ASC 310-40-15-13 provides a starting point for the guidance for evaluating whether a creditor has granted a concession.
ASC 310-40-15-13
A creditor has granted a concession when, as a result of the restructuring, it does not expect to collect all amounts due, including interest accrued at the original contract rate. In that situation, and if the payment of principal at original maturity is primarily dependent on the value of collateral, an entity shall consider the current value of that collateral in determining whether the principal will be paid.
When a restructuring occurs, the creditor will need to consider all factors that changed to determine if a concession was granted, including changes to collateral that may be used to repay the loan.
ASC 310-40-15-14 provides guidance for evaluating a restructuring in which the creditor receives additional collateral or a guarantee. When this occurs, the creditor should consider whether the nature and amount of the additional collateral or guarantee is sufficient to compensate it for the change in terms associated with the restructuring. The guidance specifies that the creditor should evaluate whether the guarantor has both the ability and willingness to pay. Determining the value of a guarantee may not be straightforward when certain information necessary to evaluate a guarantor’s ability to perform is not readily available or current.
ASC 310-40-15-14
A creditor may restructure a debt in exchange for additional collateral or guarantees from the debtor. In that situation, a creditor has granted a concession when the nature and amount of that additional collateral or guarantees received as part of a restructuring do not serve as adequate compensation for other terms of the restructuring. When additional guarantees are received in a restructuring, an entity shall evaluate both a guarantor’s ability and its willingness to pay the balance owed.
ASC 310-40-15-15 and
ASC 310-40-15-16 provide guidance that requires the creditor to evaluate if the debtor would be able to get the same terms and market rate from a different lender. Market rates for borrowers experiencing financial difficulty may not be readily observable; therefore, when assessing whether market-rate funds are available to borrowers in financial difficulty, creditors may need to refer to other data points, such as acquisitions or sales of troubled loans and the discount rates applied in those transactions. If the debtor would be unable to get the same rate from a different lender, the rate would be considered below market. This fact and all other aspects of the restructuring would need to be considered in determining whether a concession has been granted.
ASC 310-40-15-15
If a debtor does not otherwise have access to funds at a market rate for debt with similar risk characteristics as the restructured debt, the restructuring would be considered to be at a below-market rate, which may indicate that the creditor has granted a concession. In that situation, a creditor shall consider all aspects of the restructuring in determining whether it has granted a concession.
ASC 310-40-15-16
A temporary or permanent increase in the contractual interest rate as a result of a restructuring does not preclude the restructuring from being considered a concession because the new contractual interest rate on the restructured debt could still be below market interest rates for new debt with similar risk characteristics. In that situation, a creditor shall consider all aspects of the restructuring in determining whether it has granted a concession.
Question LI 10A-2
If a restructuring results in an increase (temporarily or permanently) to the contractual interest rate, does it need to be evaluated as a possible troubled debt restructuring?
PwC response
Yes. As discussed in
ASC 310-40-15-16, a temporary or permanent increase in the contractual interest rate as a result of a restructuring does not preclude a restructuring from being considered a troubled debt restructuring because the new contractual rate, despite being higher than the original contractual rate, may still be below market rates for new debt with similar characteristics. When this occurs, all aspects of the restructuring should be considered in determining whether a concession has been granted.
Even if the restructuring only delays the timing of payments, a concession may have been granted unless the delays are insignificant. Additionally, if the debt has been previously restructured, the reporting entity is required to consider the cumulative impact of all past restructuring when determining if the concession is insignificant.
ASC 310-40-15-17 and
ASC 310-40-15-18 address whether a restructuring results in a delay in payment that is insignificant.
ASC 310-40-15-17
A restructuring that results in only a delay in payment that is insignificant is not a concession. The following factors, when considered together, may indicate that a restructuring results in a delay in payment that is insignificant:
- The amount of the restructured payments subject to the delay is insignificant relative to the unpaid principal or collateral value of the debt and will result in an insignificant shortfall in the contractual amount due.
- The delay in timing of the restructured payment period is insignificant relative to any one of the following:
- The frequency of payments due under the debt
- The debt’s original contractual maturity
- The debt’s original expected duration.
ASC 310-40-15-18
If the debt has been previously restructured, an entity shall consider the cumulative effect of the past restructurings when determining whether a delay in payment resulting from the most recent restructuring is insignificant.
Example LI 10A-1 and Example LI 10A-2 illustrate the application of the guidance on insignificant delays.
EXAMPLE LI 10A-1
Two-month interest deferral on a five-year loan
Bank Corp originates a five-year loan that has a fixed interest rate, with monthly interest payments due of $1,000 and a balloon payment due at maturity of $100,000. The loan is collateralized by new construction. Bank Corp expects the loan to be repaid no sooner than maturity.
Six months before the maturity date of the loan, the borrower is unable to make the required interest payments, and Bank Corp determines that the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties as defined in
ASC 310-40.
Bank Corp agrees to restructure the loan to defer two interest payments until the completed construction is sold, which is expected to occur in two months. Bank Corp will earn interest on the deferred payments, the value of the collateral has not declined, and the borrower is expected to pay back the principal and interest due.
Is the loan restructuring a troubled debt restructuring?
Analysis
Bank Corp expects to collect all contractual amounts due, despite the two-month delay in payment. In addition, the two months of delayed interest payments are insignificant when compared with the balloon principal due, the delay in timing of the two payments is insignificant relative to the frequency of the payments due, the debt’s original contractual maturity, and the debt’s original expected duration.
Because the delay in payment as a result of the restructuring is considered insignificant, the restructuring would not be considered a troubled debt restructuring.
EXAMPLE LI 10A-2
One-year interest deferral on two-year loan
Bank Corp originates a two-year loan that has a fixed interest rate, with quarterly interest payments due of $3,000 and a balloon payment due at maturity of $100,000. The loan is collateralized by real estate. Bank Corp expects the loan to be repaid no sooner than maturity.
One year prior to the maturity date of the loan, the borrower is unable to make the required interest payments, and Bank Corp determines that the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties as defined in
ASC 310-40.
Bank Corp agrees to restructure the loan to defer all remaining interest payments until maturity. Bank Corp expects to collect all contractual amounts due, despite the payment delay, and the collateral value has not declined significantly.
Is the loan restructuring a troubled debt restructuring?
Analysis
The delayed interest payment amounts are significant when compared with the balloon principal due. The delay in timing of the interest payments is also significant relative to the frequency of the payments due, the debt’s original contractual maturity, and the debt’s original expected duration.
The delay in payment as a result of the restructuring would be considered significant. Since the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties and Bank Corp has granted a concession, the restructuring would be considered a troubled debt restructuring.
Trial modifications
Some lenders participate in trial modification programs such as the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Under these programs, lenders enter into an agreement with a borrower to modify their loan for an initial trial period. Upon successful completion of the trial period, the loan is permanently modified.
We are aware that the SEC staff has provided guidance that the lender is considered to have granted to the borrower a modification with a contingent concession that qualifies as a troubled debt restructuring at the start of the trial period when there is a legally binding obligation to the borrower on the part of the lender. In evaluating the significance of the concession granted to the borrower, the SEC staff concluded that the lender should consider the modification of payments both during the trial period as well as the expected modification in loan terms assuming the loan will be permanently modified, notwithstanding the possibility that an individual borrower may not successfully complete the trial period and his loan may not be permanently modified.
This guidance may also apply to other types of trial-period modifications.