On 18th December 2015, the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) published its final insights on sound credit risk and accounting practices associated with the implementation of IFRS 9 Expected Credit Losses (ECL) accounting frameworks. In this post, we will be highlighting and deliberating upon some of the key issues which have been discussed in the BCBS guidance note, and their impact on various banks.

1. th
On 18 December 2015, the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) published its final
insights on sound credit risk and accounting practices associated with the implementation of
Expected Credit Losses (ECL) accounting frameworks, replacing the earlier guidance issued in June
2006 on ‘Sound credit risk assessment and valuation for loans’.
In this post, we will be highlighting and deliberating upon some of the key issues which have been
discussed in the BCBS guidance note, and their impact on various banks:
BCBS advocates high quality
implementation of IFRS 9 standards
ISSUE 03
Contact: IFRS9.Insights@aptivaa.com | Website: www.aptivaa.com | www.linkedin.com/company/aptivaa Page 1
The Committee has acknowledged that earlier, ‘incurred loss model’ was implemented across
various jurisdictions, and in some cases, implemented with significant differences within the same
jurisdiction. For this reason, the Committee has emphasized on the importance of high-quality,
robust, and consistent implementation of ECL accounting framework, at internationally
active banks across all jurisdictions.
01
The Committee has stressed on ‘periodical supervisory prudential review’ of the methodologies
adopted by various banks for ECL estimation. Therefore, supervisors are not expected to pre-
approve banks’ ECL accounting model, and this implies that banks have to support all their
methodologies and assumptions with strong documentation.
02

2. We have also published a white-paper for our esteemed readers, which explores in detail all the key aspects discussed by the
Basel Committee, and our view on the same. It can be accessed from https://www.linkedin.com/company/aptivaa, “Aptivaa
whitepaper on BCBS guidelines for IFRS 9”.
In the coming week, we will be discussing identification of different stages of impairment.
This space aims to answer your queries pertaining to IFRS 9 principles. In case, you have any queries pertaining to IFRS 9 which
you wish to discuss, do leave your comments.
Page 2
The Committee has not provided any exemption bucket for compliance to accounting
standards, and therefore, all the lending exposures should be considered for ECLestimation.
From our extensive experience, we understand that many banks have some part of their lending
exposure outside the purview of rating systems. To meet the specified requirements, banks may
have to invest in highly skilled human resources along with upgradation of existing systems, or
development of new systems.
03
The Committee has explicated that due consideration should be given to the principle of
materiality, and exposures (individual or portfolio exposure) cumulatively presenting a material
exposure to the bank, should not be considered immaterial.
05
The Committee has recognized that supervisors across jurisdictions may adopt a proportionate
approach with regard to the guidelines issued to banks of different scale and complexities.
However, as per our view, it is very evident from the publications of the Committee that it
acknowledges that the ‘one size fits all’ approach is not expected to be advocated by supervisors.
Accordingly, every Bank would need to define its own prescriptive model to identify target state
across the range of methodologies varying in sophistication for ECLestimation.
04
The Committee has also acknowledged that ECLaccounting framework is symmetrical in nature,
and it will be allowing reversal of allowances for the first time. However, this initiative from the
Committee is expected to introduce some volatility in the P&L statement of the banks.
06
The Committee expects that banks should have robust policies and procedures in place for
validation of models, thus maintaining its rigor stance for model governance framework,
consistent with the requirements for Basel II IRB purposes.
07
The Committee has clearly outlined that Banks need not necessarily identify or model every
possible scenario, or use industry-wide stressed scenarios, but should rather consider all the
relevant forward-looking information and macroeconomic forecasts, which could impact the ECL
assessment.
08
The Committee has also explained that delinquency data is generally backward looking and is a
lagging indicator of significant increase in credit risk. In this regard, it expects that banks will not use
more-than-30-days past-due rebuttable presumption as a primary indicator for transfer to LEL, and will
considereachofthe16classesofindicatorsinIFRS9,assetoutinparagraphsB5.5.17(a)–(p).
09
The Committee considers that the long-term benefit of a high-quality IFRS 9 implementation far
outweighs the associated costs, which should therefore not be considered undue.
10
Contact: IFRS9.Insights@aptivaa.com | Website: www.aptivaa.com | www.linkedin.com/company/aptivaa