10.2 FASB Activities
This Roadmap discusses the FASB’s standard setting through May X,
2024, including the Board’s proposed ASU on PFAs (issued on June 27, 2023).
10.2.1 Final ASUs
As noted above, the FASB has released various final ASUs to amend and clarify
the guidance in ASC 326. These standards, which were largely issued in response
to TRG discussions, are discussed throughout this Roadmap, as applicable, and
include the following:
-
ASU 2018-19 on Codification improvements to ASC 326 (Section 10.2.1.1).
-
ASU 2019-04 on Codification improvements to ASC 326, ASC 815, and ASC 825 (Section 10.2.1.2).
-
ASU 2019-05 on transition relief related to the fair value option (Section 10.2.1.3).
-
ASU 2019-10 on effective-date considerations for private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and smaller public companies (Section 10.2.1.4).
-
ASU 2019-11 on Codification improvements to ASC 326 (Section 10.2.1.5).
-
ASU 2020-02 on amendments to SEC paragraphs in accordance with SAB 119 (Section 10.2.1.6).
-
ASU 2020-03 on Codification improvements to the guidance on financial instruments (Section 10.2.1.7).
-
ASU 2022-02 on TDRs and vintage disclosures (Section 10.2.1.8).
10.2.1.1 ASU 2018-19 on Codification Improvements to ASC 326
In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19 to address questions
regarding (1) the transition and effective date for non-PBEs and (2) whether
billed operating lease receivables are within the scope of ASC 326.
10.2.1.1.1 Transition and Effective Date for Non-PBEs
The effective dates of ASU 2016-13 for financial
statement preparers are staggered; however, the ASU became effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, for both (1) PBEs that
do not meet the U.S. GAAP definition of an SEC filer and (2) non-PBEs.
Further, for most debt instruments, entities recorded a
cumulative-effect adjustment to the statement of financial position as
of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance
became effective (modified retrospective approach).
Consequently, in submissions to the TRG, stakeholders raised concerns
that for non-PBEs, the effective date and transition requirements
related to ASU 2016-13 would, in essence, eliminate the benefit of
receiving an additional year to implement the guidance, which is
inconsistent with the FASB’s original intent.
As a result, the Board amended the effective date for non-PBEs to fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2021, including interim periods
within those fiscal years.
See Chapter 9 for more information
about effective date and transition.
Changing Lanes
Another Change in
Effective Dates
In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-10 on
effective-date considerations for private companies, not-for
profit organizations, and smaller public companies. For more
information, see Section 10.2.1.4.
10.2.1.1.2 Billed Operating Lease Receivables
In light of a stakeholder’s concerns, the TRG discussed
at its June 2018 meeting “whether billed
operating lease receivables are within the scope of the guidance in
Subtopic 326-20.”1
On the basis of the TRG’s recommendations, the FASB amended ASC 326-20 to
clarify that operating lease receivables are not within its scope.
Accordingly, an entity will assess the collectibility of such
receivables in accordance with ASC 842.
For more information about billed operating lease receivables, see
Section 2.2.
10.2.1.2 ASU 2019-04 on Codification Improvements to ASC 326, ASC 815, and ASC 825
In April 2019, the FASB
issued ASU 2019-04 to make
certain technical corrections and amendments to the guidance on financial
instruments in ASC 326, ASC 815, and ASC 825. The tables below, reproduced
from ASU 2019-04, summarize the amendments that were made to ASC 326.
Area for Improvement
|
Summary of Amendments
|
---|---|
Issue 1A:
Accrued Interest
| |
The guidance in Subtopic 326-20,
Financial Instruments — Credit Losses — Measured at
Amortized Cost, and Subtopic 326-30, Financial
Instruments — Credit Losses — Available-for-Sale
Debt Securities, contains specific guidance on the
measurement, presentation, and disclosure of
financial assets within the scope of those
Subtopics. Because the definition of amortized
cost basis in the Codification includes
accrued interest, the guidance in Subtopics 326-20
and 326-30 also applies to the accrued interest
amounts included as part of the amortized cost of a
related financial asset. Applying the guidance in
Subtopics 326-20 and 326-30 to accrued interest as
part of the amortized cost basis of a related
financial asset potentially imposes unintended costs
to implement Update 2016-13.
The guidance in paragraph
326-20-35-8 (and by reference in paragraph
326-30-35-13) requires that writeoffs of financial
assets within the scope of Subtopics 326-20 and
326-30 be deducted from the allowance for credit
losses when the financial assets are deemed
uncollectible. Because accrued interest is included
in the definition of amortized cost basis, an
entity would be required to write off accrued
interest amounts through the allowance for credit
losses. The application of the writeoff guidance in
paragraph 326-20-35-8 (and by reference in paragraph
326-30-35-13) to accrued interest potentially
imposes unintended costs to implement Update
2016-13.
|
The amendments to Subtopic 326-20
allow an entity to:
Certain amendments in (a) through
(e) above are applicable to Subtopic 326-30.
[See Section 4.4.5.1 of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 1B:
Transfers Between Classifications or Categories
for Loans and Debt Securities
| |
Subtopics 310-10, Receivables —
Overall, and 948-310, Financial Services — Mortgage
Banking — Receivables, provide guidance on how an
entity should account for loans with various
classifications. While a significant portion of that
guidance was superseded by Update 2016-13,
stakeholders questioned how to account for the
allowance for credit losses or valuation allowance
when transferring nonmortgage loans between
classifications (that is, not-held-for-sale and
held-for-sale classifications) and mortgage loans
between classifications (that is,
held-for-long-term-investment and held-for-sale
classifications).
Subtopic 320-10, Investments — Debt
Securities — Overall, provides guidance on how an
entity should account for transfers of debt
securities between categories. Stakeholders
questioned how to account for the allowance for
credit losses when transferring debt securities
between the available-for-sale category and the
held-to-maturity category.
|
The amendments require that an
entity reverse in earnings, any allowance for credit
losses or valuation allowance previously measured on
a loan or debt security, reclassify and transfer the
loan or debt security to the new classification or
category, and apply the applicable measurement
guidance in accordance with the new classification
or category.
[See Section 4.10 of
this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 1C:
Recoveries
| |
The guidance in paragraph
326-20-35-8 states that recoveries of financial
assets and trade receivables previously written off
should be recorded when received. Without proper
clarification, stakeholders noted that this guidance
could be interpreted to prohibit the inclusion of
recoveries in the estimation of expected credit
losses on financial assets measured at amortized
cost basis.
Furthermore, stakeholders questioned
how an entity should account for an amount expected
to be collected greater than the amortized cost
basis.
|
The amendments clarify that an
entity should include recoveries when estimating the
allowance for credit losses.
The amendments clarify that expected
recoveries of amounts previously written off and
expected to be written off should be included in the
valuation account and should not exceed the
aggregate of amounts previously written off and
expected to be written off by the entity. In
addition, for collateral-dependent financial assets,
the amendments clarify that an allowance for credit
losses that is added to the amortized cost basis of
the financial asset(s) should not exceed amounts
previously written off.
[See Section 4.5.2
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 2A:
Conforming Amendment to Subtopic
310-40
| |
Stakeholders noted that the
cross-reference to paragraph 326-20-35-2 in Example
2 in Subtopic 310-40, Receivables — Troubled Debt
Restructurings by Creditors, is incorrect. The
illustration describes an entity that determines
that foreclosure is probable on a
collateral-dependent loan. Therefore, stakeholders
asked whether the cross-reference should instead
link to paragraphs 326-20-35-4 through 35-5, which
require that an entity use the fair value of
collateral to determine expected credit losses when
foreclosure is probable.
|
The amendment clarifies the
illustration by removing the incorrect
cross-reference to paragraph 326-20-35-2 and
replacing it with the correct cross-reference to
paragraphs 326-20-35-4 through 35-5, which require
that an entity use the fair value of collateral to
determine expected credit losses when foreclosure is
probable.
|
Issue 2B:
Conforming Amendment to Subtopic 323-10
| |
Stakeholders noted that the guidance
on equity method losses in paragraphs 323-10-35-24
and 323-10-35-26 was not amended in Update 2016-13.
Specifically, the guidance describes the allocation
of equity method losses when an investor has other
investments, such as loans and debt securities, in
the equity method investee. Stakeholders asked
whether the guidance should refer an entity to Topic
326 for the subsequent measurement of those loans
and debt securities.
|
The amendment clarifies the equity
method losses allocation guidance in paragraphs
323-10-35-24 and 323-10-35-26 by adding
cross-references to Subtopics 326-20 and 326-30 for
the subsequent measurement of loans and
available-for-sale debt securities,
respectively.
|
Issue 2C:
Clarification That Reinsurance Recoverables Are
Within the Scope of Subtopic 326-20
| |
Stakeholders asked whether
reinsurance recoverables measured on a net present
value basis in accordance with Topic 944, Financial
Services — Insurance, are within the scope of
Subtopic 326-20. As written, the scope could be
interpreted to exclude those recoverables because
they are not measured at amortized cost basis.
|
The amendment clarifies the Board’s
intent to include all reinsurance recoverables
within the scope of Topic 944 within the scope of
Subtopic 326-20, regardless of the measurement basis
of those recoverables.
[See Section 2.1 of
this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 2D:
Projections of Interest Rate Environments for
Variable-Rate Financial Instruments
| |
Stakeholders asked whether the
prohibition of using projections of future interest
rate environments in estimating expected future cash
flows and determining the effective interest rate to
discount expected cash flow for variable-rate
financial instruments was consistent with the
Board’s intent. As written, an entity that chooses
to use a discounted cash flow method to determine
expected credit losses on a variable-rate financial
instrument is precluded from forecasting changes in
the variable rate for the purposes of estimating
expected cash flows and determining the effective
interest rate with which to discount those cash
flows.
Stakeholders also asked if an entity
is required to use a prepayment-adjusted effective
interest rate if it uses projections of interest
rate environments for variable-rate financial
instruments in estimating expected cash flows.
|
The amendments clarify the Board’s
intent to provide flexibility in determining the
allowance for credit losses by removing the
prohibition of using projections of future interest
rate environments when using a discounted cash flow
method to measure expected credit losses on
variable-rate financial instruments.
The amendments clarify that an
entity that uses projections or expectations of
future interest rate environments in estimating
expected cash flows should use the same assumptions
in determining the effective interest rate used to
discount those expected cash flows.
The amendments also clarify that if
an entity uses projections of future interest rate
environments when using a discounted cash flow
method to measure expected credit losses on
variable-rate financial instruments, it also should
adjust the effective interest rate to consider the
timing (and changes in the timing) of expected cash
flows resulting from expected prepayments.
[See Section 4.4.4.2
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 2E:
Consideration of Prepayments in Determining the
Effective Interest Rate
| |
Stakeholders asked whether an entity
may adjust the effective interest rate used to
discount expected cash flows in a discounted cash
flow method for the entity’s expectations of
prepayments on financial assets. Stakeholders noted
that expected prepayments are required to be
considered in estimating expected cash flows.
However, they noted that without incorporating those
expected prepayments into determining the effective
interest rate, the discounted cash flow calculation
fails to appropriately isolate credit risk in the
determination of an allowance for credit losses.
|
The amendments permit an entity to
make an accounting policy election to adjust the
effective interest rate used to discount expected
future cash flows for expected prepayments on
financial assets within the scope of Subtopic 326-20
and on available-for-sale debt securities within the
scope of Subtopic 326-30 to appropriately isolate
credit risk in determining the allowance for credit
losses.
The amendments also clarify that an
entity should not adjust the effective interest rate
used to discount expected cash flows for subsequent
changes in expected prepayments if the financial
asset is restructured in a troubled debt
restructuring.
[See Section 4.4.4.1
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 2F:
Consideration of Estimated Costs to Sell When
Foreclosure Is Probable
| |
Stakeholders asked whether an entity
is required to consider estimated costs to sell the
collateral when using the fair value of [the]
collateral to estimate expected credit losses on a
financial asset because foreclosure is probable in
accordance with paragraph 326-20-35-4. Stakeholders
noted that the collateral-dependent financial asset
practical expedient in paragraph 326-20-35-5
requires that an entity consider estimated costs to
sell if repayment or satisfaction of the asset
depends on the sale of the collateral.
Stakeholders also noted that
paragraphs 326-20-35-4 through 35-5 require that an
entity adjust the fair value of collateral for the
estimated costs to sell on a discounted basis if it
intends to sell rather than operate the collateral.
Stakeholders asked why an entity is required to
estimate the costs to sell on a discounted basis if
the fair value of collateral should be based on
amounts as of the reporting date.
|
The amendments clarify the guidance
in paragraph 326-20-35-4 by specifically requiring
that an entity consider the estimated costs to sell
if it intends to sell rather than operate the
collateral when the entity determines that
foreclosure on a financial asset is probable.
Additionally, the amendments clarify
the guidance that when an entity adjusts the fair
value of collateral for the estimated costs to sell,
the estimated costs to sell should be undiscounted
if the entity intends to sell rather than operate
the collateral.
[See Section 4.4.9.2
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 5A:
Vintage Disclosures — Line-of-Credit Arrangements
Converted to Term Loans
| |
Stakeholders asked how an entity
should disclose line-of-credit arrangements that
convert to term loans within the vintage disclosure
table.
|
The amendments require that an
entity present the amortized cost basis of
line-of-credit arrangements that are converted to
term loans in a separate column as illustrated in
Example 15.
[See Section 8.2.2.2
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 5B:
Contractual Extensions and Renewals
| |
Stakeholders asked whether an entity
should consider contractual extension or renewal
options in determining the contractual term of a
financial asset. Stakeholders stated that the
guidance in paragraph 326-20-30-6 appears to
preclude an entity from considering those
contractual extension or renewal options.
|
The amendments clarify that an
entity should consider extension or renewal options
(excluding those that are accounted for as
derivatives in accordance with Topic 815) that are
included in the original or modified contract at the
reporting date and are not unconditionally
cancellable by the entity.
[See Section 4.2.2 of
this Roadmap.]
|
10.2.1.3 ASU 2019-05 on Transition Relief by Providing the Fair Value Option
In May 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-05 to allow entities to irrevocably elect,
upon adoption of ASU 2016-13, the fair value option for financial
instruments that (1) were previously recorded at amortized cost and (2) are
within the scope of ASC 326-20 if the instruments are eligible for the fair
value option under ASC 825-10. This election would be made on an
instrument-by-instrument basis.
First-time adopters of ASU 2016-13 would elect the fair
value option upon adoption, and entities would apply a modified
retrospective approach in which the cumulative effect of the election would
be recorded in beginning retained earnings in the period of adoption. An
entity that had already adopted the amendments in ASU 2016-13 applied them
for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim
periods within those fiscal years. The entity applied the amendments on a
modified retrospective basis by making a cumulative-effect adjustment to the
balance of opening retained earnings as of the beginning of the first
reporting period in which ASU 2016-13 was adopted. Early adoption was
permitted in any interim period within fiscal years beginning after December
15, 2018, provided that the entity had adopted ASU 2016-13.
For more information, see Chapter 9 on
effective date and transition.
10.2.1.4 ASU 2019-10 on Effective-Date Consideration for Private Companies, Not-for-Profit Organizations, and Small Public Companies
In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-10,
which granted private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and certain
small public companies additional time to implement the Board’s standards on
CECL, leases, and hedging. Specifically, the ASU deferred the effective
dates for (1) SRCs2 by three years, (2) PBEs that are not SEC filers3 by two years, and (3) non-PBEs by one year.
In summary, the amendments
changed the effective dates as follows (for more information, see Section 9.1.1):
PBEs That Are SEC Filers
|
PBEs That Are Not SEC Filers
|
All Other Entities
| |
---|---|---|---|
ASU 2016-13
|
Fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2019, and interim periods therein.
|
Fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2020, and interim periods therein.
|
Fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2021, and interim periods therein.
|
SEC Filers Excluding SRCs
|
All Other Entities
| |
---|---|---|
ASU 2016-13, as amended by ASU
2019-10
|
Fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2019, and interim periods therein.
|
Fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2022, and interim periods therein.
|
10.2.1.5 ASU 2019-11 on Codification Improvements to ASC 326
In November 2019, the FASB
issued ASU
2019-11 to make certain technical corrections and
amendments to ASC 326. The table below, reproduced from ASU 2019-11,
summarizes these amendments.
Area of Improvement
|
Summary of Amendments
|
---|---|
Issue 1:
Expected Recoveries for Purchased Financial Assets
With Credit Deterioration
| |
The guidance in paragraph
326-20-30-1 states that expected recoveries of
amounts previously written off or expected to be
written off should be included in the allowance for
credit losses valuation account. Stakeholders
questioned whether this guidance applies to
purchased financial assets with credit deterioration
(PCD assets) measured at amortized cost basis in
Subtopic 326-20, Financial Instruments — Credit
Losses — Measured at Amortized Cost.
Specifically, stakeholders
questioned whether negative allowances were
permitted on PCD assets. The phrase negative
allowance is used to describe situations for which
an entity determines that it will recover the
amortized cost basis, or a portion of that basis,
after a writeoff and that “basis recovery” is
included in the allowance for credit losses through
a negative allowance. Those situations often are a
result of an entity applying regulatory charge-off
policies that are generally based on delinquency
status.
|
The amendments clarify that the
allowance for credit losses for PCD assets should
include in the allowance for credit losses expected
recoveries of amounts previously written off and
expected to be written off by the entity and should
not exceed the aggregate of amounts of the amortized
cost basis previously written off and expected to be
written off by an entity.
In addition, the amendments clarify
that when a method other than a discounted cash flow
method is used to estimate expected credit losses,
expected recoveries should not include any amounts
that result in an acceleration of the noncredit
discount. An entity may include increases in
expected cash flows after acquisition.
[See Section 6.3.3.2
of this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 2:
Transition Relief for Troubled Debt Restructurings
| |
At the June 2017 Credit Losses
Transition Resource Group (TRG) meeting,
stakeholders noted the operational complexities of
calculating a prepayment-adjusted effective interest
rate on troubled debt restructurings (TDRs) that
exist as of the adoption date by using the
prepayment assumptions in effect immediately before
the restructuring. They requested transition relief
when adjusting the effective interest rate for those
arrangements.
|
The amendments provide transition
relief by permitting entities an accounting policy
election to adjust the effective interest rate on
existing TDRs using prepayment assumptions on the
date of adoption of Topic 326 rather than the
prepayment assumptions in effect immediately before
the restructuring.
[See Section 9.2 of
this Roadmap.]
|
Issue 3:
Disclosures Related to Accrued Interest
Receivables
| |
Accounting Standards Update No.
2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326,
Financial Instruments — Credit Losses, Topic 815,
Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial
Instruments, amended the guidance in Subtopics
326-20 and 326-30, Financial Instruments — Credit
Losses — Available-for-Sale Debt Securities, to
allow an entity to elect a practical expedient to
disclose separately the total amount of accrued
interest included in the amortized cost basis as a
single balance to meet certain disclosure
requirements.
Stakeholders noted that an entity
would still be required to include accrued interest
in other disclosure requirements of its amortized
cost basis for financial assets under other Topics.
Stakeholders requested that the disclosure relief
for accrued interest receivable balances be extended
to all relevant disclosures involving amortized cost
basis.
|
The amendments extend the disclosure
relief for accrued interest receivable balances to
additional relevant disclosures involving the
amortized cost basis.
|
Issue 4:
Financial Assets Secured by Collateral Maintenance
Provisions
| |
The guidance in paragraph
326-20-35-6 for financial assets secured by
collateral maintenance provisions provides a
practical expedient to measure the estimate of
expected credit losses by comparing the amortized
cost basis of a financial asset and the fair value
of collateral securing the financial asset as of the
reporting date. Stakeholders questioned whether an
entity is required to evaluate whether a borrower
has the ability to continually replenish collateral
securing the financial asset to apply the practical
expedient.
Additionally, stakeholders
questioned how an entity should determine its
estimate of expected credit losses if the fair value
of the collateral securing the financial asset is
less than its amortized cost basis.
|
The amendments clarify that an
entity should assess whether it reasonably expects
the borrower will be able to continually replenish
collateral securing the financial asset to apply the
practical expedient.
The amendments clarify that an
entity applying the practical expedient should
estimate expected credit losses for any difference
between the amount of the amortized cost basis that
is greater than the fair value of the collateral
securing the financial asset (that is, the unsecured
portion of the amortized cost basis). An entity may
determine that the expectation of nonpayment for the
amount of the amortized cost basis equal to the fair
value of the collateral securing the financial asset
is zero.
[See Section 4.4.9.2.1 of this
Roadmap.]
|
Issue 5:
Conforming Amendment to Subtopic
805-20
| |
Stakeholders noted that paragraph
805-20-50-1 references Subtopic 310-30, Receivables
— Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with
Deteriorated Credit Quality, which was superseded by
the amendments in Update 2016-13.
|
The amendment to Subtopic 805-20,
Business Combinations — Identifiable Assets and
Liabilities, and Any Noncontrolling Interest,
clarifies the guidance by removing the
cross-reference to Subtopic 310-30 in paragraph
805-20-50-1 and replacing it with a cross- reference
to the guidance on PCD assets in Subtopic
326-20.
|
10.2.1.6 ASU 2020-02 on Amendments to SEC Paragraphs in Accordance With SAB 119
In February 2020, the FASB issued ASU 2020-02 to make certain amendments
to SEC paragraphs in accordance with SAB 119, which adds the text from SAB
Topic 6.M to ASC 326-20-S99-1.
10.2.1.7 ASU 2020-03 on Codification Improvements to Financial Instruments
In March 2020, the FASB
issued ASU
2020-03 to address various issues associated with
financial instruments. The table below, reproduced, in part, from ASU
2020-03, summarizes the amendments related to ASC 326.
Area of Improvement
|
Summary of Amendments
|
---|---|
Issue 6:
Interaction of Topic 842 and Topic 326
| |
Stakeholders requested clarification on determining
the contractual term of a net investment in a lease
for the purposes of measuring expected credit
losses. Specifically, stakeholders noted that the
contractual term of the net investment in a lease
determined in accordance with Topic 842, Leases, may
not align with the contractual term determined in
accordance with Topic 326, Financial Instruments —
Credit Losses.
|
The amendments clarify that the contractual term of a
net investment in a lease determined in accordance
with Topic 842 should be the contractual term used
to measure expected credit losses under Topic
326.
|
Issue 7:
Interaction of Topic 326 and Subtopic
860-20
| |
Stakeholders noted that paragraph 860-20-25-13, which
relates to a transferor regaining control of certain
financial assets after a transfer that was
previously accounted for as a sale is inconsistent
with the requirements in Topic 326.
Specifically, stakeholders noted that paragraph
860-20-25-13 precludes an entity from recognizing a
loan loss allowance for loans that do not meet the
definition of a security when they are
rerecognized.
|
The amendments to Subtopic 860- 20, Transfers and
Servicing — Sales of Financial Assets, clarify that
when an entity regains control of financial assets
sold, an allowance for credit losses should be
recorded in accordance with Topic 326.
|
10.2.1.8 ASU 2022-02 on TDRs and Vintage Disclosures
In March 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-02,
which eliminated the accounting guidance on TDRs for creditors in ASC 310-40
and amended the guidance on “vintage disclosures” to require disclosure of
current-period gross write-offs by year of origination. The ASU also updated
the requirements related to accounting for credit losses under ASC 326 and
enhanced the disclosure requirements for creditors with respect to loan
refinancings and restructurings for borrowers experiencing financial
difficulty.
10.2.1.8.1 TDRs by Creditors
ASU 2022-02 superseded the accounting guidance on TDRs
for creditors in ASC 310-40 in its entirety and requires entities to
evaluate all receivable modifications under ASC 310-20-35-9 through
35-11 to determine whether a modification made to a borrower results in
a new loan or a continuation of the existing loan. The ASU also amended
other Codification subtopics to remove references to TDRs for
creditors.
In addition to the elimination of TDR guidance, an
entity that has adopted ASU 2022-02 no longer considers renewals,
modifications, and extensions that result from reasonably expected TDRs
in calculating the allowance for credit losses in accordance with ASC
326-20. Further, an entity that employs a DCF method to calculate the
allowance for credit losses is required to use a
postmodification-derived EIR as part of its calculation in accordance
with ASC 326-20-30-4.
Further, entities are required to provide new
disclosures about receivables whose contractual cash flows have been
modified because borrowers are experiencing financial difficulties.
Modifications to the contractual cash flows of a receivable are defined
as principal forgiveness, interest rate reductions,
other-than-insignificant-payment delays, or term extensions under ASC
310-10-50-39. For more information about the new modification-related
disclosures, see Section
8.2.1.
10.2.1.8.2 Vintage Disclosures — Gross Write-Offs
ASU 2022-02 amended ASC 326-20-50-6 to require public
business entities to disclose gross write-offs recorded in the current
period, on a year-to-date basis, by year of origination in the vintage
disclosures. The amendments to the presentation of gross write-offs in
the vintage disclosures were applied prospectively from the date of
adoption. For more information, see Section 8.2.2.3.
10.2.1.8.3 Effective Date and Transition
For entities that had already adopted ASU 2016-13, the
amendments in ASU 2022-02 became effective for fiscal years beginning
after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal
years. For entities that had not yet adopted ASU 2016-13, the amendments
in ASU 2022-02 became effective upon adoption of ASU 2016-13.
Entities were permitted to early adopt these amendments,
including adoption in any interim period, provided that they were
adopted as of the beginning of the annual reporting period that included
the interim period of adoption. In addition, entities were permitted to
elect to early adopt the amendments to TDR accounting, as well as the
related disclosure enhancements, separately from the amendments to the
vintage disclosure requirements.
Entities could elect to apply the updated guidance on
TDR recognition and measurement by using a modified retrospective
transition method, which resulted in a cumulative-effect adjustment to
retained earnings, or to adopt the amendments prospectively. An entity
that elected to adopt the updated guidance on TDR recognition and
measurement prospectively applied the guidance to modifications
occurring after the date of adoption. The amendments related to TDR
disclosures and vintage disclosures should have been adopted
prospectively.
10.2.1.9 ASU 2022-01 on Fair Value Hedge Accounting
In March 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-01,
which clarified the guidance in ASC 815 on fair value hedge accounting of
interest rate risk for portfolios of financial assets. ASU 2022-01 amended
the guidance in ASU
2017-12 that, among other things, established the
“last-of-layer” method for making the fair value hedge accounting for these
portfolios more accessible. In addition, ASU 2022-01 addressed questions
raised by stakeholders about the interaction between the last-of-layer
method guidance and ASC 326 or other impairment guidance (for entities that
had not yet adopted ASC 326) by explicitly prohibiting entities from
considering basis adjustments related to existing portfolio layer method
hedges when measuring credit losses on the assets included in the closed
portfolio.
For more information about ASU 2022-01, see Deloitte’s March 29, 2022,
Heads Up.
10.2.2 FASB Staff Q&A Documents
The FASB staff issued two Q&A documents in January and July 2019:
-
Topic 326, No. 1: Whether the Weighted-Average Remaining Maturity Method Is an Acceptable Method to Estimate Expected Credit Losses (January 2019) — This Q&A discusses the FASB staff’s views that (1) the WARM method is one of many methods that an entity can use to estimate an allowance for credit losses, particularly on less complex financial asset pools, and (2) an entity needs to consider whether qualitative adjustments should be made. In addition, the Q&A provides examples illustrating how an entity would estimate the allowance for credit losses by using the WARM method. For more information about the WARM method, see Section 4.4.8.
-
Topic 326, No. 2: Developing an Estimate of Expected Credit Losses on Financial Assets (July 2019) — This Q&A discusses the FASB staff’s views on acceptable approaches for “determining reasonable and supportable forecasts and techniques for reverting to historical loss information when developing an estimate of expected credit losses on financial assets.”
10.2.3 TRG Activity
As discussed in Chapter 1, shortly before
issuing ASU 2016-13, the FASB formed a credit losses TRG. Although the TRG does
not issue guidance, it provides feedback on potential issues related to the
implementation of the CECL model. By analyzing and discussing such issues, the
TRG helps the Board determine whether it needs to take action, such as providing
clarification or issuing additional guidance. Since the issuance of ASU 2016-13,
the TRG has met three times, discussing the following issues:
10.2.3.1 June 2017
-
Determining the EIR under the CECL model (see Section 4.4.4.1).
-
The scope of the guidance on PFAs with credit deterioration with respect to BIs accounted for under ASC 325-40 (see Section 6.2).
-
Applying the transition guidance to pools of PCI assets under ASC 310-30 (see Section 9.2.1).
-
Accounting for TDRs under the CECL model (see Section 4.7).
-
Estimating the life of a credit card receivable under the CECL model (see Section 4.2.3).
10.2.3.2 June 2018
-
Considering capitalized interest by using a method other than a DCF method under the CECL model (see Section 4.4.5.4).
-
Definition of “amortized cost basis” and the reversal of accrued interest on nonperforming financial assets (see Section 4.4.5.1).
-
Transfer of loans from HFS to HFI and transfer of credit-impaired debt securities from AFS to HTM (see Section 4.10).
-
Accounting for recoveries under the CECL model (see Section 4.5.2).
-
Refinancing and loan prepayments (see Section 4.2.1).
10.2.3.3 November 2018
-
Contractual term: extensions and measurement inputs (see Section 4.2.2).
-
Vintage disclosures for revolving loans (see Section 8.2.2.2).
-
Recoveries (see Section 4.5.2).
10.2.4 Proposed ASU on Purchased Financial Assets
On June 27, 2023, the FASB issued a proposed ASU that would broaden the population
of financial assets that are within the scope of the gross-up approach currently
applied to PCD assets under ASC 326. Accordingly, an asset acquirer would apply the
gross-up approach to all financial assets acquired in a business combination in
accordance with ASC 805 rather than first determining whether an acquired financial
asset is a PCD asset or a non-PCD asset. For financial assets acquired as a result
of an asset acquisition or through consolidation of a VIE that is not a business,
the asset acquirer would apply the gross-up approach to seasoned assets, which are
acquired assets unless the asset is deemed akin to an in-substance origination. A
seasoned asset is an asset (1) that is acquired more than 90 days after origination
and (2) for which the asset acquirer was not involved with the origination. In
addition, the gross-up approach would no longer apply to AFS debt securities.
Comments on the proposed ASU were due by August 28, 2023. The Board
will determine the effective date, as well as whether to permit early adoption,
after considering stakeholder feedback on the proposed ASU. At its February 28,
2024, meeting, the Board directed the staff to perform additional research and
analysis related to the scope of the proposal. The following are some of the items
that stakeholders asked the Board to reconsider excluding from the proposed ASU:
- Assets not recognized at fair value in business combinations (e.g., contract assets, sales-type and direct finance leases).
- Assets acquired at or near par.
- Credit cards and other revolving loans.
- Debt securities (including beneficial interests in securitizations).
- Fixed-price contracts to purchase financial assets.
- Loan commitments that are not accounted for as derivatives.
- Trade receivables.
Footnotes
1
See TRG Memo 7.
2
SEC Regulation S-K, Item 10(f)(1), defines an SRC,
in part, as:
[A]n issuer that is not an
investment company, an asset-backed issuer (as defined in §
229.1101), or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent that is
not a smaller reporting company and that:
(i) Had a public float of less than $250 million;
or
(ii) Had annual revenues of less than $100 million and
either:
(A) No public float; or
(B) A public float of less than
$700 million.
3
The ASC master glossary defines an SEC filer as
follows:
An entity that is required to file or
furnish its financial statements with either of the following:
a. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)
b. With respect to an entity subject to Section
12(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the appropriate agency under that
Section.
Financial statements for other entities that
are not otherwise SEC filers whose financial statements are
included in a submission by another SEC filer are not
included within this definition.