Financial instruments where offsetting might be achieved, and where analysis is typically required, include collateralised over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, repo and reverse repo transactions, futures, and listed derivatives, and these are the focus of this publication. However, it is necessary to first ensure that the appropriate balances are being considered for offsetting, since there can be complexities.

Offsetting might also be applicable in other situations, such as cash pooling arrangements and where payables and receivables are settled net with the same counterparty, but these transactions are not addressed in this guidance.

Consideration should first be given as to which balances meet the derecognition requirements in IFRS 9 and, for those balances that continue to be recognised, which groups of balances the reporting entity can contractually settle at the same time to be considered for offsetting.

Industry-specific FAQs

General FAQs of particular relevance to the industry

An entity`s right of set off must be currently available (not contingent on a future event) and must be legally enforceable in all of the normal course of business, in the event of default, and in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy of the entity and all of the counterparties.

[IAS 32 para AG38B].

Industry-specific FAQs

An entity might have a legal right to settle net, but it might still realise the financial asset and settle the financial liability separately in practice. To offset the financial asset and financial liability, the entity must also intend either to settle on a net basis or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously.

[IAS 32 para AG38E].

Industry-specific FAQs

The quantitative and qualitative disclosure requirements are set out in paragraphs 13A–13F of IFRS 7. As well as applying to all recognised financial instruments that are offset in accordance with IAS 32, they apply to recognised financial instruments that are subject to an enforceable master netting agreement or similar arrangements, even where they do not meet the IAS 32 offsetting requirements.

Further guidance on offsetting disclosures is in paragraphs 47.56 to 47.63 of the Manual of accounting.

As a result of regulation in a number of territories, many derivative contracts are ‘centrally cleared’ with a central counterparty (‘CCP’). For entities that themselves are not a clearing member of the relevant CCP, this requires the entity to transact with a clearing member who will then interact with the CCP on the entity’s behalf. Clearing members are typically major banks who are required to place ‘default fund’ deposits as well as collateral with the CCP, in order to mitigate the credit risk of the CCP. In many cases, this can be represented as follows:

In this situation, the bank enters into derivative contracts, with related collateral, with its clients and back-to-back derivative transactions, with related collateral, with the CCP. Typically there would be many derivative asset and liability positions with the CCP.

In determining what to present on its balance sheet, the bank should consider the following questions, typically in the order set out below:

Does daily posting of cash margin result in daily extinguishment through legal settlement of the contract, leaving no recognised cash collateral balances to be offset?

Where cash margin is paid or received on a financial instrument contract, the accounting analysis is typically either:

In order for Option A to apply and the cash payment to achieve partial derecognition of the original trade, the derecognition requirements of IFRS 9 must be met. This will generally be because, under the terms of the relevant contract(s), the cash payment causes:

In order to conclude whether Option A or B is applicable, the specific contractual terms of the trade contract and any other relevant terms (for example, where the contract is traded on an exchange, the exchange’s regulations or rules) will need to be considered to determine whether, legally, the original contractual rights and obligations have been partially settled. Where these contractual terms are not explicit, legal advice might be necessary in order to reach a conclusion. Factors relevant to the legal analysis of whether cash margin does result in legal settlement of the original contract might include whether the contract provides for:

In practice, futures margin is often viewed as resulting in settlement (although there are exceptions), while margin on listed and OTC derivatives is often not considered settlement. However, some CCPs, including LCH Swapclear and LME, have amended their rules so that some or all payments of cash variation margin result in legal settlement of the previously outstanding amount. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the accounting reflects the most up-to-date terms and conditions, including any recent changes.

Can cash collateral posted in respect of a portfolio of derivatives be offset against the balance sheet derivative positions?

As a simple example, an entity might have entered into a single derivative with a bank or clearing house. To reduce credit risk, the two entities might have agreed to post cash collateral periodically with each other equal to the fair value of the derivative. The posting of the collateral does not result in legal settlement of the outstanding balance. However, the terms of the collateral agreement are that the collateral will be used to settle the derivative as and when payments are due (as well as on a default or insolvency or bankruptcy of either party), and both entities intend to settle this way.

If this is the case, the entity will have a legally enforceable right to offset the derivative and the collateral, and will intend to settle net. If market prices do not change, no further cash flows will arise. Any changes in the collateral balance after the balance sheet date arise as a result of future events and are not relevant to the balance sheet date assessment. The offsetting requirements in IAS 32 are therefore met, and the collateral should be offset against the balance sheet derivative position. If, on the other hand, the cash collateral is not used to settle the derivative’s remaining cash flows, the offsetting requirements in IAS 32 are not met.

More typically, an entity will have a portfolio of derivatives with a bank or clearing house, rather than just a single derivative. If the net cash collateral required to be posted for the whole portfolio is the aggregate of the individual amounts of cash collateral for each derivative in the portfolio (each individual amount being equal to the fair value of the derivative), the above analysis for a single derivative should be applied. This is done by firstly dividing the net cash collateral payable or receivable balance into the individual amounts relating to each derivative in the portfolio. For each individual derivative, the derivative balance is then offset against the associated collateral balance in the same way as described in the simple example above. In practice, in the absence of factors such as time delays between derivative fair value movements and cash collateral movements, this should result in the entire derivative portfolio being offset against the cash collateral balance.

In practice, bilateral OTC trades might not be subject to cash collateral netting in the ordinary course of business, with collateral payments made separately from derivative payments. As a result, further cash flows will arise, even if market prices do not move, and so offsetting is not permitted. Even where cash collateral netting is applied in the ordinary course of business, if this is just a matter of practice but the contracts between the bank and the counterparty do not give them the contractually enforceable right to do this, the parties are still not permitted to offset.

What impact does the ability to post non-cash collateral (for example, securities) have on offsetting a derivative against collateral?

Non-cash collateral received (rather than posted) by an entity will not be recognised on the balance sheet, because it will fail derecognition in the transferor and so provides the entity with no accounting entry against which to offset on-balance sheet derivative positions. Therefore, consider a simple scenario where a firm has one trade that is an asset of 50 and another trade that is a liability of 50; if the liability matures first, cash of 50 will be paid by the firm to settle the liability, and securities of 50 will be received as collateral for the remaining asset trade of 50. As a result, the firm does not have the legally enforceable right to offset the recognised amounts (that is, the asset trade of 50 and the liability trade of 50), and so the requirements for offsetting are not met.

What impact does the existence of a physical settlement option have on offsetting a derivative against cash collateral?

In some situations, it is possible that a contract will be settled not by cash being paid but by the delivery of a physical asset. An example is an exchange-traded, cash-collateralised credit default swap (CDS). Ordinarily, the cash collateral paid by an entity to the exchange is used to net settle the CDS liability when a credit event has occurred. However, on a credit event the exchange could settle the contract by retaining the cash collateral already paid by the entity and physically delivering to the entity the defaulted bond that is the reference asset underlying the CDS in return for the entity delivering additional cash equal to the difference between the bond principal and the cash collateral already paid. Exchange-traded commodity contracts are another example of contracts that can feature a physical settlement option.

By virtue of paragraph AG38B of IAS 32, the right of set-off must not be contingent on a future event and it must be enforceable in the normal course of business in the event of default and in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy. If the option to physically settle the contract can be imposed by the exchange and cannot be avoided by the entity, and the bond and cash are not settled simultaneously in accordance with paragraph AG38F of IAS 32, the entity’s ability to offset the cash collateral paid against the CDS liability is contingent on the decision of the exchange and is not legally enforceable in all circumstances, and so fails the requirements of paragraph AG38B of IAS 32. If the physical settlement option is solely at the discretion of the entity and not the exchange, this would not by itself prevent the entity from applying offsetting.

In some cases, it might be possible to demonstrate that the return of cash collateral, the delivery of the physical asset and the payment of any other monies required (for example, the exercise price) are settled simultaneously in accordance with paragraph AG38F of IAS 32 and that offsetting should still be applied. However, this is likely to require very detailed analysis of the different scenarios that could arise and the payment mechanisms that would be used for each.

What impact might a ‘one way’ collateral posting arrangement have on applying offsetting?

Under a so-called ‘one way’ collateral arrangement between a firm and an exchange, cash margin is typically only required to be paid if a firm is in a net liability position. If the exchange is in a net liability position, it is not required to pay cash margin to the firm. Consider a simple scenario where a firm has one trade that is an asset of 50, another trade that is a liability of 30, and nil cash margin (because the exchange is in a net liability position); if the liability matures first, the firm will be required to pay 30 to the exchange to settle it. Since the firm’s remaining position will be the asset of 50, under the ‘one way’ arrangement the exchange will remain in a net liability position, and so no margin payment will be made to the firm. On this analysis, the liability would not have been offset against the asset – if this had been the case, only a net payment of 20 would have been required. The requirement for an entity to have a legally enforceable right of set-off is not therefore met, and so the positions should not be offset.

Where daily cash settlements contractually have to be made on a net basis for all derivatives with a particular counterparty, is it possible to offset an uncollateralised derivative asset and an uncollateralised derivative liability held with that counterparty?

Yes, but only if the two derivatives have matching terms so that all of their cash flows will occur on exactly the same dates in all situations. If this is the case, under the daily net settlement process all future cash flows will be required to be settled net, so that the entity has a legal right to offset the derivative asset (that is, all of the contracted cash flows) against the liability.

However, in a typical situation the two derivatives are unlikely to have matching terms, and so their cash flows will not all occur on exactly the same dates in all situations. In this case, the entity does not have a legally enforceable right to offset the derivative asset (that is, all of the contracted cash flows) against the liability. This can be illustrated by a simple example, where the derivative asset and liability both have one remaining cash flow, which occurs in one month’s time for the asset and in two months’ time for the liability: the entity does not have the legally enforceable right to offset the recognised derivative asset against the liability, because the cash flows will occur on different dates and will not be net settled under the net settlement process.

Similarly, where the derivative asset and liability are cash-settled American options (that is, where the option can be exercised by the holder at any time before and including the expiration date) with matching terms, offsetting is not likely to be achievable unless the entity will always be able to exercise its option in the derivative asset as soon as the counterparty exercises their option in the derivative liability. That is because, without such a legally enforceable right, the entity will not be able to ensure that both derivatives will always settle at the same time and so be net settled.

Do financial assets and liabilities that are subject to a legally enforceable arrangement for simultaneous settlement qualify for offsetting?

Paragraph 42(a) of IAS 32 requires offsetting to be applied when, and only when, an entity currently has “a legally enforceable right to set off the recognised amounts”, including in the normal course of business. However, the settlement arrangements for a clearing house/exchange and its members might involve a member having:

In such a case, the entity does not have a legal right to actual net settlement that is enforceable in the normal course of business.

In our view, the requirement of paragraph 42(a) of IAS 32 to have a legally enforceable right of set-off is still met in this scenario. This is supported by paragraph 45 of IAS 32 which explicitly states that: “A right of set-off is a debtor's legal right, by contract or otherwise, to settle or otherwise eliminate all or a portion of an amount due to a creditor by applying against that amount an amount due from the creditor”. In this scenario, the gross amounts are ‘eliminated’ during the settlement process, and it is irrelevant that such elimination is carried out by exchanging the gross amounts using a clearing system. In this situation, paragraph AG38F of IAS 32 indicates the types of gross settlement process that have an outcome that is equivalent to net settlement in the normal course of business.

Can repos and reverse repos with different bond CUSIPs/ISINs be offset?

When offsetting a sale and repurchase agreement (repo) and a reverse repo under IAS 32, the asset and liability being offset are typically the cash payable on the repo and the cash receivable on the reverse repo, and not the bonds themselves, given that they might not even be on the balance sheet (see IND FAQ 3.2). Therefore, offsetting can be applied, provided that the terms of the cash payable and receivable meet the IAS 32 offsetting criteria, irrespective of whether the bonds underlying the repo and reverse repo are identical and have the same security identification number (that is, CUSIP/ISIN).

However, in practice the bonds and cash payments will typically all need to be settled through the same settlement institution (for example, a central securities depository (CSD) such as EuroClear or ClearStream) in order to settle the cash legs on a net basis or to realise them simultaneously in accordance with paragraph AG38F of IAS 32. This does therefore mean that the type of bond, and hence the CSD through which it settles, will restrict to some extent the repos and reverse repos that qualify for offset.

If a clearing house/exchange has a right to change the rules applicable to settlement processes, does this prevent offsetting from being applied?

IAS 32 states that the right of set-off “must not be contingent on a future event” (para AG38B) and explains in paragraph BC84 that "a right of set-off that could disappear or that would no longer be enforceable after a future event that could take place in the normal course of business or in the event of a default, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, such as a ratings downgrade, would not meet the currently legally enforceable criterion…".

Therefore, if a clearing house/exchange has a right that is judged to be substantive and which allows it to change the rules in such a way that the right of set-off could disappear or no longer be enforceable, offsetting should not be applied.

This issue was raised historically in respect of a Regulation in the LCH.Clearnet Limited (‘LCH Limited’) rulebook, which allows LCH Limited to unilaterally vary its rules, effective for existing open contracts, such that the legal right of set-off could be withdrawn. For this specific situation, it was concluded that the Regulation was not a substantive right that could be used to remove the right of set-off, due to factors including:

So, it was concluded that the Regulation did not prevent offsetting from being applied to contracts, such as those transacted on the SwapClear or RepoClear platforms, with LCH Limited. For other clearing houses or exchanges with similar powers, the individual facts and circumstances will need to be separately assessed. However, the factors set out above are likely to be relevant in judging whether the powers are substantive and therefore prevent offsetting.

In what circumstances will the requirement in paragraph 42(b) of IAS 32 ‘to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously’ be met?

In some situations, rather than being settled net, an asset might be realised and a liability settled simultaneously in a way that still meets the requirement of paragraph 42(b) of IAS 32. This is often the case for repo and reverse repo transactions. Further guidance is provided in paragraph AG38F of IAS 32, which states that “If an entity can settle amounts in a manner such that the outcome is, in effect, equivalent to net settlement, the entity will meet the net settlement criterion in paragraph 42(b). This will occur if, and only if, the gross settlement mechanism has features that eliminate or result in insignificant credit and liquidity risk, and that will process receivables and payables in a single settlement process or cycle”.

In addition to this principle, paragraph AG38F of IAS 32 provides a set of characteristics based on LCH RepoClear as an example of a gross settlement system that would meet this principle:

Whilst these characteristics are not explicit requirements for offsetting under IAS 32, in practice they provide a helpful basis for assessing whether the principle of paragraph AG38F of IAS 32 is met. Given the potential differences between settlement processes made using different settlement institutions, a separate analysis might be required for each material method of settlement. A detailed knowledge of all of the relevant payment processes is therefore typically needed in order to perform this analysis.

What evidence is required to demonstrate an intention to settle a financial asset and a financial liability with the same counterparty net or simultaneously?

The extent of evidence required will depend on the specific facts and circumstances, including the terms of the relevant contracts. Where an entity is contractually required to settle on a net basis, or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously, and (where relevant) the settlement process meets the characteristics set out in paragraph AG38F of IAS 32, this alone will be sufficient.

In other situations where there is no such contractual requirement, factors such as broader market practice and the entity’s own past practice for similar transactions should be considered, although this will not necessarily be conclusive by itself. If there have been instances where settlement has not been on a net basis or simultaneous in accordance with the criteria of paragraph AG38F of IAS 32, these should be assessed in detail.

For bespoke transactions, factors such as the commercial or operational implications of settling net versus gross – or simultaneously versus at different times – should be considered in judging whether or not there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate an intention to settle net or simultaneously.