EXPECTED CREDIT LOSS MODEL BY IFRS 9 AND ITS POSSIBLE EARLY IMPACTS ON EUROPEAN AND TURKISH BANKING SECTOR

Öz

ABSTRACT

IFRS 9 – ²Financial Instruments², the replacement of IAS 39 – ²Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement² was issued by International Accounting Standards Board in July, 2014 and became mandatory on January 1, 2018. The significant change implemented in the new standard is about the “impairment” phase which is based on "Expected Credit Losses" (ECL) rather than "Incurred Credit Losses". In this study, the measurement and recognition of allowances for impairment are explained and then the expected possible qualitative and quantitative effects of this transition primarily in the European Banking Industry are analyzed and compared with Turkish Banking Industry. It is expected that, ECL application by European banks would result in on average 13%-18% increase in loss provisions and Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) and total capital ratio decrease by on average 45-75 basis points (bps) and 35-50 bps, respectively whereas the total amount of provisions will be diminishing by 4.1% and will have 33 bps and 21 bps positive impacts on CET1 and total capital adequacy ratio on average, respectively for Turkish banks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Keywords: IFRS 9,Expected Credit Loss,ECL,impairment

EXPECTED CREDIT LOSS MODEL BY IFRS 9 AND ITS POSSIBLE EARLY IMPACTS ON EUROPEAN AND TURKISH BANKING SECTOR

Öz

ÖZ

Uluslararası Muhasebe Standartları Kurulu, 2014 yılının Temmuz ayında, UMS 39'un “Finansal Araçlar: Muhasebeleştirme ve Ölçme”nin yerine UFRS 9 - “Finansal Araçlar” Standardını yayınlamıştır. Yeni standart 1 Ocak 2018'den itibaren yürülüğe girmiştir. Yeni standarttaki en önemli değişiklik, “değer düşüklüğü” bölümünde yapılan "Gerçekleşen Kredi Zararları" yerine "Beklenen Kredi Zararları" uygulamasıdır. Bu çalışmada, yeni standarda göre değer düşüklüğü karşılıklarının ölçümü ve muhasebeleştirilmesi açıklandıktan sonra, Avrupa Bankacılık Sektöründe bu geçişin beklenen muhtemel nitel ve nicel etkileri analiz edilip, sonuçları Türk Bankacılık Sektörü ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Avrupa’da bu geçiş sonucu, karşılıkların ortalama olarak % 13 -% 18 aralığında artması, buna bağlı olarak da çekirdek sermaye ve toplam sermaye yeterliliği rasyosunda sırasıyla, ortalama 45-75 ve 35-50 baz puanlık düşüş beklenmektedir. Türkiye’deki beklenti ise, sonuçların tam tersi yönde olacağıdır. Türkiye’deki bankalar için toplam karşılıklar tutarının % 4,1 düşmesi ve çekirdek sermaye ve toplam sermaye yeterliliği rasyolarında ise, sırasıyla, 33 ve 21 baz puanlık pozitif etki olması beklenmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• UFRS 9,Beklenen Kredi Zararları Modeli

Kaynakça

1. REFERENCES
2. Abad, J. and Suarez, J. 2017. “Assessing the cyclical implications of IFRS 9: A recursive model”, ESRB Occasional Paper, vol.12.
3. BRSA 2016. “Regulation on the Procedures and Principles for Determination of Classification of Loans by Banks and Provisions to be Set Aside”.
4. Beatty, A and S Liao 2011. “Do delays in expected loss recognition affect banks’ willingness to lend?”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 52, 1–20.
5. Bernanke, B. and Lown, C. 1991. “The credit crunch”, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2, 205-247.
6. Bushman, R and C Williams 2012. “Accounting Discretion, Loan Loss Provisioning, and Discipline of Banks’ Risk-Taking”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 54, 1–18.
7. Cohen, B. and Edwards, G. 2017. “The New Era of Expected Credit Loss Provisioning”, BIS Quarterly Review.
8. Comert, H. and Colak, S. 2014. “The Impacts of the Global Crisis on the Turkish Economy and Policy Responses”, Middle East Technical University, ERC Working Papers in Economics, 14/17.

9. Ernst & Young. 2017. “EY IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey”.
10. Ernst & Young. 2014. “Impairment of Financial Instruments Under IFRS 9”.
11. Erdoğan, A. 2014. “Basel Kriterlerinin Bankacilik Sektörüne Etkisi ve Türkiye’de Bankacilik Sektörünün Basel Kriterlerine Uyum Süreci”, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 16 (1) .141-182
12. European Banking Authority. 2016. “Report on Results from the EBA Impact Assessment of IFRS 9”.
13. European Banking Authority. 2017. “Report on Results from the Second EBA Impact Assessment of IFRS 9”.
14. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. 2015. “Endorsement Advice on IFRS 9 Financial Instruments”.
15. European Systemic Risk Board. 2017. “Financial stability implications of IFRS 9”.
16. Financial Stability Forum. 2009. “Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Addressing Procyclicality in the Financial System”.
17. Fraisse, H., Lé, M. and Thesmar, D. 2015. “The Real Effects of Bank Capital Requirements”, Débats Économiques et Financiers, vol. 8.
18. Gornjak, M. 2017. “Comparison of IAS 39 and IFRS 9: The Analysis of Replacement”, International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 6(1), 115–130
19. Gropp, R., Mosk, T., Ongena, S. and Wix, C. 2016. “Bank Response to Higher Capital Requirements:Evidence from a Natural Experiment”, SAFE Working Paper, vol. 156.
20. Hoogervorst, H. 2016. Introductory comments to the European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.ifrs.org/Alerts/Conference/Documents/2015/Hans-Hoogervorst-speech-Jan-2016.pdf
21. Huian, M. 2012. “Accounting for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities According To IFRS 9, Economic Sciences vol. 59 (1), 27-47, doi: 10.2478/v10316-012-0002-0
22. IFRS 9: Financial Instruments.
23. Jiménez, G., Ongena, S., Peydró, J.-L. and Saurina, J. 2017. “Macroprudential Policy, Countercyclical Bank Capital Buffers and Credit Supply: Evidence from the Spanish Dynamic Provisioning Experiments”, Journal of Political Economy, forthcoming.
24. Laeven, L and G Majnoni. 2003. “Loan Loss Provisioning and Economic Slowdowns: Too much, Too Late?”, Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol 12, 178–97.
25. Novotny-Farkas, Z. 2016. “The Interaction of the IFRS 9 Expected Loss Approach with Supervisory Rules and Implications for Financial Stability”, Accounting in Europe, 13(2), 197-227.
26. Deloitte. 2016. “Sixth Global IFRS Banking Survey: No Time Like the Present”.
27. PricewaterhouseCoopers UK. 2016. “IFRS 9: Impairment – Global Banking Industry Benchmark”.
28. KPMG. 2014. “First Impressions: IFRS 9 Financial Instruments”.
29. Tong, T. 2014. “A Review of the Expected Credit Loss Model of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments”
30. www.https://www.bddk.org.tr/websitesi/english/About_Us/About_BRSA/5804brsa_booklet_nov2015.pdf
31. www.bddk.org.tr