Continuing involvement encompasses any arrangement that entitles a transferor to receive cash flows (or other benefits) attributable to transferred financial assets or, conversely, could obligate the transferor to provide additional cash flows or other assets to the transferee (and/or any party related to the transfer). A transferor’s continuing involvement may stem from or consist of rights acquired and obligations assumed in transfer and servicing agreements, derivative instruments, or beneficial interests in transferred financial assets that have been securitized (e.g., debt securities issued by the transferee).
Forms of continuing involvement that a transferor may have with transferred financial assets include:
- Providing recourse, or writing guarantees or indemnities, to the transferee
- Servicing the financial assets
- Holding beneficial interests in the transferred financial assets (equity or debt instruments)
- Writing (or acquiring) put/call options on the transferred financial assets (or on beneficial interests in those assets)
- Agreements to purchase or redeem transferred financial assets
- Pledges of collateral
Recourse, a common form of continuing involvement, is defined in
ASC 860-10-20.
Definition from ASC 860-10-20
Recourse: The right of a transferee of receivables to receive payment from the transferor of those receivables for any of the following:
- Failure of debtors to pay when due
- The effects of prepayments
- Adjustments resulting from defects in the eligibility of the transferred receivables
It is not uncommon for a transferor to have one or more forms of continuing involvement with transferred financial assets, considering the broad swath of these arrangements. Despite this involvement, the transferor may conclude that the transfer qualifies for sale accounting. Derecognition under
ASC 860 is not predicated on the absence of a transferor’s continuing involvement with transferred assets, but rather on whether control over those assets has been ceded to the transferee. However, continuing involvement on the part of the transferor must be considered in connection with the legal isolation analysis, and that involvement may also allow the transferor to maintain control over the transferred assets.
Question TS 3-2 illustrates how to consider normal course representations and warranties in the context of continuing involvement.
Question TS 3-2
A transferor will frequently represent (assert) that transferred financial assets have certain characteristics – for example, that they are valid, free and clear from any liens or counterclaims, and enforceable in accordance with their terms. The transferor will also represent that it has good title to the assets and is their sole owner. If any of these represented conditions are later found not to be true and cannot be cured, the transferee typically has the right to revoke the transfer and/or to seek damages from the transferor.
Do “normal course” representations and warranties constitute a form of continuing involvement that precludes sale accounting?
PwC response
No, we do not believe that normal course representations and warranties about the characteristics of a transferred financial asset constitute a form of continuing involvement that precludes sale accounting. Normal course representation and warranties do not violate any of the criteria for transfer of control over the transferred assets since they do not impact legal isolation, the transferee’s right to pledge or exchange the transferred asset, or the transferor’s effective control over it – all they do is assert that the financial asset is what it is purported to be at the transfer date.
Sometimes transferors are obligated to buy back loans that default shortly after the transfer. In cases when the period in which a default of the loans will trigger a buy back is short, in practice this could be considered part of normal course representations and warranties. The reasoning is that if the period in which a default of the loans will trigger a buy back is short, it can be reasonably presumed that the receivables were already faulty at the transfer date, and hence the buy back is part of normal representations and warranties. However, if that period is extended, the default may have occurred after the transfer date. Indemnifying defaults occurring after the transfer date would not be included in normal representations and warranties. Hence, they would be considered a form on continuing involvement with the transferred assets, and would need to be considered in the analysis of the three control criteria.