7.7 Debt Exchangeable Into the Stock of Another Entity
ASC 470-20 — SEC Materials — SEC Staff Guidance
Comments Made by SEC Observer at Emerging Issues Task
Force (EITF) Meetings
SEC Observer Comment: Debt Exchangeable for the Stock of
Another Entity
S99-1 The following is the text of
the SEC Observer Comment: Debt Exchangeable for the Stock of
Another Entity.
An issue has been discussed involving an
enterprise that holds investments in common stock of other
enterprises and issues debt securities that permit the
holder to acquire a fixed number of shares of such common
stock. These types of transactions are commonly affected
through the sale of either debt with detachable warrants
that can be exchanged for the stock investment or debt
without detachable warrants (the debt itself must be
exchanged for the stock investment — also referred to as
“exchangeable” debt). Those debt issues differ from
traditional warrants or convertible instruments because the
traditional instruments involve exchanges for the equity
securities of the issuer. There have been questions as to
whether the exchangeable debt should be treated similar to
traditional convertibles as specified in Subtopic 470-20 or
whether the transaction requires separate accounting for the
exchangeability feature. The SEC staff believes that
Subtopic 470-20 does not apply to the accounting for debt
that is exchangeable for the stock of another entity and
therefore separation of the debt element and exchangeability
feature is required.
A debt instrument may contain a feature that requires or permits its exchange into
the shares of a third party rather than the issuer’s equity shares (“exchangeable
debt”). For example, the terms of a debt instrument may include an option for the
holder to require the issuer to deliver a fixed number of shares of common stock of
a third party in lieu of repaying the debt’s principal amount at maturity. From the
issuer’s perspective, exchangeable debt is substantially different from convertible
debt because the embedded exchange feature is not settled in the issuer’s equity
shares but in third-party stock.
Accordingly, the issuer of exchangeable debt should not analyze such
debt as convertible debt under ASC 470-20. Instead the issuer should evaluate
whether the exchange feature must be separated as a derivative under ASC 815-15 (see
Section 8.4.7) and,
if not, whether the SEC staff observer comments in ASC 470-20-S99-1 apply. Under ASC
470-20-S99-1, the exchange feature would be accounted for separately from the debt
even if it is not required to be separated as a derivative under ASC 815 (e.g., the
feature might not need to be separated as a derivative if it does not meet the net
settlement characteristic in the definition of a derivative; see Section 8.4.7).
ASC 470-20-S99-1 does not address the measurement of an exchange feature that does
not have to be accounted for as a derivative. An entity might analogize to the
guidance on embedded features that are accounted for as derivatives and account for
the exchange feature at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized in net
income. Alternatively, an entity might look to the indexed-debt guidance in ASC
470-10 and account for the exchange feature on the basis of an intrinsic value
approach under which changes in intrinsic value are recognized in net income. Under
that approach, the exchange feature is measured on the basis of the excess, if any,
of the current value of the third-party stock over the debt’s net carrying amount,
without regard to the time value inherent in the option to exchange the debt for
third-party stock (see Section 7.4.5).
In consolidated financial statements, a contract exchangeable into
the equity shares of a consolidated subsidiary is analyzed in a manner similar to a
contract convertible into the parent’s equity shares provided that the subsidiary is
a substantive entity (see Section
2.6.1 of Deloitte’s Roadmap Contracts on an Entity’s Own Equity).
This is the case irrespective of whether the debt instrument is issued by the parent
or subsidiary. Accordingly, if a parent issues a debt instrument that is
exchangeable into the equity shares of a consolidated subsidiary and the subsidiary
is a substantive entity, the exchange feature would be analyzed as a conversion
feature under ASC 470-20 unless it has to be accounted for as a derivative
instrument under ASC 815 (e.g., if it can be net settled and does not qualify for
the scope exception in ASC 815-10-15-74(a) for certain contracts on the entity’s own
equity). Equity shares issued by an equity-method investee, however, are not
considered part of the entity’s own equity.
In the subsidiary’s separate financial statements, the equity of its
parent is not considered part of the subsidiary’s equity. Therefore, a debt
instrument that is issued by a subsidiary and exchangeable into the parent’s equity
shares would not be analyzed in a manner similar to a contract that is convertible
into the subsidiary’s equity shares in the subsidiary’s separate financial
statements (see Section
2.6.2 of Deloitte’s Roadmap Contracts on an Entity’s Own Equity).
In the parent’s consolidated financial statements, however, the same debt instrument
would be analyzed as a debt instrument that is convertible into the issuer’s equity
shares.