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
ISDA Briefing on EMIR Compromise Amendments under MISP
On November 2, ISDA published its recommendations on the European Parliament (EP) compromise amendments to EMIR under the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP). The briefing covers five areas: transaction reporting (Article 9), non-financial counterparties (Article 10), initial margin model...
Response on UK MIFIR Reporting Guidelines
On November 6, ISDA responded to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) consultation CP26/34 ‘Preparing for the new transaction reporting regime’ on the upcoming changes to the UK Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MIFIR) transaction reporting regime, as set out in...
Response on Transaction Reporting and Transparency
On October 30, ISDA submitted comments on the European Parliament’s (EP) proposed transaction reporting and transparency-related amendments to the European Commission’s Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP). On transaction reporting, ISDA commends the EP’s ambition but cautions against trying to...
Joint Paper on EC Tax Omnibus
On November 5, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) and the International Securities Lending Association (ISLA) submitted a paper to support the proposed European Commission (EC) Tax Omnibus as a route to simpler, more certain cross-border taxation....

