==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== TESTIMONY OF STEVEN M.H. WALLMAN, COMMISSIONER U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONCERNING: DISCLOSURE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES FOR DERIVATIVES AND DISCLOSURE OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT MARKET RISK INHERENT IN MARKET RISK SENSITIVE INSTRUMENTS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITIES COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE MARCH 4, 1997 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20549 ==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== TESTIMONY OF STEVEN M.H. WALLMAN, COMMISSIONER U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES FOR DERIVATIVES AND DISCLOSURE OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION ABOUT MARKET RISK INHERENT IN MARKET RISK SENSITIVE INSTRUMENTS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITIES COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE MARCH 4, 1997 Chairman Gramm and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear today to testify on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission" or "SEC") regarding rules, adopted by the Commission on January 28, 1997,-[1]- that require certain disclosures about market risk sensitive instruments.-[2]- These disclosures are an ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[1]- Securities Act Release No. 7386, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38223, Investment Company Act Release No. 22487, Financial Reporting Release No. 48, International Series No. 1047, File No. S7-35-95 (January 31, 1997); 62 FR 6044 (February 10, 1997) (the "adopting release," a copy of which is attached at Tab A). -[2]- Derivative financial instruments, other financial instruments, and derivative commodity instruments are collectively referred to as "market risk sensitive instruments." See the adopting release for definitions of each of the terms "derivative financial instruments," "other financial instruments" and "derivative commodity instruments." ==========================================START OF PAGE 2====== important step in improving investor understanding of the market risks facing public companies and how individual companies manage those risks. The disclosures are designed to help investors answer questions such as: What types of market risk exposures from market risk sensitive instruments does the company face? How are those risks managed? What losses may occur if interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, or commodity prices move by certain amounts? Answers to these questions and others like them should help to demystify these instruments and increase the ability of investors to analyze the market risks inherent in their investments. This is a particularly significant rulemaking effort because it is the first time the Commission has asked registrants to quantify for investors the risks associated with changes in market rates and prices. Developing an appropriate and understandable disclosure framework for these risks was a significant and critically important task as risk management techniques become more complex and fundamental to the success of American businesses. As explained more fully in the attached adopting release, the Commission amended its rules to expand existing disclosure requirements for market risk sensitive instruments in three ways:-[3]- ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[3]- Section V. of the adopting release also contains a reminder for registrants of other reporting obligations relating to derivatives. ==========================================START OF PAGE 3====== x To require enhanced disclosure in the footnotes to the financial statements of accounting policies for "derivatives";-[4]- x To require disclosure outside the financial statements of quantitative information about market risk inherent in market risk sensitive instruments; and x To require disclosure outside the financial statements of qualitative information about market risk inherent in market risk sensitive instruments. Registrants providing this information will be provided protection from liability under a new Commission safe harbor rule for forward looking information. As explained below, the Commission has studied how to improve disclosure about market risk since 1994. This process included discussions with representatives of investors and analysts, the business community, and the securities industry. In addition, the process encompassed an extensive review of disclosures by registrants and a thorough review of comment letters received over a one year period. In many cases, comments from investor organizations conflicted with those from registrants. The Commission weighed the views of commenters in light of perceived costs and benefits and the current state of technology and risk measurement methodologies, and made several changes before adopting the final rules to balance the various considerations. Nonetheless, the Commission recognizes that the disclosures may not be the perfect solution; they are, however, responsive to ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[4]- Derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments are collectively referred to as "derivatives." ==========================================START OF PAGE 4====== the well-founded need to improve disclosures in this important area. In addition, the Commission expects to monitor the effectiveness of the new rules and to reevaluate them no later than a period of three years from their initial effective date.-[5]- The Commission understands that the Subcommittee has expressed interest in the Financial Accounting Standards Board's ("FASB")-[6]- project on accounting for derivatives. As noted later, the Commission has encouraged FASB in its efforts. However, the FASB has not yet completed its deliberations, and therefore, the Commission's testimony relates only to the Commission's recently adopted market risk disclosure rules. EMERGENCE OF MARKET RISK AS A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL REPORTING ISSUE During the last several years, the use of market risk ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[5]- Specifically, the Commission will reconsider the effectiveness of the new rules after each of the following: (i) issuance of a new accounting standard for derivatives by the FASB; (ii) development in the marketplace of new generally accepted methods for measuring market risk; and (iii) a period of three years from the initial effective date of the new requirements for quantitative and qualitative information about market risk. -[6]- The FASB is the independent private sector body designated by the accounting profession to set standards of financial accounting and reporting. In 1973, the Commission endorsed the establishment of the FASB and indicated that it would look to the FASB for leadership in establishing and improving financial accounting standards. Accounting Series Release No. 150 (December 20, 1973). ==========================================START OF PAGE 5====== sensitive instruments-[7]- increased substantially. Indeed, these instruments are more common now than ever before for companies in many different industries. Illustrative of this increased use is the growth of worldwide notional/contract amounts for derivatives from $7.1 trillion in 1989 to $69.9 trillion in 1995. The Commission recognizes that derivatives often are used as effective tools for managing exposures to market risk.-[8]- Over the past several years, these instruments have been used to mitigate the potential losses to American businesses from significant changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and commodity prices. Derivatives allow companies to change their market risk profile in an effective and efficient manner by shifting a specific risk from themselves to others who seek to accept and manage that risk. Due to the growth in the use of derivatives, the Commission ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[7]- See the instructions to Item 305 of Regulation S-K for complete definitions of the terms "derivative financial instruments," "other financial instruments," and "derivative commodity instruments." -[8]- Market risk is the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices, such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and other relevant market rate or price changes (e.g., equity prices). See Group of Thirty, "Derivatives: Practices and Principles" (July 1993), and FASB, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 105, "Disclosure of Information about Financial Instruments with Off-Balance-Sheet Risk and Financial Instruments with Concentrations of Credit Risk," (March 1990), for similar definitions of market risk. ==========================================START OF PAGE 6====== believes it has become more important to discern from current disclosures the risk profile of a registrant. Moreover, the last time there were major movements in interest rate and foreign currency markets, several headline stories about losses from derivatives and other market risk sensitive instruments by corporate end-users and dealers alike surprised investors and the markets. These stories include the losses incurred by Bankers Trust, Dell Computers, Gibson Greetings, and Proctor & Gamble, among others. The surprise accompanying such losses demonstrates the need for more public disclosure of what market risks are and how the registrants in which the public invests its money are managing those risks. As discussed more fully in the adopting release, certain private sector organizations, such as the Association of Investment Management and Research ("AIMR") and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, expressed concerns that users of financial reports are dissatisfied with current disclosures about market risk sensitive instruments. A recent example of such concerns appears in a survey of year end 1994 derivative disclosures sponsored by Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. Foundation ("C&L") which states: [T]here was rarely enough information provided for the user to form independent judgments about the magnitude of the risks involved with the derivatives or the impact derivative activity might have on future earnings or cash flows. Often, the disclosures were also deficient in providing enough detail in accounting policy disclosures to allow the user to discern how derivatives activities flow through the ==========================================START OF PAGE 7====== financial statements.-[9]- In addition to expressing concerns similar to C&L's, some organizations-[10]- recommended improvements to market risk disclosures, which generally are consistent with the disclosure framework embodied in the Commission's rules. In October 1994, the FASB, responding in part to calls for improved disclosure, issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 119, "Disclosures about Derivative Financial Instruments and Fair Value of Financial Instruments" ("FAS 119").-[11]- FAS 119 was designed, in part, to help investors and others understand how derivative financial instruments are reported in the financial statements by requiring ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[9]- Bushee, Derivative Disclosures Under SFAS No. 119: A Survey and Analysis of 1994 Disclosures by End Users of Derivatives, 6 (Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. Foundation, September 22, 1995). -[10]- As discussed more fully in the adopting release, these organizations include regulators, such as the General Accounting Office, Group of 10 Central Bankers, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Basle Committee and the Technical Committee of IOSCO, and private sector bodies, such as the Group of Thirty and a task force of the Financial Executives Institute. -[11]- Similar standards were recently adopted by the International Accounting Standards Committee, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Australian Accounting Standards Board. See International Accounting Standards No. 32, "Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation," (March 1995), Section 3860 of the Handbook of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Australian Accounting Standards Board's accounting standard entitled, "Presentation and Disclosure of Financial Instruments," (December 1996), respectively. ==========================================START OF PAGE 8====== qualitative disclosures about those instruments.-[12]- However, FAS 119 applies only to derivative financial instruments and does not apply to other derivative instruments with similar characteristics, such as derivative commodity instruments. In addition, FAS 119 does not require, but only encourages, disclosure of quantitative information about an entity's market risk exposures.-[13]- To understand better the issues relating to the disclosure of market risk, the SEC staff reviewed over 500 filings made by registrants both before and after FASB's adoption of FAS 119. The SEC staff noted that the 1995 disclosures were more informative than the 1994 disclosures, in part because of improved FASB disclosure guidance. However, apart from the lack of quantitative disclosures, the staff observed the following three significant disclosure deficiencies: x Footnote disclosures of accounting policies for derivatives often were too general to convey adequately the diversity in accounting that exists for derivatives;-[14]- x Disclosures about different types of market risk sensitive instruments often were reported separately. Thus, it was difficult to assess the aggregate market ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[12]- See FAS 119 60. -[13]- See FAS 119 12. -[14]- The authoritative accounting literature for options and complex derivatives generally is limited to a few consensuses from the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force, which by their nature address the accounting for specific transactions. See the adopting release for background information about the accounting methods used for derivatives. ==========================================START OF PAGE 9====== risk exposures inherent in these instruments; and x Disclosures did not reflect the effect of derivatives on information required to be reported under the federal securities law. THE NEW DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Overview of the Rules The Commission adopted rules designed to address those disclosure deficiencies. In particular, the rules require registrants to provide three different types of disclosures regarding market risk sensitive instruments. First, registrants must provide enhanced descriptions of accounting policies for derivatives in the footnotes to the financial statements.-[15]- Second, registrants must provide qualitative information outside the financial statements about their primary market risks, how those risks are managed, and changes in either the risk exposures or how they are managed. Third, registrants must provide quantitative information about market risk sensitive instruments outside the financial ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[15]- This accounting policy disclosure requirement, unlike the other requirements of the rule, is applicable only to derivatives; the requirements do not relate to other financial instruments. Accounting policy disclosure requirements for other financial instruments are prescribed by existing generally accepted accounting principles and Commission guidance (see, e.g., American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA"), Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 22, "Disclosure of Accounting Policies," ("APB 22") (April 1972). ==========================================START OF PAGE 10====== statements.-[16]- Under the rules, quantitative information may be provided using one of three alternatives. Specifically, registrants must provide: (i) tabular presentation of fair value information and contract terms relevant to determining future cash flows, categorized by expected maturity dates; (ii) sensitivity analysis expressing the potential loss in future earnings, fair values, or cash flows from selected hypothetical changes in market rates and prices; or (iii) value at risk disclosures expressing the potential loss in future earnings, fair values, or cash flows from market movements over a selected period of time and with a selected likelihood of occurrence. The quantitative information must be provided separately for instruments entered into for trading purposes-[17]- and other than trading purposes for different market risk exposure categories (i.e., interest rate risk, foreign currency exchange rate risk, commodity price risk, and other relevant market risks, such as equity price risk), to the extent material. In addition to disclosures about market risk sensitive instruments, the rules also encourage, but do not require, the ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[16]- The amendments relating to accounting policy disclosures apply to registered investment companies and small business issuers, among other registrants. In contrast, the other disclosure requirements do not apply to registered investment companies and small business issuers. -[17]- For purposes of this discussion, the term "trading purposes" has the same meaning as defined by generally accepted accounting principles (see, e.g., FAS 119 9a). ==========================================START OF PAGE 11====== market risk disclosures to include information about other instruments and transactions that are subject to market risk, such as commodity positions. The Commission considered expanding the required disclosures to include commodity positions and other similar instruments and transactions; however, many internal risk measurement systems currently do not incorporate many commodity positions and anticipated transactions. Thus, the Commission did not require the inclusion of these items at this time. To the extent such encouraged disclosures are not provided, registrants must discuss the absence of those items as a limitation of the disclosed market risk information. Finally, the rules provide that forward looking disclosures made pursuant to the rules are within the statutory safe harbor under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 whether or not the registrant or the transaction would otherwise be disqualified from the statutory safe harbor. Utility of the Disclosures The Commission believes that investors will benefit greatly from the disclosures about derivative accounting policies and market risk. It is expected that such disclosures will complement the Commission's existing disclosure framework and improve the usefulness of financial reporting. Disclosure of accounting policies for derivatives currently is required by generally accepted accounting principles. However, those requirements do not indicate explicitly what information should be included in the disclosures of derivatives ==========================================START OF PAGE 12====== accounting policies. As a result, the accounting policies footnote for derivatives varies among registrants. Often, such disclosures are overly broad and do not provide insight as to the quality of the accounting policies or the criteria needed to be met by the registrant to qualify for hedge accounting. For example, a registrant's accounting policy for derivatives currently might state: hedge accounting is used for derivatives that hedge the price of inventory. Such a policy does not describe the type of instruments used to hedge inventory, the specific type of hedge accounting applied to each type of instrument used, the criteria that must be met to qualify for hedge accounting for each type of instrument used, the type of accounting that occurs if the criteria for hedge accounting are not met, or other key aspects to the accounting policies for derivatives. Without such information, investors are unable to understand when and under what circumstances any gains or losses from these contracts will be recorded in the financial statements. In addition, investors and analysts are unable to determine the quality of the accounting policies being applied to derivatives. The rules require registrants to disclose specific details about the accounting policies used for derivatives. For example, the rules require disclosure of the accounting method applied to each type of derivative used, the criteria required to be met for each accounting method used, and other key aspects of the ==========================================START OF PAGE 13====== accounting policies for derivatives. All information that the registrant already has, but which currently is not disclosed. The Commission expects that such disclosure will facilitate an investor's understanding of the effects of derivatives on financial statements and improve the ability of investors and analysts to evaluate the quality of the accounting policies across registrants. Quantitative disclosures about market risk currently are not required and usually are not included in filings with the Commission. The Commission believes such quantitative information and related disclosures about the model, parameters, and key assumptions is helpful to investors; therefore the rules require such information. The Commission believes that these disclosures will provide critical information about the amount of risk inherent in market risk sensitive instruments and the key elements underlying how that risk was measured and quantified. Thus, the Commission expects that investors will be able to evaluate better a registrant's exposure to changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and commodity prices. For example, using the sensitivity disclosure alternative provided in the Commission's rule, registrants might disclose that: at December 31, 19x7, a one percent gradual decline in interest rates would result in a $XXX decline in the ==========================================START OF PAGE 14====== Company's earnings.-[18]- Such disclosure provides forward looking information about the sensitivity or variability in earnings from a hypothetical, though possible, change in interest rates. This type of disclosure allows investors to assess the aggregate impact that changes in interest rates might have on earnings. The Commission believes investors will be able to use that information in understanding the risk associated with possible changes in interest rates. In addition, the Commission expects that investors will be able to determine better whether the risk inherent in one investment is increased or mitigated when combined with the risk inherent in other investments. Also, investors will be able to assess better whether the model and key assumptions are reasonable. If registrants such as Gibson Greetings, Dell Computer, or others that incurred significant losses from derivatives over the past few years had made such disclosure, the Commission believes that investors and the markets would have been less surprised when those losses actually occurred. Lastly, many registrants currently disclose some qualitative information about market risk exposures and how those risks are managed because current rules require a general discussion of risks and uncertainties. However, the content of those disclosures is not consistent among registrants. The rules make ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[18]- Similar disclosures also would be provided for other risk categories (e.g., foreign currency exchange rates and commodity prices). ==========================================START OF PAGE 15====== clear the qualitative disclosure requirements for market risk sensitive instruments and make the quantitative disclosures about market risk more meaningful. In particular, the rules require disclosure of (i) a registrant's market risk exposures, (ii) how those exposures are managed, and (iii) changes in either the registrant's market risk exposures or in how those exposures are managed. Such disclosures should help investors understand a registrant's market risk management activities and strategies and help place those activities and strategies in the context of the business. For example, assume a registrant discloses that it had been exposed to short-term changes in the Mexican peso, but as a matter of policy it enters into derivatives to convert that exposure into short-term US dollar exposure. In those circumstances, the qualitative disclosures about the registrant's derivatives strategy allows investors to conclude that changes in US interest rates will affect the registrant more than changes in Mexican peso/US dollar exchange rates; a conclusion that may not have been reached without the qualitative disclosures. In addition, the qualitative disclosures should enable investors to understand better a registrant's attitude toward taking risk and its ability to manage risk. In sum, the Commission believes that disclosures about derivative accounting policies and market risk will benefit investors in many ways. Assessments about the impact of derivatives on the financial statements will be improved; ==========================================START OF PAGE 16====== judgments about potential losses from changes in market rates or prices will be more informed; and an understanding of the risks a registrant faces and how those risks are managed will be increased. Significant Issues Considered In developing these rules, the Commission received letters from 97 respondents. Several significant issues were raised in these letters, and the Commission considered such issues prior to adopting the final rules. The more prominent issues follow. Competitive Concerns. Some commentators expressed concern that the proposed quantitative disclosure requirements, particularly the tabular disclosure, would result in the presentation of proprietary information and competitively disadvantage registrants. They expressed concern that the tabular information required by the rules was so detailed and disaggregated that competitors, suppliers, and market traders potentially may be able to use the information to exploit the registrants' positions in the market. Other commentators maintained that, in certain limited circumstances, period-end reporting of sensitivity analysis and value at risk amounts also may reveal proprietary information. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that registrants concerned that tabular disclosure may result in the disclosure of proprietary information may, instead, provide disclosure of quantitative information about market risk using the sensitivity analysis and value at risk alternatives. Those alternatives do ==========================================START OF PAGE 17====== not necessarily require disclosure of detailed information. Moreover, after careful consideration, the Commission modified the sensitivity and value at risk rules to address proprietary concerns. Specifically, for those registrants with concerns about reporting fiscal year-end information, the rules were revised to permit registrants to report the average, high, and low sensitivity analysis or value at risk amounts for the reporting period, instead of requiring the reporting of potentially proprietary year-end information. In addition, some have commented that requiring registrants to comply with such disclosure requirements puts them at a disadvantage when compared with companies that file in other markets around the world. Although the rules apply to domestic and foreign registrants that file with the Commission, the Commission is aware that the rules require market risk disclosures that are more comprehensive than those required by other countries. Historically, the Commission has determined to impose new disclosure requirements on registrants only when the benefits of the disclosures outweigh the costs. The U.S. markets have thrived under this comprehensive disclosure framework and are the most liquid and efficient markets, affording ready capital that attracts users of capital from around the world, precisely because of the transparency afforded to investors. The new rules are consistent with this framework, and the Commission believes that the utility of the disclosures will outweigh the costs. ==========================================START OF PAGE 18====== Concerns About Flexibility. Several commenters suggested that the proposing rules requiring quantitative information about market risk could be more flexible. In response to those commenters, the Commission made several changes in the requirements that should enhance registrants' flexibility in preparing the quantitative disclosures, and thereby also reduce costs. In addition to changes relating to reporting the average, high, and low value at risk and sensitivity amounts described above, the more significant changes include: x Permitting the use of different market risk measurement methodologies for different categories of risk, rather than requiring one form of measurement as originally proposed; x Permitting registrants who change quantitative disclosure methods from one year to the next to provide comparative information using two alternative methods, rather than one. A registrant may restate the prior year's disclosures based on the new alternative that has been selected for the current year. Alternatively, for registrants concerned about recreating prior records under this approach, the rules allow disclosure under the new approach provided that registrants also disclose information for the current year under the old approach; and x Permitting registrants to provide a discussion and analysis of the sources and effects of material changes in market risk information since the end of the preceding fiscal year, instead of requiring comprehensive quantitative information in interim reports.-[19]- Comparability Concerns. Some commenters suggested that the flexibility allowed in the rules would make it difficult for investors to compare disclosures across registrants. In ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[19]- See Section VI of the adopting release for a more comprehensive discussion of the Commission's response to the commenters' concerns. ==========================================START OF PAGE 19====== developing the quantitative disclosures about market risks, it became clear there was not a consensus among experts on how to best present information about market risk. For example, some commenters, such as AIMR and Robert Morris & Associates, wanted more standardized disclosures that easily could be compared from registrant to registrant, while other commenters, including many registrants, wanted the flexibility to present the information in accordance with the approach used internally to manage their market risks. However, no commenter seeking added flexibility specified another approach that they wanted to use that was not already permitted by one of the three quantitative disclosure alternatives allowed by the rules. The Commission tried to strike a careful balance between comparability and cost, often making decisions that the Commission believes should result in lower costs and more flexibility in the preparation of the disclosures. These decisions were influenced by the relatively nascent stage of market risk management methodologies. The disclosure options provided to registrants to use one or more of three methods, and to use different methods for different portfolios and categories within portfolios, admittedly will limit comparability across registrants. To help investors better understand and compare registrants' disclosures, however, the rules require registrants to provide insights into how the disclosures were prepared, including the assumptions and parameters of the model selected, and the limitations on those ==========================================START OF PAGE 20====== disclosures. Also, the disclosures are required for the two most recent fiscal years, therefore, information will be available to allow investors to make comparisons of a registrant's market risk exposures between years. The Commission expects that, over time, market risk management methodologies will converge. This convergence should aid in the comparability of the disclosures. Also, the Commission expects to reevaluate these disclosures with the goal of increasing comparability once the Commission, investors, and registrants gain experience in this area. EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS As noted above, users have identified the lack of market risk disclosures as a significant deficiency in the current financial reporting framework. The expected benefit of these rules is to make information about market risk sensitive instruments more accessible and understandable to investors and others. Moreover, by improving investor understanding of market risk, the Commission expects the rules to improve the efficiency of the markets. Although the Commission solicited comment on the costs, none of the comment letters provided empirical or statistical information about the costs to comply with the proposed quantitative disclosures of market risk. Because information relating to accounting policies and qualitative disclosures are known and readily available to management, the Commission believes that costs to prepare those disclosures should not be ==========================================START OF PAGE 21====== substantial. As a preliminary matter, for cost/benefit reasons, the Commission excluded small business issuers from the quantitative and qualitative disclosure requirements. With respect to other registrants, an important aspect of the quantitative disclosures requirement, from a cost perspective, is that registrants will have the flexibility to choose one or more of three disclosure alternatives (tabular presentation, sensitivity analysis, or value at risk) for disclosing such quantitative information. Thus, the costs associated with complying with this requirement depend largely on which disclosure alternative is chosen and whether the alternative selected is used currently by the registrant for management or regulatory purposes. Some registrants are required to prepare quantitative information for regulatory capital measurement purposes. In particular, thrift institutions are required to prepare fair value sensitivity analyses for risk-based capital purposes.-[20]- Also, banks and bank holding companies with significant exposure to market risk are required to prepare a value at risk analysis for risk-based capital purposes.-[21]- Consequently, these entities should not ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[20]- Office of Thrift Supervision, Regulatory Capital: Interest Rate Risk Component, 12 CFR 567.5(c)(4) (August 1993). -[21]- See Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve System, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, "Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk," 61 FR 47358 (September 6, 1996). ==========================================START OF PAGE 22====== incur significant additional cost. Similarly, other companies that use one of these alternatives for either management or regulatory purposes should not incur significant additional cost. The Commission also recognizes that the more complex and difficult disclosures will be required of those entities that have a larger number of instruments and more complex instruments; however, these entities are likely to be knowledgeable about market risk management methods and have risk management systems in place. Thus, many times the incremental costs are not expected to be significant for these entities. A significant number of registrants, because of the size or nature of their businesses, do not have a significant number of derivative instruments or do not have complex instruments. For these companies, a simple tabular presentation may suffice. The time and cost to prepare such disclosures should not be significant. Admittedly, for larger commercial corporations currently not using one of the three alternatives, the costs for preparing and presenting the required information may be higher due to greater overall start-up costs. In an effort to mitigate the costs of complying with the rules, the portion of the rules relating to quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk will be phased in. Registrants with market capitalizations over $2.5 billion or which have control over banks or thrifts are required to comply in filings that include financial statements for fiscal years ending after June 15, 1997; the phase-in date is June 15, 1998 ==========================================START OF PAGE 23====== for other registrants. Therefore, for registrants with fiscal years coinciding with calendar years, the first filings that require the new disclosure will be due in March 1998 or 1999. It is expected that about 600 registrants, plus banks and thrifts, will be included in the first phase. The Commission believes that costs to comply with the rules will vary from registrant to registrant.-[22]- Costs are expected to be highest for registrants with significant market risk exposures that do not currently manage those exposures in a centralized manner. Costs are expected to be lowest, however, for registrants that already use one of the three disclosure alternatives for internal risk management purposes. After considering the comments, the Commission estimated the average hours and cost per registrant to comply with the rules to be 80 hours at $100 per hour. Accordingly, the overall cost estimate was revised to be approximately $40 million for the approximate 5,000 registrants that, once the disclosure requirements are fully phased-in, will comply with the required disclosures. In the near term, the Commission expects that the development of software will facilitate the preparation of the quantitative disclosures and reduce the associated costs materially. For example, the Commission understands that some of the data and the systems needed to develop these analyses ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[22]- See Wall Street Journal, "Risk-Management Services Beefed Up By Ernst & Young" C24 (February 6, 1997) and The Bond Buyer, "Ernst & Young Hires Risk Manager in Move to Expand Services of End Users" (February 11, 1997). ==========================================START OF PAGE 24====== recently have been made available at a relatively moderate cost.-[23]- FASB PROJECT ON ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVES AND HEDGING INSTRUMENTS In recent years, constituents of the financial reporting system increasingly have concluded that the current accounting model for derivatives has failed to provide adequate and timely disclosure to investors of important exposures facing public companies. Those concerns, and the growing use of derivatives as basic risk management tools, led the Commission to encourage the FASB to address the accounting for derivatives. After substantial research and open debate, the FASB exposed a draft standard for public comment (the "exposure draft"). Since that time, as part of its deliberative process, the FASB has considered a number of alternative approaches, met with many interested parties, held public hearings, and reviewed the significant number of comment letters on its exposure draft. The FASB is now reviewing the comments received and re-deliberating its proposal. Practically since its inception, the Commission has looked to the private sector for leadership in setting accounting standards, a role now being performed by the FASB. The Commission's role in this process generally has been one of oversight. Nevertheless, the Commission has the authority, and the responsibility, to see that accounting principles followed by ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[23]- See Wall Street Journal, "Morgan Unveils the Way It Measures Market Risk" C1 (October 11, 1994). ==========================================START OF PAGE 25====== registrants serve the interests of investors. Accordingly, we oversee all FASB standard-setting projects to assure that the FASB is operating in the public interest and that the results of its work are credible and are the product of an independent and unbiased process. The FASB's existing procedures, with public participation and Commission oversight, ensure that there are opportunities for all interested parties to express their views, and that the views expressed are evaluated carefully. The Commission's oversight includes consulting with the FASB and its staff, reviewing comment letters, and observing selected open meetings and public hearings. Although we rarely express definitive positions on the provisions of proposed standards, we consistently have encouraged the FASB to develop standards that provide high levels of transparency to underlying events and transactions, that eliminate needless accounting alternatives, and that are protective of the interests of investors. The Commission has provided such encouragement with respect to the FASB's project on accounting for derivatives and indicated that, after more than four years of debate, it is time for the FASB to finish its project and provide the much-needed new accounting standards for derivatives and hedging instruments. CONCLUSION Despite encouraged disclosures recommended by the FASB, the Basle Committee, an FEI task force, and other organizations, current disclosures with respect to market risk are not as helpful to investors as they should be. This concern has been ==========================================START OF PAGE 26====== stressed by many organizations including the GAO, AIMR, AICPA, Federal Reserve Board, and the report published by the Coopers & Lybrand Foundation. In acknowledgement of the evolving nature of risk management, the Commission developed a disclosure framework that provides more useful information about market risk while allowing flexibility for change. The rules reflect careful balancing of numerous considerations. They require qualitative disclosures about accounting policies and market risk and, importantly, allow registrants to select from three disclosure alternatives when presenting quantitative information about market risk. Over the long term, these disclosures should ensure a better understanding by investors, by policy makers, and by regulators, of how derivatives and other financial instruments are used, what they do, what risks are inherent in their use, and how they play an important role in the management of market risks. The Commission expects to reevaluate the effectiveness of the disclosures after three years from the date the rules initially become effective. The Commission shares this Subcommittee's commitment to ensure that the U.S. securities markets remain the most vibrant and healthy markets in the world. If we are to maintain that status, however, investors need to better understand the potential impact of derivatives and other market sensitive instruments on the issuers of securities. The market risk disclosures adopted by the Commission are an important and innovative development in ensuring that better understanding. ==========================================START OF PAGE 27====== The Commission looks forward to the Subcommittee's ongoing oversight as we continue our consideration of these issues.