ISDA Chief Executive Officer Scott O'Malia offers informal comments on important OTC derivatives issues in derivatiViews, reflecting ISDA's long-held commitment to making the market safer and more efficient.
Are European banks more active in the OTC derivatives markets than US banks? A look at their balance sheets might lead you to think so. For example, reporting under IFRS, Deutsche Bank’s total assets amounted to $2.1 trillion, of which 40% (or $863 billion) were derivatives. Bank of America, by contrast, has $2.2 trillion in assets, of which derivatives constitute just 4%.
How can this be?
The difference, of course, lies in the accounting treatment of derivatives. US GAAP accounting standard setters have consistently agreed that derivatives be reported on a “net” basis instead of on a “gross” basis on the face of the balance sheet. Historically, the Europe-based International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has permitted significantly less balance sheet offsetting than the US-based Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (Note: the table below shows the actual derivatives outstanding of some US and European banks as of year-end 2009.)
ISDA believes that net presentation, in accordance with US GAAP, provides the most faithful representation of an entity’s financial position, solvency, and exposure to credit and liquidity risk. Individual derivative transactions that are subject to enforceable master netting agreements should be eligible for netting in the balance sheet on the basis that such financial statement presentation is most faithfully representative of an entity’s resources and claims and provides the most useful information for investment decisions.
The fact is, netting is recognized for legal, regulatory and regulatory capital purposes. The treatment of netting under US GAAP ensures the accounting practices regarding netting are appropriately aligned with this state of affairs. The IFRS approach, in our view, creates distortions and misperceptions in the treatment of derivatives.
This matters, particularly in today’s environment, where OTC derivatives are castigated for reasons both fair and foul. The gross presentation, for example, fuels critics who believe that too much financial activity serves no useful purpose or that it diverts resources from more productive activities.
To help clear the air, ISDA recently published a paper, Netting and Offsetting: Reporting Derivatives Under US GAAP and Under IFRS. It really helps to explain an issue that’s important but all too often misunderstood.
Latest
Steps to a Vibrant Derivatives Market: SOM Remarks
Steps to a Vibrant and Resilient Derivatives Market December 4, 2025 Remarks at the Mediterranean Partnership of Securities Regulators Scott O’Malia ISDA Chief Executive Officer Good afternoon and thank you to the Mediterranean Partnership of Securities Regulators (MPSR) for...
ISDA Response to BoE on Gilt Market Resilience
On November 28, ISDA responded to the Bank of England’s discussion paper on gilt market resilience. ISDA encourages the Bank of England, before introducing any significant policy changes that would affect the functioning of the gilt repo market, to consider...
Addressing Termination Troubles
When Enron announced a shock $618 million loss on October 16, 2001, it took a further 47 days until it filed for bankruptcy. For Bear Stearns, it took 266 days between its bailout of a structured credit fund run by...
ISDA In Review – November 2025
A compendium of links to new documents, research papers, press releases and comment letters published by ISDA in November 2025.

