更全面的观点:用信息来评估银行的衍生产品信用风险披露

来源: 高顿网校 2014-11-03
  An invaluable source of information on bank-sectorwide derivatives risk exposures is the OCC Quarterly Report on Bank Derivatives Activities based on regulatory call reports. However, this report is focused on the US banking sector and there is no similar report covering non US-domiciled banks.
  On top of reading industrywide reports, investors need to be able to monitor entity-specific exposures communicated through bank financial reports. That said, as reported in a 2013 CFA Institute publication, it can be challenging to readily discern the firm-specific aggregate derivatives exposures because of the often incomparable, incomplete, and fragmented disclosures within financial reports. In this piece, we place the spotlight on reported derivatives credit risk measures.
  Offsetting Presentation and Disclosure, Differences across US GAAP and IFRS
  Alongside collateral requirements, netting agreements between contracting counterparties are part of derivatives credit-risk mitigation measures. Concurrently, both US GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) accounting requirements allow the offsetting (or netting) of derivatives assets and liabilities when these are presented on the balance sheet to better portray derivatives counterparty credit risk. A recent CFA Institute International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) joint video highlighted the updated and enhanced disclosure requirements related to the offsetting of derivatives assets and liabilities during their presentation on the balance sheet. (The requirements went into effect 1 January 2013.)
  IFRS has more restrictive offsetting requirements than US GAAP. IFRS requires offsetting only when there is legal right and intention to settle simultaneously between the counterparties. US GAAP goes farther and allows the offsetting of all multilateral netting arrangements and cash collateral. As a result of differing offsetting requirements, reported derivatives assets under IFRS-reporting banks are of a higher magnitude than those under US GAAP, as illustrated below. For example, the gross derivatives assets of JPMorgan and other US banks are higher than those of EU banks, but the assets presented on balance sheet portray EU banks as having higher amounts of derivatives assets. Consequently, the balance sheet total assets reported under US GAAP and IFRS are not comparable.
  That said, the updated IFRS and US GAAP offsetting disclosures make it possible for investors to make analytical adjustments to reported balance sheets so as to make them comparable. For example, as illustrated in the above table, the US GAAP equivalent of derivatives is reflected for EU banks based on information reported within the updated offsetting disclosures. Adjustments to derivatives assets and other offset financial assets to make them comparable will result in comparable total assets. In turn, this yields comparable accounting leverage (assets/equity) and other asset-based metrics such as return on assets across IFRS reporting and US banks.
  More to Credit Risk Exposure than Offset Amounts
  Even after being netted, the reported balance sheet derivatives assets (receivables) do not necessarily represent their maximum possible loss. Unlike the credit risk of loans and debt securities, which is unilateral (lending bank faces a one-way credit exposure from the borrower), credit-risk exposures of derivatives contracts (e.g., swaps) are usually bilateral. This means that each party to the contract may have a credit exposure to the other party at various points in time over the contract’s life (derivatives that are in the money today can be out of the money at a future date). Furthermore, because the credit exposure is a function of movements in market factors, there can be a potential future exposure not reflected in currently reported fair value. As an excerpt from the analysis in the 2014 OCC quarterly report, the table below shows the credit-risk exposure is a combination of the bilateral netted exposure and the potential future exposure (PFE). PFE is usually part of the risk-reporting section (e.g., Basel Pillar 3 information). To enhance financial analysis, there remains an opportunity to integrate financial statement disclosures (e.g., offsetting) and the related relevant risk reporting information (e.g., PFE).
  Another derivatives credit risk-related measure is the credit value adjustment (CVA). CVA is the adjustment made to the fair value amount of derivatives receivables due to the deterioration in credit quality of counterparties. CVA amounts can be material (e.g., JPMorgan and HSBC; see table below). The CVA is somewhat analogous to allowance for loan losses. That said, CVA is hard to compare across banks due to differences in how it is measured (see Ernst and Young’s recent publication highlighting CVA measurement challenges) and the lack of adequate disclosures on inputs and assumptions made in the CVA calculation.
  In addition, unlike the relatively detailed reporting of loan credit risk, which includes allowance for loan losses alongside a profile of loan charge-offs and recoveries, similar details are scarcely provided for derivatives within general purpose financial statements, and this constrains the holistic assessment of derivatives credit risk. This latter information can help investors to discern how changes in macro-economic environment could impact derivatives-related write-offs (see Graphs 7 and 8 of the OCC June 2014 quarterly report).
  In conclusion, this is a high-level view of some of the key derivatives credit risk measures and state of play of disclosures. The key message is that a multi-faceted view is required to judge derivatives credit-risk exposures, and yet the required information is not usually all in one place. In a future blog post I will examine the measures and disclosures related to the liquidity and market risk of derivatives.

   CFA官方微信  
  扫一扫微信,*9时间获取2014年CFA考试报名时间和考试时间提醒
  
  高顿网校特别提醒:已经报名2014年CFA考试的考生可按照复习计划有效进行!另外,高顿网校2014年CFA考试辅导高清网络课程已经开通,通过针对性地讲解、训练、答疑、模考,对学习过程进行全程跟踪、分析、指导,可以帮助考生全面提升备考效果。
  报考指南:2014年CFA考试备考指南
  免费题库:2014年CFA免费题库
  考前冲刺:CFA考试备考专题
  高清网课:CFA考试网络课程
 
cfa备考 热门问题解答
cfa证书就业岗位有哪些?

cfa考完后可以从事的工作包括公司会计、基金经理助理、投资管理师、股票研究分析师、基金分析师、投资产品分析师、券商助理分析师、交易员等。在全球范围内,cfa会员的雇主包括了摩根大通、汇丰银行等机构。

cfa考试内容有哪些?

cfa考试分为三个等级,cfa一级和二级考试科目包括《职业伦理道德》、《定量分析》、《经济学》、《财务报表分析》、《公司理财》、《投资组合管理》、《权益投资》、《固定收益投资》、《衍生品投资》、《其他类投资》。cfa三级考试科目包括《经济学》、《投资组合管理》、《权益投资》、《职业伦理道德》、《固定收益投资》、《其他类投资》、《衍生工具》。

cfa一年考几次?

cfa每年考试的次数每个级别均有不同,其中CFA一级考试每年设置四次,CFA二级考试每年设置三次,CFA三级考试每年设置两次。需注意,协会规定考生必须要按照CFA考试的三个级别,依次进行报考,且报考两个级别考试的窗口之前需至少间隔6个月。

cfa的含金量如何?

CFA证书全称Chartered Financial Analyst(特许注册金融分析师),是全球投资业里最为严格与高含金量资格认证,为全球投资业在道德操守、专业标准及知识体系等方面设立了规范与标准,具有较高的知名度和影响力。 英国的国际学术认证中心,还将持有CFA证书视为拥有硕士学历水平,能让想进修的金融专业人士,充分学习等同于金融硕士的知识课程。此外,人民日报三年内连续四次推荐CFA证书!因此,无论是从国际知名度还是国内知名度来说,CFA资格认证的含金量和认可度都是非常高的。

在线提问
严选名师 全流程服务

陈一磊

高顿CFA研究院主任

学历背景
复旦金融本硕、CFA&FRM持证人
教学资历
高顿教育CFA/FRM研究院CFA/FRM 学术总监、产品高级总监、首席金牌讲师
客户评价
专业度高,擅长规划,富有亲和力
陈一磊
  • 老师好,考出CFA的难度相当于考进什么大学?
  • 老师好,CFA考试怎样备考(越详细越好)?
  • 老师好,38岁才开始考CFA金融分析师会不会太迟?
  • 老师好,金融分析师通过率是多少?
  • 老师好,有了金融分析师证后好找工作吗?
999+人提问

Luke

高顿CFA明星讲师

学历背景
硕士
教学资历
高顿教育CFA/FRM研究院CAIA研究中心主任兼特级讲师
客户评价
专业,热情洋溢,细心负责
Luke
  • 老师好,CFA如果不去考会怎么样?
  • 老师好,金融分析师难度有多大?
  • 老师好,金融分析师挂出去多少钱一年?
  • 老师好,金融分析师考试科目几年考完?
  • 老师好,CFA工资一般是多少钱?
999+人提问

Gloria

高顿CFA明星讲师

学历背景
硕士
教学资历
高顿教育CFA/FRM研究院教研委员会委员长、FRM教研模块总负责人兼特级讲师,负责CFA和FRM项目课程研发,以及CFA和FRM多门课程授课工作。
客户评价
课程讲授幽默风趣,深入浅出,引人入胜
Gloria
  • 老师好,金融分析师工资待遇如何?
  • 老师好,35岁考金融分析师有意义吗?
  • 老师好,考过金融分析师能干嘛?
  • 老师好,考完金融分析师可以做什么工作?
  • 老师好,CFA注册会计师年薪一般多少?
999+人提问

高顿教育 > CFA > 考试动态