.11 does not apply to embedded derivatives in contracts acquired in:

(a) a business combination (as defined in AASB 3 Business Combinations);

(b) a combination of entities or businesses under common control as described in paragraphs B1–B4 of AASB 3; or

(c) the formation of a joint venture as defined in AASB 11 Joint Arrangements

or their possible reassessment at the date of acquisition.^[5]

Paragraph 4.4.1 requires an entity to reclassify financial assets if the entity changes its business model for managing those financial assets. Such changes are expected to be very infrequent. Such changes are determined by the entity’s senior management as a result of external or internal changes and must be significant to the entity’s operations and demonstrable to external parties. Accordingly, a change in an entity’s business model will occur only when an entity either begins or ceases to perform an activity that is significant to its operations; for example, when the entity has acquired, disposed of or terminated a business line. Examples of a change in business model include the following:

(a) An entity has a portfolio of commercial loans that it holds to sell in the short term. The entity acquires a company that manages commercial loans and has a business model that holds the loans in order to collect the contractual cash flows. The portfolio of commercial loans is no longer for sale, and the portfolio is now managed together with the acquired commercial loans and all are held to collect the contractual cash flows.

(b) A financial services firm decides to shut down its retail mortgage business. That business no longer accepts new business and the financial services firm is actively marketing its mortgage loan portfolio for sale.

A change in the objective of the entity’s business model must be effected before the reclassification date. For example, if a financial services firm decides on 15 February to shut down its retail mortgage business and hence must reclassify all affected financial assets on 1 April (ie the first day of the entity’s next reporting period), the entity must not accept new retail mortgage business or otherwise engage in activities consistent with its former business model after 15 February.

The following are not changes in business model:

(a) a change in intention related to particular financial assets (even in circumstances of significant changes in market conditions).

(b) the temporary disappearance of a particular market for financial assets.

(c) a transfer of financial assets between parts of the entity with different business models.

The fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also paragraph B5.1.2A and AASB 13). However, if part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial instrument, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial instrument. For example, the fair value of a long-term loan or receivable that carries no interest can be measured as the present value of all future cash receipts discounted using the prevailing market rate(s) of interest for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate and other factors) with a similar credit rating. Any additional amount lent is an expense or a reduction of income unless it qualifies for recognition as some other type of asset.

If an entity originates a loan that bears an off-market interest rate (eg 5 per cent when the market rate for similar loans is 8 per cent), and receives an upfront fee as compensation, the entity recognises the loan at its fair value, ie net of the fee it receives.

The best evidence of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also AASB 13). If an entity determines that the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price as mentioned in paragraph 5.1.1A, the entity shall account for that instrument at that date as follows:

(a) at the measurement required by paragraph 5.1.1 if that fair value is evidenced by a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability (ie a Level 1 input) or based on a valuation technique that uses only data from observable markets. An entity shall recognise the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price as a gain or loss.

(b) in all other cases, at the measurement required by paragraph 5.1.1, adjusted to defer the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price. After initial recognition, the entity shall recognise that deferred difference as a gain or loss only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset or liability.

If a financial instrument that was previously recognised as a financial asset is measured at fair value through profit or loss and its fair value decreases below zero, it is a financial liability measured in accordance with paragraph 4.2.1. However, hybrid contracts with hosts that are assets within the scope of this Standard are always measured in accordance with paragraph 4.3.2.

The following example illustrates the accounting for transaction costs on the initial and subsequent measurement of a financial asset measured at fair value with changes through other comprehensive income in accordance with either paragraph 5.7.5 or 4.1.2A. An entity acquires a financial asset for CU100 plus a purchase commission of CU2. Initially, the entity recognises the asset at CU102. The reporting period ends one day later, when the quoted market price of the asset is CU100. If the asset were sold, a commission of CU3 would be paid. On that date, the entity measures the asset at CU100 (without regard to the possible commission on sale) and recognises a loss of CU2 in other comprehensive income. If the financial asset is measured at fair value through other comprehensive income in accordance with paragraph 4.1.2A, the transaction costs are amortised to profit or loss using the effective interest method.

The subsequent measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and the subsequent recognition of gains and losses described in paragraph B5.1.2A shall be consistent with the requirements of this Standard.

All investments in equity instruments and contracts on those instruments must be measured at fair value. However, in limited circumstances, cost may be an appropriate estimate of fair value. That may be the case if insufficient more recent information is available to measure fair value, or if there is a wide range of possible fair value measurements and cost represents the best estimate of fair value within that range.

Indicators that cost might not be representative of fair value include:

(a) a significant change in the performance of the investee compared with budgets, plans or milestones.

(b) changes in expectation that the investee’s technical product milestones will be achieved.

(c) a significant change in the market for the investee’s equity or its products or potential products.

(d) a significant change in the global economy or the economic environment in which the investee operates.

(e) a significant change in the performance of comparable entities, or in the valuations implied by the overall market.

(f) internal matters of the investee such as fraud, commercial disputes, litigation, changes in management or strategy.

(g) evidence from external transactions in the investee’s equity, either by the investee (such as a fresh issue of equity), or by transfers of equity instruments between third parties.

The list in paragraph B5.2.4 is not exhaustive. An entity shall use all information about the performance and operations of the investee that becomes available after the date of initial recognition. To the extent that any such relevant factors exist, they may indicate that cost might not be representative of fair value. In such cases, the entity must measure fair value.

Cost is never the best estimate of fair value for investments in quoted equity instruments (or contracts on quoted equity instruments).

In applying the effective interest method, an entity identifies fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument. The description of fees for financial services may not be indicative of the nature and substance of the services provided. Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument are treated as an adjustment to the effective interest rate, unless the financial instrument is measured at fair value, with the change in fair value being recognised in profit or loss. In those cases, the fees are recognised as revenue or expense when the instrument is initially recognised.

Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument include:

(a) origination fees received by the entity relating to the creation or acquisition of a financial asset. Such fees may include compensation for activities such as evaluating the borrower’s financial condition, evaluating and recording guarantees, collateral and other security arrangements, negotiating the terms of the instrument, preparing and processing documents and closing the transaction. These fees are an integral part of generating an involvement with the resulting financial instrument.

(b) commitment fees received by the entity to originate a loan when the loan commitment is not measured in accordance with paragraph 4.2.1(a) and it is probable that the entity will enter into a specific lending arrangement. These fees are regarded as compensation for an ongoing involvement with the acquisition of a financial instrument. If the commitment expires without the entity making the loan, the fee is recognised as revenue on expiry.

(c) origination fees paid on issuing financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. These fees are an integral part of generating an involvement with a financial liability. An entity distinguishes fees and costs that are an integral part of the effective interest rate for the financial liability from origination fees and transaction costs relating to the right to provide services, such as investment management services.

Fees that are not an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument and are accounted for in accordance with AASB 15 include:

(a) fees charged for servicing a loan;

(b) commitment fees to originate a loan when the loan commitment is not measured in accordance with paragraph 4.2.1(a) and it is unlikely that a specific lending arrangement will be entered into; and

(c) loan syndication fees received by an entity that arranges a loan and retains no part of the loan package for itself (or retains a part at the same effective interest rate for comparable risk as other participants).

When applying the effective interest method, an entity generally amortises any fees, points paid or received, transaction costs and other premiums or discounts that are included in the calculation of the effective interest rate over the expected life of the financial instrument. However, a shorter period is used if this is the period to which the fees, points paid or received, transaction costs, premiums or discounts relate. This will be the case when the variable to which the fees, points paid or received, transaction costs, premiums or discounts relate is repriced to market rates before the expected maturity of the financial instrument. In such a case, the appropriate amortisation period is the period to the next such repricing date. For example, if a premium or discount on a floating-rate financial instrument reflects the interest that has accrued on that financial instrument since the interest was last paid, or changes in the market rates since the floating interest rate was reset to the market rates, it will be amortised to the next date when the floating interest is reset to market rates. This is because the premium or discount relates to the period to the next interest reset date because, at that date, the variable to which the premium or discount relates (ie interest rates) is reset to the market rates. If, however, the premium or discount results from a change in the credit spread over the floating rate specified in the financial instrument, or other variables that are not reset to the market rates, it is amortised over the expected life of the financial instrument.

For floating-rate financial assets and floating-rate financial liabilities, periodic re-estimation of cash flows to reflect the movements in the market rates of interest alters the effective interest rate. If a floating-rate financial asset or a floating-rate financial liability is recognised initially at an amount equal to the principal receivable or payable on maturity, re-estimating the future interest payments normally has no significant effect on the carrying amount of the asset or the liability.

If an entity revises its estimates of payments or receipts (excluding modifications in accordance with paragraph 5.4.3 and changes in estimates of expected credit losses), it shall adjust the gross carrying amount of the financial asset or amortised cost of a financial liability (or group of financial instruments) to reflect actual and revised estimated contractual cash flows. The entity recalculates the gross carrying amount of the financial asset or amortised cost of the financial liability as the present value of the estimated future contractual cash flows that are discounted at the financial instrument’s original effective interest rate (or credit-adjusted effective interest rate for purchased or originated credit-impaired financial assets) or, when applicable, the revised effective interest rate calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.5.10. The adjustment is recognised in profit or loss as income or expense.

In some cases a financial asset is considered credit-impaired at initial recognition because the credit risk is very high, and in the case of a purchase it is acquired at a deep discount. An entity is required to include the initial expected credit losses in the estimated cash flows when calculating the credit-adjusted effective interest rate for financial assets that are considered to be purchased or originated credit-impaired at initial recognition. However, this does not mean that a credit-adjusted effective interest rate should be applied solely because the financial asset has high credit risk at initial recognition.

Transaction costs include fees and commission paid to agents (including employees acting as selling agents), advisers, brokers and dealers, levies by regulatory agencies and security exchanges, and transfer taxes and duties. Transaction costs do not include debt premiums or discounts, financing costs or internal administrative or holding costs.

Write-offs can relate to a financial asset in its entirety or to a portion of it. For example, an entity plans to enforce the collateral on a financial asset and expects to recover no more than 30 per cent of the financial asset from the collateral. If the entity has no reasonable prospects of recovering any further cash flows from the financial asset, it should write off the remaining 70 per cent of the financial asset.

In order to meet the objective of recognising lifetime expected credit losses for significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition, it may be necessary to perform the assessment of significant increases in credit risk on a collective basis by considering information that is indicative of significant increases in credit risk on, for example, a group or sub-group of financial instruments. This is to ensure that an entity meets the objective of recognising lifetime expected credit losses when there are significant increases in credit risk, even if evidence of such significant increases in credit risk at the individual instrument level is not yet available.

Lifetime expected credit losses are generally expected to be recognised before a financial instrument becomes past due. Typically, credit risk increases significantly before a financial instrument becomes past due or other lagging borrower-specific factors (for example, a modification or restructuring) are observed. Consequently when reasonable and supportable information that is more forward-looking than past due information is available without undue cost or effort, it must be used to assess changes in credit risk.

However, depending on the nature of the financial instruments and the credit risk information available for particular groups of financial instruments, an entity may not be able to identify significant changes in credit risk for individual financial instruments before the financial instrument becomes past due. This may be the case for financial instruments such as retail loans for which there is little or no updated credit risk information that is routinely obtained and monitored on an individual instrument until a customer breaches the contractual terms. If changes in the credit risk for individual financial instruments are not captured before they become past due, a loss allowance based only on credit information at an individual financial instrument level would not faithfully represent the changes in credit risk since initial recognition.

In some circumstances an entity does not have reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort to measure lifetime expected credit losses on an individual instrument basis. In that case, lifetime expected credit losses shall be recognised on a collective basis that considers comprehensive credit risk information. This comprehensive credit risk information must incorporate not only past due information but also all relevant credit information, including forward-looking macroeconomic information, in order to approximate the result of recognising lifetime expected credit losses when there has been a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition on an individual instrument level.

For the purpose of determining significant increases in credit risk and recognising a loss allowance on a collective basis, an entity can group financial instruments on the basis of shared credit risk characteristics with the objective of facilitating an analysis that is designed to enable significant increases in credit risk to be identified on a timely basis. The entity should not obscure this information by grouping financial instruments with different risk characteristics. Examples of shared credit risk characteristics may include, but are not limited to, the:

(a) instrument type;

(b) credit risk ratings;

(c) collateral type;

(d) date of initial recognition;

(e) remaining term to maturity;

(f) industry;

(g) geographical location of the borrower; and

(h) the value of collateral relative to the financial asset if it has an impact on the probability of a default occurring (for example, non-recourse loans in some jurisdictions or loan-to-value ratios).

Paragraph 5.5.4 requires that lifetime expected credit losses are recognised on all financial instruments for which there has been significant increases in credit risk since initial recognition. In order to meet this objective, if an entity is not able to group financial instruments for which the credit risk is considered to have increased significantly since initial recognition based on shared credit risk characteristics, the entity should recognise lifetime expected credit losses on a portion of the financial assets for which credit risk is deemed to have increased significantly. The aggregation of financial instruments to assess whether there are changes in credit risk on a collective basis may change over time as new information becomes available on groups of, or individual, financial instruments.

The assessment of whether lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised is based on significant increases in the likelihood or risk of a default occurring since initial recognition (irrespective of whether a financial instrument has been repriced to reflect an increase in credit risk) instead of on evidence of a financial asset being credit-impaired at the reporting date or an actual default occurring. Generally, there will be a significant increase in credit risk before a financial asset becomes credit-impaired or an actual default occurs.

For loan commitments, an entity considers changes in the risk of a default occurring on the loan to which a loan commitment relates. For financial guarantee contracts, an entity considers the changes in the risk that the specified debtor will default on the contract.

The significance of a change in the credit risk since initial recognition depends on the risk of a default occurring as at initial recognition. Thus, a given change, in absolute terms, in the risk of a default occurring will be more significant for a financial instrument with a lower initial risk of a default occurring compared to a financial instrument with a higher initial risk of a default occurring.

The risk of a default occurring on financial instruments that have comparable credit risk is higher the longer the expected life of the instrument; for example, the risk of a default occurring on an AAA-rated bond with an expected life of 10 years is higher than that on an AAA-rated bond with an expected life of five years.

Because of the relationship between the expected life and the risk of a default occurring, the change in credit risk cannot be assessed simply by comparing the change in the absolute risk of a default occurring over time. For example, if the risk of a default occurring for a financial instrument with an expected life of 10 years at initial recognition is identical to the risk of a default occurring on that financial instrument when its expected life in a subsequent period is only five years, that may indicate an increase in credit risk. This is because the risk of a default occurring over the expected life usually decreases as time passes if the credit risk is unchanged and the financial instrument is closer to maturity. However, for financial instruments that only have significant payment obligations close to the maturity of the financial instrument the risk of a default occurring may not necessarily decrease as time passes. In such a case, an entity should also consider other qualitative factors that would demonstrate whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition.

An entity may apply various approaches when assessing whether the credit risk on a financial instrument has increased significantly since initial recognition or when measuring expected credit losses. An entity may apply different approaches for different financial instruments. An approach that does not include an explicit probability of default as an input per se, such as a credit loss rate approach, can be consistent with the requirements in this Standard, provided that an entity is able to separate the changes in the risk of a default occurring from changes in other drivers of expected credit losses, such as collateral, and considers the following when making the assessment:

(a) the change in the risk of a default occurring since initial recognition;

(b) the expected life of the financial instrument; and

(c) reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort that may affect credit risk.

The methods used to determine whether credit risk has increased significantly on a financial instrument since initial recognition should consider the characteristics of the financial instrument (or group of financial instruments) and the default patterns in the past for comparable financial instruments. Despite the requirement in paragraph 5.5.9, for financial instruments for which default patterns are not concentrated at a specific point during the expected life of the financial instrument, changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months may be a reasonable approximation of the changes in the lifetime risk of a default occurring. In such cases, an entity may use changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months to determine whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition, unless circumstances indicate that a lifetime assessment is necessary.

However, for some financial instruments, or in some circumstances, it may not be appropriate to use changes in the risk of a default occurring over the next 12 months to determine whether lifetime expected credit losses should be recognised. For example, the change in the risk of a default occurring in the next 12 months may not be a suitable basis for determining whether credit risk has increased on a financial instrument with a maturity of more than 12 months when:

(a) the financial instrument only has significant payment obligations beyond the next 12 months;

(b) changes in relevant macroeconomic or other credit-related factors occur that are not adequately reflected in the risk of a default occurring in the next 12 months; or

(c) changes in credit-related factors only have an impact on the credit risk of the financial instrument (or have a more pronounced effect) beyond 12 months.

When determining whether the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses is required, an entity shall consider reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that may affect the credit risk on a financial instrument in accordance with paragraph 5.5.17(c). An entity need not undertake an exhaustive search for information when determining whether credit risk has increased significantly since initial recognition.

Credit risk analysis is a multifactor and holistic analysis; whether a specific factor is relevant, and its weight compared to other factors, will depend on the type of product, characteristics of the financial instruments and the borrower as well as the geographical region. An entity shall consider reasonable and supportable information that is available without undue cost or effort and that is relevant for the particular financial instrument being assessed. However, some factors or indicators may not be identifiable on an individual financial instrument level. In such a case, the factors or indicators should be assessed for appropriate portfolios, groups of portfolios or portions of a portfolio of financial instruments to determine whether the requirement in paragraph 5.5.3 for the recognition of lifetime expected credit losses has been met.

The following non-exhaustive list of information may be relevant in assessing changes in credit risk:

(a) significant changes in internal price indicators of credit risk as a result of a change in credit risk since inception, including, but not limited to, the credit spread that would result if a particular financial instrument or similar financial instrument with the same terms and the same counterparty were newly originated or issued at the reporting date.

(b) other changes in the rates or terms of an existing financial instrument that would be significantly different if the instrument was newly originated or issued at the reporting date (such as more stringent covenants, increased amounts of collateral or guarantees, or higher income coverage) because of changes in the credit risk of the financial instrument since initial recognition.

(c) significant changes in external market indicators of credit risk for a particular financial instrument or similar financial instruments with the same expected life. Changes in market indicators of credit risk include, but are not limited to:

(i) the credit spread;

(ii) the credit default swap prices for the borrower;

(iii) the length of time or the extent to which the fair value of a financial asset has been less than its amortised cost; and

(iv) other market information related to the borrower, such as changes in the price of a borrower’s debt and equity instruments.

(d) an actual or expected significant change in the financial instrument’s external credit rating.