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
Doubling Down on Appropriate Trading Book Capital
Throughout ISDA’s 40th anniversary year, we’ve been reflecting on the quest for greater consistency and efficiency that underpins everything we’ve achieved since 1985. It was at the heart of the original efforts to bring greater standardization to the nascent derivatives...
Determining Initial Reference Index for New Trades
On November 25, 2025, ISDA published a Market Practice Note (MPN) to recommend a specific methodology that market participants could elect to use for the purposes of determining the Initial Reference Index for certain new inflation derivative transactions given that...
ISDA Response to FCA on Fund Tokenization
On November 21, ISDA responded to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) consultation paper CP25/28 on progressing fund tokenization. In the response, ISDA focuses on the use of tokenized assets as both cleared and non-cleared derivatives collateral. Tokenization presents a significant...
ISDA Requests FASB to Consider ASC 815
On November 19, ISDA submitted a request to the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to clarify whether FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 815 does not prohibit using the spot method to assess hedge...

