4.6 Credit Enhancements
ASC 326-20
30-12 The estimate
of expected credit losses shall reflect how credit enhancements
(other than those that are freestanding contracts) mitigate
expected credit losses on financial assets, including
consideration of the financial condition of the guarantor, the
willingness of the guarantor to pay, and/or whether any
subordinated interests are expected to be capable of absorbing
credit losses on any underlying financial assets. However, when
estimating expected credit losses, an entity shall not combine a
financial asset with a separate freestanding contract that
serves to mitigate credit loss. As a result, the estimate of
expected credit losses on a financial asset (or group of
financial assets) shall not be offset by a freestanding contract
(for example, a purchased credit-default swap) that may mitigate
expected credit losses on the financial asset (or group of
financial assets).
Among other factors that may affect expected credit losses on a financial asset (or group
of similar financial assets), an entity should consider whether the asset includes an
embedded credit enhancement provided by a third-party guarantor (e.g., private mortgage
insurance). In determining whether an enhancement feature is embedded or freestanding,
an entity must consider the following definition of a freestanding contract in the ASC
master glossary:
A freestanding contract is entered into either:
- Separate and apart from any of the entity’s other financial instruments or equity transactions
- In conjunction with some other transaction and is legally detachable and separately exercisable.
If the financial asset includes an embedded credit enhancement feature, the entity should
consider how the cash flows associated with such a feature should be incorporated into
the expectation of cash flows that are recoverable on the financial asset. By contrast,
the entity must not consider cash flows associated with a freestanding credit
enhancement contract (e.g., credit insurance purchased by the entity, including credit
default swaps) even though the objective of obtaining such a contract is the same as if
it were embedded in the financial asset (i.e., to mitigate credit exposure). To avoid
double counting, an entity is prohibited from considering the effects of a freestanding
credit enhancement feature when estimating expected credit losses. For example, the cash
flows from a credit default swap that is a credit enhancement of a loan asset should not
be included in the measurement of expected credit losses because such a swap would be
recognized separately as a derivative financial instrument. Even if the freestanding
credit insurance is not accounted for as a derivative, cash flows from freestanding
credit insurance should not be considered in the estimation of expected losses on the
related “covered” assets.
4.6.1 Freestanding Credit Insurance and Other Credit Risk Mitigation Contracts
Although ASC 326-20 is clear that an entity must not consider cash flows
associated with a freestanding credit enhancement contract when estimating its
expected credit losses, questions have arisen regarding how an entity must
account for these freestanding contracts. ASC 326-20 does not address
freestanding contracts that mitigate credit risk on financial assets.
To address these questions, the FASB staff stated, in response to a technical
inquiry, that it would be appropriate for an entity that is applying ASU 2016-13
to recognize an insurance recovery asset on a freestanding credit insurance
contract at the time expected credit losses are recorded. The staff also noted
that there may be other acceptable approaches to recognizing freestanding
contracts, including recognition of the insurance recovery asset on an incurred
basis. However, the staff clarified that its views on freestanding contracts
pertain only to contracts that (1) qualify for the scope exception in ASC
815-10-15-13(c) or (d) related to applying derivative accounting and (2) pass
the risk transfer test in ASC 340-30 and ASC 944-20.
Connecting the Dots
Recording the Recovery
Asset
We believe that, in accounting for recoveries from freestanding insurance
contracts, it is appropriate for entities to analogize to the guidance
on indemnification assets in ASC 805. That guidance requires entities to
measure an indemnification asset on the same basis as the indemnified
item.
An approach in which a recovery asset is recorded at the same time an
expected credit loss is recorded in earnings under ASC 326 is generally
referred to as the “mirror image approach.” Under the mirror image
approach, the expected recovery asset would be measured in a manner
consistent with the expected credit loss; accordingly, the accounting
for the insured instruments would be “matched” and the economics of the
arrangement would be reflected. Further, the credit insurance recovery
asset would be estimated by using the same assumptions as the loss
estimate on the underlying assets and would result in the recording of
equal amounts for the allowance for loan losses and the credit insurance
recovery asset (provided that the insurance covered the full amount of
the expected credit loss). Therefore, an entity would most likely
recognize in earnings a “day one recovery of expected credit losses” on
purchased credit insurance.
Keep in mind, however, that ASC 326-20 applies to the insurance recovery
asset recognized on a freestanding insurance contract. That is, just as
expected credit losses must be measured on a reinsurance receivable, an
entity must measure expected credit losses on an insurance recovery
asset.
Although the credit insurance recovery asset is measured by using assumptions
that are consistent with those used to estimate expected credit losses, the
credit insurance recovery asset should not be presented net or offset against
the allowance for credit losses related to the insured instruments. Moreover,
the amounts recorded in the income statement in connection with the credit
insurance recovery asset should not be presented net against the related credit
loss expense.