Year-end Financial Instrument Check List

30 June marks the financial year-end for many Australian and New Zealand public and private companies, as well as Councils. With an ever increasing compliance burden, we have put together a practical check list for those entities that have exposure to financial instruments such as FX forwards, FX options and interest rate swaps. Those familiar with the international accounting standards understand the minefield that they are, with pages upon pages of text. We have boiled them down to five simple, practical and fundamental items.

 

Fair value (IFRS 13 / AASB 13)

IFRS 13 clearly states that valuations need to be an independent “exit price” for the transaction. It is hard to argue that a valuation from one of the counterparties to the transaction (i.e. the bank), constitutes an independent valuation, however, there are still many companies that rely on their bank for this information. Such reliance on the bank is understandable when the auditor accepts this approach, although we are seeing a much bigger push by the audit community to challenge companies on the lack of independence of a bank valuation given the bank is counterparty and valuer of the financial instrument. Historically there have been few economic alternatives to bank valuations, that is no longer a valid argument.

 

CVA/DVA (IFRS 13 / AASB 13)

The most recent compliance requirement for companies using financial instruments is the adjustment to fair value for credit. IFRS 13 requires a Credit Value Adjustment (CVA) or Debit Value Adjustment (DVA) to all financial instruments. Financial institutions have been credit adjusting their own positions for years, however, the requirement has filtered down so that all parties to financial instrument transactions must calculate and apply a credit adjustment. There is a strong argument that it is overkill for companies using financial instruments to hedge their foreign exchange cashflows (payments/receipts) or debt using plain vanilla instruments to have to make CVA/DVA adjustments. There is little added-value to the company, there is a cost to calculate the adjustment and the number is often immaterial (still have to calculate the number to determine its immateriality, however). It is different if you are trading financial instruments or are using credit hungry instruments such as cross-currency interest rate swaps but auditors, as prescribed by the accounting standards, are (or should be) forcing all financial instruments to be adjusted by CVA/DVA. There is a multitude of approaches to calculating CVA/DVA from the complex (potential future exposure method) to the simple (current exposure method). For those using plain vanilla instruments such as FX forwards or interest rate swaps then a simple methodology is appropriate. It is worth noting that the movement in both FX rates and interest rates over the last 12 months means valuations have moved significantly over the last 12 months which results in higher, more material CVA/DVA adjustments.

 

Sensitivity analysis (IFRS 7)

As part of the notes to the accounts under IFRS 7 there is a requirement to include a sensitivity analysis for financial instruments. This is a “what if” scenario that requires the re-calculation of fair value if the underlying market data is flexed. Often a +/-10% movement in the spot rate is used for FX instruments and a +/-100bp parallel shift in the yield curve for interest rate instruments. In theory there should be some sense check applied to the probability of the movement occurring i.e. if interest rates are close to zero then there is a low probability of a -100 basis point adjustment in the curve. We see little evidence of this in practice.

 

Hedge effectiveness testing (IAS 39 / IFRS 9 / AASB 9)

One of the biggest headaches at year-end is for those hedge accounting. Hedge accounting was introduced for practical reasons – remove noisy P&L volatility from unrealised gains/losses on financial instruments and put these adjustments on the balance sheet instead. In the early days of hedge accounting the approach was complicated and expensive. As auditors and accountants understanding of hedge accounting has developed over time, the process of hedge accounting has become much less complex. The most important aspect is the documentation. The effectiveness testing aspect of hedge accounting is fairly straightforward, particularly when utilising a treasury management system. The replacement of IAS 39 by IFRS 9 (effective 1 Jan 2018) will make hedge accounting a little easier with the removal of the 80-125% bright line and removal of the requirement to split option valuations between time and intrinsic value.

 

Time versus intrinsic (IAS 39)

Until IFRS 9 is effective (Jan 2018), companies hedge accounting for FX options (whether outright purchased options or in a collar relationship) must split the value of an option into its time and intrinsic components. The intrinsic value of an FX option is the difference between the prevailing market forward rate for the expiry of the FX option versus the strike price. The time value of an FX option is the difference between the overall FX option valuation and the intrinsic value. By definition, time value is a function of the time left to the expiry of the FX option. The longer the time to expiry, the higher the time value as there is a greater probability of the FX option being exercised. The intrinsic value goes to the balance sheet whilst the time value goes to P&L. Splitting time and intrinsic value is not too easy to do on the back of an envelope/spreadsheet, rather it is something that lends itself to be derived from a system.

 

Summary

Many companies try to complete the necessary compliance through using spreadsheets and bank valuations which is not only poor practice (valuations should be independent) but also error prone and time consuming. There are low cost systems available that can streamline, simplify and improve the ever increasing burden of year-end reporting requirements.

This article should not be taken as accounting advice but rather a practical guide and check list.

Feature client: Ports of Auckland

As Auckland’s population continues its strong growth trajectory, the Ports of Auckland logo Ports of Auckland has had to keep pace in order to provide the goods a growing city requires. There is not only the domestic demand for cars, food, consumables, etc. to satisfy, but also NZ’s export industry and burgeoning cruise ship tourism.

At 30 June 2014 Ports of Auckland had approximately $180 million of debt, a portion of which was hedged using interest rate swaps. The company has irregular FX exposure through imported capital expenditure and is also required to adjust its derivative valuations for credit to comply with IFRS 13 (CVA/DVA).

Ports of Auckland is one of Hedgebook’s oldest clients having been a Hedgebook user for a number of years. Historically, Ports of Auckland relied on excel spreadsheets, bank valuations and treasury advisors to stay on top of its derivative exposures. Hedgebook does not replace the treasury advisor (entirely) but it does replace the spreadsheets and bank valuations.

Ports of Auckland specifically uses Hedgebook for year-end compliance and ongoing debt management.

Digital disruption in the Treasury Management System space

There is a digital revolution going on in the treasury management system space, not that you would necessarily know.  For many there is still a stark choice – over-priced, over-complex and over-engineered treasury systems or good old Excel spreadsheets. But the world is changing and as with all things technology, it is happening at a rapid pace.

Globally, larger organisations are well catered for as far as treasury management systems are concerned, and in fact it is a crowded and mature market. The PwC Global Treasury Survey of 2014 showed that 80% of those companies surveyed were using some type of treasury management system. However, as with big ERP systems, the issue for the providers of large, expensive treasury systems is how to offer a cost-effective alternative to the massive SME market without detrimentally affecting their existing market. The challenge is to offer a slimmed down treasury management system without compromising the huge premium that they currently charge.

So where is the competition for these large, expensive systems coming from? The answer is the cloud app revolution which is sweeping the world. Platforms are being developed that aggregate a whole bunch of cloud apps, both financial and non-financial. The really clever bit is the integration of these different apps and bringing it all together through a variety of widgets and dashboards to give a complete, and often unique, view of a company’s position. It’s like a Fitbit for business.

Not only are these cloud app aggregators bringing leading edge technology to the SME market but they are doing so for small monthly fees. The apps cross the spectrum of business tools such as accounting systems, CRMs, social media tools and now treasury management systems. All of this for a few hundred dollars a month.

In the on-line accounting world, Xero is leading the charge in the digital disruption revolution with its New Zealand developed, $50 per month product. Treasury systems will need to follow suit with a much cheaper solution.

By leveraging cloud technology, treasury systems can be implemented for costs palatable to the underserviced SME market. There is an enormous amount of importers and exporters hedging their foreign cashflows with forward exchange contracts and possibly FX options. These companies probably aren’t hedge accounting, even if they are reporting under IFRS, but the impact of exchange rate movements is vitally important to their bottom line.

SMEs require the ability to record, report and value their transactions but just as importantly they want access to tools to help them make better hedging decisions. This is not too different from larger companies except SMEs are mostly using plain vanilla instruments. For a small monthly fee SMEs can benefit from a treasury management system with basic functionality, which integrates perfectly with other cloud based apps. So as we have seen with cloud based accounting systems, the power that was once reserved for large organisations can be put in the hands of a much larger group for a fraction of the cost.

Whether the current treasury management system providers have a solution for the SME market remains to be seen. It maybe that they do not care for this part of the market, however there are parallels with the large and expensive ERP systems which have successfully moved into the mid-market space and are now looking at the next tier down. The conundrum for treasury management system providers will be that SMEs will desire the core functionality of a larger system but without the price tag. The digital revolution for treasury management systems may only be in its infancy but it is set to have major ramifications regardless of the size of organisation.

First published on Treasury Insider (www.treasuryinsider.com)