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
S&P Global Selected as DC Administrator
ISDA and the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee have announced that S&P Global Market Intelligence has been selected as the administrator for the Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees (DCs). The announcement follows an invitation to tender in November 2025. The DC administrator...
Supporting ISDA SIMM Adoption in Australia
Derivatives have become a critical tool for Australia’s massive superannuation sector, as funds look to manage the risks associated with their expanding offshore investments. The use of derivatives brings real risk management benefits, but it also means funds need to...
ISDA, GDF Respond to the Central Bank of Ireland on DLT and Tokenization
On June 3, ISDA and Global Digital Finance responded to the Central Bank of Ireland’s discussion paper on distributed ledger technology (DLT) and tokenization in financial services. The response focuses on the potential role of DLT and tokenization within wholesale...
Response to Consultation on Dividend Stripping
On May 28, ISDA and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) responded to the Dutch Ministry of Finance’s consultation on additional anti-dividend stripping measures, urging that the proposed rules should target only abusive arrangements and not ordinary, commercially...

