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
Maintaining Focus on Basel III Endgame Recalibration
In its original form, the US Basel III endgame proposal would have resulted in disproportionate increases in capital for trading book activities, forcing banks to make difficult choices about their participation in certain businesses. After two-and-a-half years, a revised proposal...
IRRBB Management in EMDEs
Interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) has become a growing priority for banks and regulators in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs). As many of these countries face monetary tightening cycles and ongoing macroeconomic volatility, bank balance sheets...
Response to CPMI-IOSCO on Consultation
On February 5, ISDA and FIA responded to the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) consultation on the management of general business risks and general business losses by financial market infrastructures (FMIs)....
Trading Book Capital: Scott O'Malia Remarks
Trading Book Capital: Capital Conundrum, Navigating Basel III Endgame February 5, 2026 Welcoming Remarks Scott O’Malia, ISDA Chief Executive Good afternoon, and welcome to ISDA’s Trading Book Capital event – it’s great to be here in New York. We...

