On the Radar
Derivatives
Although the guidance on accounting for derivatives has not changed
significantly in recent years, derivative accounting continues to be one of the most
complex areas of U.S. GAAP. ASC 815 prescribes the guidance on instruments and
contracts that meet the definition of a derivative. Some instruments and contracts
that meet this definition are eligible for a scope exception, while others that do
not meet the definition of a derivative in their entirety must still be
evaluated to determine whether they contain embedded derivatives that would be
within the scope of ASC 815. In addition, some derivatives are designated in a
qualified hedging relationship and eligible for specialized hedge accounting (see
Deloitte’s Roadmap Hedge
Accounting for further information on this topic).
Financial Reporting Considerations
In the simplest terms, a derivative is an instrument whose value depends on (or
is derived from) the value of an underlying variable or variables, such as the
prices of traded assets. Most derivatives are net-settled contracts that allow
the holder to benefit from changes in the value of a referenced asset or other
market variable while making a smaller initial investment than would be required
to own that asset and experience similar gains and losses.
There are different types of derivative contracts, but the most common ones are
forwards, futures, options, and swaps. When an entity enters into these types of
contracts, it may be fairly obvious that such a contract meets the definition of
a derivative. However, the accounting definition of a derivative sometimes
encompasses other types of contracts that are not commonly thought of as
derivatives, such as financial guarantees and contracts to purchase materials or
power, or commodity contracts that require the physical delivery of assets that
are readily convertible to cash.
In accordance with ASC 815-10-15-83, all three of the criteria below must
be satisfied for a contract to meet the definition of a derivative:
An entity should apply the guidance in ASC 815 when determining whether a
specific contract meets the definition of a derivative.
In addition to providing the criteria required for a contract to be considered a
derivative, ASC 815-10 includes a variety of scope exceptions. A contract that
would otherwise meet the definition of a derivative may qualify for one of those
exceptions, in which case it would be accounted for on the basis of other
applicable U.S. GAAP. Some of the more frequently used scope exceptions apply to
(1) certain contracts involving an entity’s own equity and (2) certain contracts
that are consistent with an entity’s normal course of business (the normal
purchases and normal sales scope exception).
A contract that would otherwise meet the definition of
a derivative in ASC 815 but qualifies for a scope
exception does not require classification and
measurement as a derivative asset or liability. An
entity should consider whether a contract meets any
of the available scope exceptions before applying
the guidance in ASC 815 on classification,
recognition, and measurement of derivatives. For
more information, see Deloitte’s Roadmap
Derivatives.
An instrument that does not meet the definition of a derivative in its entirety
may contain contractual terms or features that affect the cash flows, values, or
other exchanges required by the terms of the instrument in a manner similar to a
derivative. Such terms or features are “embedded” in the overall arrangement or
contract and are referred to as “embedded derivatives.”
Under ASC 815-15-25-1, an entity is required to bifurcate and separately account
for a feature embedded within another contract (the host contract) if all
three of the conditions shown below are met.
Embedded derivatives are commonly identified in debt and equity instruments,
although it is possible for them to exist in other contracts (e.g., leases,
service arrangements, insurance contracts). For example, if options allow the
holder of a debt or equity instrument to either convert its instrument into
shares of the issuer’s equity or redeem its instrument for cash, such options
are embedded derivatives in the debt or equity instrument, respectively.
The determination of whether an embedded feature in a debt or
equity host meets the definition of a derivative often depends on whether one of
the criteria related to net settlement is met. For instance, equity in an entity
that is not publicly traded is generally not readily convertible to cash, so
redemption or conversion options for a nonpublic entity would generally not meet
the definition of a derivative. When assessing whether an embedded feature, if
freestanding, would meet the definition of a derivative, an entity should
closely evaluate whether the feature provides for net settlement.
If an entity determines that one of the criteria for
bifurcation of an embedded derivative is not met,
the embedded feature does not need to be bifurcated
and further analysis of the remaining criteria is
not necessary. For more information, see Deloitte’s
Roadmap Derivatives.
A key underlying principle of ASC 815 is that derivatives
represent either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position,
and those assets or liabilities should be measured initially and subsequently at
fair value by applying the concepts of ASC 820 (see Deloitte’s Roadmap Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (Including the Fair Value Option) for more
guidance). The accounting for changes in the fair of a derivative instrument
depends on whether it has been designated as a hedging instrument in a qualified
hedging relationship. Derivatives that are designated as a hedging instrument in
a qualified hedging relationship are eligible for specialized hedge accounting
(see Deloitte’s Roadmap Hedge Accounting for more information). Other than in
limited scenarios, the gain or loss on a derivative instrument that has not been
designated as a hedging instrument should be recognized in current-period
earnings.
In addition, if any feature of an instrument has been identified
and bifurcated as an embedded derivative, the entity should apply the accounting
in ASC 815 related to measurement and recognition as if that embedded derivative
were a freestanding derivative. Therefore, such an embedded derivative should be
initially recorded at fair value and remeasured to its fair value in each
reporting period. Unless the bifurcated embedded derivative is designated in a
qualified hedging relationship, changes in the derivative’s fair value are
recognized through earnings in each reporting period.
Standard-Setting Activity
Derivatives Scope Refinements (ASC 815) — FASB Recognition and Measurement Project
On September 29, 2025, the FASB issued ASU
2025-07 which (1) refines the scope of the guidance on
derivatives in ASC 815 and (2) clarifies the guidance on share-based
payments from a customer in ASC 606. The ASU is intended to address concerns
about the application of derivative accounting to contracts that have
features based on the operations or activities of one of the parties to the
contract and to reduce diversity in the accounting for share-based payments
in revenue contracts.
The ASU adds a new scope exception in ASC 815-10-15-59(e) for certain
contracts that are not traded on an exchange and have “[a]n underlying that
is based on operations or activities specific to one of the parties to the
contract.” Contracts that may qualify for this exception include those in
which the underlying is linked to the “occurrence or nonoccurrence of an
event,” such as achieving specified financial operating results or
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, obtaining regulatory
approval, or reaching specified product development milestones. In addition,
the scope exception may apply to certain R&D funding arrangements as
well as certain litigation funding arrangements.
The ASU also clarifies that when an entity has a right to receive a
share-based payment from its customer in exchange for the transfer of goods
or services, the share-based payment should be accounted for as noncash
consideration within the scope of ASC 606. That is, the ASU specifies that
the guidance in ASC 815 or ASC 321 does not apply to share-based payments
from a customer “unless and until the entity’s right to receive or retain
the share-based noncash consideration is unconditional” in accordance with
ASC 606. ASC 606-10-45-4 states that a “right to consideration is
unconditional if only the passage of time is required before payment of that
consideration is due.”
ASU 2025-07 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after
December 15, 2026, including interim reporting periods within those annual
reporting periods. Early adoption of the standard is permitted in an interim
or annual reporting period for which financial statements have not been
issued or made available for issuance. If an entity elects to early adopt
the standard in an interim period, the entity must apply the standard as of
the beginning of the fiscal year that includes the interim period. Further,
an entity that elects to early adopt the ASU is required to early adopt the
guidance for both Issue 1 and Issue 2 in the standard.
For more information about the ASU, see Deloitte’s September 29, 2025,
Heads Up.
Deloitte’s Roadmap Derivatives provides a
comprehensive discussion of the identification,
classification, measurement, and presentation and
disclosure of derivative instruments, including
embedded derivatives. For further guidance on the
application of hedge accounting to a qualified
hedging relationship, see Deloitte’s Roadmap
Hedge Accounting.
Contacts
|
|
Jonathan Howard
Audit & Assurance
Partner
Deloitte &
Touche LLP
+1 203 761
3235
|
For information about Deloitte’s
derivatives accounting service offerings, please contact:
|
|
Jonathan Prejean
Risk &
Financial Advisory
Managing Director
Deloitte &
Touche LLP
+1 703 885
6266
|
|
Matt Davis
Audit & Assurance
Partner
Deloitte & Touche LLP
+1 713 982 4623
|