RegulationAccounting StandardsBanks don’t need a separate accounting regime

Banks don't need a separate accounting regime

Accounting regimes for different business models won't work, says Iain Coke

THIS IS NOT the first time that a separate accounting regime for banks has been suggested. Lord Turner made a similar call at an ICAEW conference in January 2010 and the issue had been debated many times before that.

The dangers of having different accounting for banks are that it would intensify political and industry lobbying on bank reporting, particularly at times of pressure, and that it would set a precedent for every other industry to ask for their own regimes.

It is true that the nature of banks’ balance sheets is different to most other types of business, with larger numbers, higher leverage and financial instruments dominating. Banks’ business models are also different, as all banks can be subject to a run on their funding if confidence collapses. ICAEW agrees that changes need to be made to accounting for financial instruments. Standard setters have been working on this highly complex area for some time, but all proposed treatments are controversial and views on the best approach differ widely.

However, nearly every industry can point to circumstances and complexities that are either unique to that sector or disproportionately affect it. This is why we have not supported the idea when it has been proposed in the past. There is also a danger that requesting a separate regime for banks could look like special pleading at a time when the banks are coming under criticism, and could lead to accusations of trying to be less transparent.

Andy Haldane himself criticised suggestions that accounting should follow business models, in effect suggesting a held to maturity category for assets valued at cost should not be allowed because a bank may hypothetically be unable to fund long dated assets in this way. Aside from a paradox between rejecting the use of business models in accounting but advocating a separate regime for banks, the example runs against the basic principle of going concern.

Finally, Andy Haldane’s objective of providing better information on valuation uncertainty is good. His proposed solution is to provide ranges of valuations, instead of either amortised cost or fair value. While this may be interesting from a financial stability perspective as an economic indicator, it is highly complex and likely to be difficult for investors to understand.

Investor confidence – especially in banks – does need to be restored, and improving financial reporting is a key way to achieve this. But further complication, of the reports or the system as a whole, is not the best way to begin.

Iain Coke is head of the ICAEW’s Financial Services Faculty

Related Articles

Extended auditor reports restoring trust in audit in post-HBOS world

Accounting Firms Extended auditor reports restoring trust in audit in post-HBOS world

2y Chris Warmoll, Writer
Hoogervorst says IFRS9 will lead to fundamental change

Accounting Standards Hoogervorst says IFRS9 will lead to fundamental change

2y Chris Warmoll, Writer
IFRS 9 could hike banks’ loan loss provisioning by 50%

Accounting Standards IFRS 9 could hike banks’ loan loss provisioning by 50%

3y Richard Crump, Writer
ICAEW draws up plans for assurance on banks’ capital

Accounting Standards ICAEW draws up plans for assurance on banks’ capital

3y Richard Crump, Writer
Taking Stock: IFRS pocket guide unlikely to end on Carney's book shelf

Accounting Standards Taking Stock: IFRS pocket guide unlikely to end on Carney's book shelf

3y Taking Stock
IASB starts ‘long journey’ to overhaul macro hedging

Accounting Standards IASB starts ‘long journey’ to overhaul macro hedging

4y Richard Crump, Writer
Colin: Where's the accountant?

Accounting Standards Colin: Where's the accountant?

5y Taking Stock
Bankers must raise standards to that of accountants, says Rake

Accounting Standards Bankers must raise standards to that of accountants, says Rake

5y Kevin Reed, Writer