After paragraph AG33, a heading and paragraphs AG33A and AG33B are added, as follows.
Instruments containing Embedded Derivatives
AG33A.When an entity becomes a party to a hybrid (combined) instrument that contains one or more embedded derivatives, paragraph 11 requires the entity to identify any such embedded derivative, assess whether it is required to be separated from the host contract and, for those that are required to be separated, measure the derivatives at fair value at initial recognition and subsequently. These requirements can be more complex, or result in less reliable measures, than measuring the entire instrument at fair value through profit or loss. For that reason this Standard permits the entire instrument to be designated as at fair value through profit or loss.
AG33B. Such designation may be used whether paragraph 11 requires the embedded derivatives to be separated from the host contract or prohibits such separation. However, paragraph 11A would not justify designating the hybrid (combined) instrument as at fair value through profit or loss in the cases set out in paragraph 11A(a) and (b) because doing so would not reduce complexity or increase reliability.
Basis for Conclusions
In the Basis for Conclusions, paragraph BC11C is added, as follows.
Background
BC11C. After those amendments were issued in March 2004 the Board received further comments from constituents calling for further amendments to the Standard. In particular, as a result of continuing discussions with constituents, the Board became aware that some, including prudential supervisors of banks, securities companies and insurers, were concerned that the fair value option might be used inappropriately. These constituents were concerned that:
(a) entities might apply the fair value option to financial assets or financial liabilities whose fair value is not verifiable. If so, because the valuation of these financial assets and financial liabilities is subjective, entities might determine their fair value in a way that inappropriately affects profit or loss.
(b) the use of the option might increase, rather than decrease, volatility in profit or loss, for example if an entity applied the option to only one part of a matched position.
(c) if an entity applied the fair value option to financial liabilities, it might result in an entity recognising gains or losses in profit or loss associated with changes in its own creditworthiness.
In response to those concerns, the Board published in April 2004 an Exposure Draft of proposed restrictions to the fair value option. In March 2005 the Board held a series of round-table meetings to discuss proposals with invited constituents. As a result of this process, the Board issued an amendment to IAS 39 in June 2005 relating to the fair value option.
The heading after paragraph BC70 and paragraphs BC71-BC73 are amended (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through), and paragraph BC73A is added, as follows.
Measurement
Fair Value Measurement Option (paragraph 9)
BC71. The Board concluded that it could simplify the application of IAS 39 (as revised in 2000) for some entities by permitting the use of fair value measurement for any financial instrument. With one exception (see paragraph BC829), this greater use of fair value is optional. The fair value option does not require entities to measure more financial instruments at fair value.
BC72. The previous version of IAS 39 (as revised in 2000) did not permit an entity to measure particular categories of financial instruments at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss. Examples included:
(a) originated loans and receivables, including a debt instrument acquired directly from the issuer, unless they met the conditions for classification as held for trading in paragraph 9.
(b) financial assets classified as available for sale, unless as an accounting policy choice gains and losses on all available-for-sale financial assets were recognised in profit or loss or they met the conditions for classification as held for trading in paragraph 9.
(c) non-derivative financial liabilities, even if the entity had a policy and practice of actively repurchasing such liabilities or they formed part of an arbitrage/customer facilitation strategy or fund trading activities.
BC73. The Board decided in IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) to permit entities to designate irrevocably on initial recognition any financial instruments as ones to be measured at fair value with gains and losses recognised in profit or loss ('fair value through profit or loss'). To impose discipline on this approach, the Board decided that financial instruments should not be reclassified into or out of the category of fair value through profit or loss. In particular, some comments received on the Exposure Draft of proposed amendments to IAS 39 published in June 2002 suggested that entities could use the fair value option to recognise selectively changes in fair value in profit or loss. The Board noted that the requirement to designate irrevocably on initial recognition the financial instruments for which the fair value option is to be applied results in an entity being unable to 'cherry pick' in this way. This is because it will not be known at initial recognition whether the fair value of the instrument will increase or decrease.
BC73A. Following the issue of IAS 39 (as revised in 2003), as a result of continuing discussions with constituents on the fair value option, the Board became aware that some, including prudential supervisors of banks, securities companies and insurers, were concerned that the fair value option might be used inappropriately (as discussed in paragraph BC11C). In response to those concerns, the Board published in April 2004 an Exposure Draft of proposed restrictions to the fair value option contained in IAS 39 (as revised in 2003). After discussing comments received from constituents and a series of public roundtable meetings, the Board issued an amendment to IAS 39 in June 2005 permitting entities to designate irrevocably on initial recognition financial instruments that meet one of three conditions (see paragraphs 9(b)(i), 9(b)(ii) and 11A) as ones to be measured at fair value through profit or loss.
Paragraph BC74 is replaced and paragraph BC74A is added, as follows.
BC74. In the amendment to the fair value option, the Board identified three situations in which permitting designation at fair value through profit or loss either results in more relevant information (cases (a) and (b) below) or is justified on the grounds of reducing complexity or increasing measurement reliability (case (c) below). These are:
(a) when such designation eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an 'accounting mismatch') that would otherwise arise (paragraphs BC75-BC75B);
(b) when a group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy (paragraphs BC76-BC76B); and
(c) when an instrument contains an embedded derivative that meets particular conditions (paragraphs BC77-BC78).
BC74A. The ability for entities to use the fair value option simplifies the application of IAS 39 by mitigating some anomalies that result from the different measurement attributes in the Standard. In particular, for financial instruments designated in this way:
(a) it eliminates the need for hedge accounting for hedges of fair value exposures when there are natural offsets, and thereby eliminates the related burden of designating, tracking and analysing hedge effectiveness.
(b) it eliminates the burden of separating embedded derivatives.
(c) it eliminates problems arising from a mixed measurement model when financial assets are measured at fair value and related financial liabilities are measured at amortised cost. In particular, it eliminates volatility in profit or loss and equity that results when matched positions of financial assets and financial liabilities are not measured consistently.
(d) the option to recognise unrealised gains and losses on availablefor-sale financial assets in profit or loss is no longer necessary.
(e) it de-emphasises interpretative issues around what constitutes trading.
After paragraph BC74A a new heading is added, paragraphs BC75-BC78 are replaced and paragraphs BC75A, BC75B, BC76A, BC76B, BC77A and BC77B are added, as follows.
Designation as at fair value through profit or loss eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (paragraph 9(b)(i))
BC75. IAS 39, like comparable standards in some national jurisdictions, imposes a mixed-attribute measurement model. It requires some financial assets and liabilities to be measured at fair value, and others to be measured at amortised cost. It requires some gains and losses to be recognised in profit or loss, and others to be recognised initially as a component of equity. This combination of measurement and recognition requirements can result in inconsistencies, which some refer to as 'accounting mismatches', between the accounting for an asset (or group of assets) and a liability (or group of liabilities). The notion of an accounting mismatch necessarily involves two propositions. First, an entity has particular assets and liabilities that are measured, or on which gains and losses are recognised, inconsistently; second, there is a perceived economic relationship between those assets and liabilities. For example, a liability may be considered to be related to an asset when they share a risk that gives rise to opposite changes in fair value that tend to offset, or when the entity considers that the liability funds the asset.
BC75A. Some entities can overcome measurement or recognition inconsistencies by using hedge accounting or, in the case of insurers, shadow accounting. However, the Board recognises that those techniques are complex and do not address all situations. In developing the amendment to the fair value option, the Board considered whether it should impose conditions to limit the situations in which an entity could use the option to eliminate an accounting mismatch. For example, it considered whether entities should be required to demonstrate that particular assets and liabilities are managed together, or that a management strategy is effective in reducing risk (as is required for hedge accounting to be used), or that hedge accounting or other ways of overcoming the inconsistency are not available.
BC75B. The Board concluded that accounting mismatches arise in a wide variety of circumstances. In the Board's view, financial reporting is best served by providing entities with the opportunity to eliminate perceived accounting mismatches whenever that results in more relevant information. Furthermore, the Board concluded that the fair value option may validly be used in place of hedge accounting for hedges of fair value exposures, thereby eliminating the related burden of designating, tracking and analysing hedge effectiveness. Hence, the Board decided not to develop detailed prescriptive guidance about when the fair value option could be applied (such as requiring effectiveness tests similar to those required for hedge accounting) in the amendment on the fair value option. Rather, the Board decided to require discosures in IAS 32 about:
•    the criteria an entity uses for designating financial assets and financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss
•    how the entity satisfies the conditions in this Standard for such designation
•    the nature of the assets and liabilities so designated
•    the effect on the financial statement of using this designation, namely the carrying amounts and net gains and losses on assets and liabilities so designated, information about the effect of changes in a financial liability's credit quality on changes in its fair value, and information about the credit risk of loans or receivables and any related credit derivatives or similar instruments.
A group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy (paragraph 9(b)(ii))
BC76. The Standard requires financial instruments to be measured at fair value through profit or loss in only two situations, namely when an instrument is held for trading or when it contains an embedded derivative that the entity is unable to measure separately. However, the Board recognised that some entities manage and evaluate the performance of financial instruments on a fair value basis in other situations. Furthermore, for instruments managed and evaluated in this way, users of financial statements may regard fair value measurement as providing more relevant information. Finally, it is established practice in some industries in some jurisdictions to recognise all financial assets at fair value through profit or loss. (This practice was permitted for many assets in IAS 39 (as revised in 2000) as an accounting policy choice in accordance with which gains and losses on all available-for-sale financial assets were reported in profit or loss.)
BC76A. In the amendment to IAS 39 relating to the fair value option issued in June 2005, the Board decided to permit financial instruments managed and evaluated on a fair value basis to be measured at fair value through profit or loss. The Board also decided to introduce two requirements to make this category operational. These requirements are that the financial instruments are managed and evaluated on a fair value basis in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy, and that information about the financial instruments is provided internally on that basis to the entity's key management personnel.
BC76B. In looking to an entity's documented risk management or investment strategy, the Board makes no judgement on what an entity's strategy should be. However, the Board noted that users, in making economic decisions, would find useful both a description of the chosen strategy and how designation at fair value through profit or loss is consistent with it. Accordingly, IAS 32 requires such disclosures. The Board also noted that the required documentation of the entity's strategy need not be on an item-by-item basis, nor need it be in the level of detail required for hedge accounting. However, it should be sufficient to demonstrate that using the fair value option is consistent with the entity's risk management or investment strategy. In many cases, the entity's existing documentation, as approved by its key management personnel, should be sufficient for this purpose.
The instrument contains an embedded derivative that meets particular conditions (paragraph 11A)
BC77. The Standard requires virtually all derivative financial instruments to be measured at fair value. This requirement extends to derivatives that are embeddedin an instrument that also includes a non-derivative host contract if the embedded derivative meets the conditions in paragraph 11. Conversely, if the embedded derivative does not meet those conditions, separate accounting with measurement of the embedded derivative at fair value is prohibited. Therefore, to satisfy these requirements, the entity must:
(a) identify whether the instrument contains one or more embedded derivatives,
(b) determine whether each embedded derivative is one that must be separated from the host instrument or one for which separation is prohibited, and
(c) if the embedded derivative is one that must be separated, determine its fair value at initial recognition and subsequently.
BC77A. For some embedded derivatives, like the prepayment option in an ordinary residential mortgage, this process is fairly simple. However, entities with more complex instruments have reported that the search for and analysis of embedded derivatives (steps (a) and (b) in paragraph BC77) significantly increase the cost of complying with the Standard. They report that this cost could be eliminated if they had the option to fair value the combined contract.
BC77B. Other entities report that one of the most common uses of the fair value option is likely to be for structured products that contain several embedded derivatives. Those structured products will typically be hedged with derivatives that offset all (or nearly all) of the risks they contain, whether or not the embedded derivatives that give rise to those risks are separated for accounting purposes. Hence, the simplest way to account for such products is to apply the fair value option so that the combined contract (as well as the derivatives that hedge it) is measured at fair value through profit or loss. Furthermore, for these more complex instruments, the fair value of the combined contract may be significantly easier to measure and hence be more reliable than the fair value of only those embedded derivatives that IAS 39 requires to be separated.
BC78. The Board sought to strike a balance between reducing the costs of complying with the embedded derivatives provisions of this Standard and the need to respond to the concerns expressed regarding possible inappropriate use of the fair value option. The Board determined that allowing the fair value option to be used for any instrument with an embedded derivative would make other restrictions on the use of the option ineffective, because many financial instruments include an embedded derivative. In contrast, limiting the use of the fair value option to situations in which the embedded derivative must otherwise be separated would not significantly reduce the costs of compliance and could result in less reliable measures being included in the financial statements. Therefore, the Board decided to specify situations in which an entity cannot justify using the fair value option in place of assessing embedded derivatives - when the embedded derivative does not significantly modify the cash flows that would otherwise be required by the contract or is one for which it is clear with little or no analysis when a similar hybrid instrument is first considered that separation is prohibited.
After paragraph BC78 a new heading is added, paragraph BC79 is renumbered as BC80A and amended (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through), paragraphs BC78A, BC79 and BC79A are added and paragraph BC80 is replaced, as follows.
The role of prudential supervisors
BC78A. The Board considered the circumstances of regulated financial institutions such as banks and insurers in determining the extent to which conditions should be placed on the use of the fair value option. The Board recognised that regulated financial institutions are extensive holders and issuers of financial instruments and so are likely to be among the largest potential users of the fair value option. However, the Board noted that some of the prudential supervisors that oversee these entities expressed concern that the fair value option might be used inappropriately.
BC79. The Board noted that the primary objective of prudential supervisors is to maintain the financial soundness of individual financial institutions and the stability of the financial system as a whole. Prudential supervisors achieve this objective partly by assessing the risk profile of each regulated institution and imposing a risk-based capital requirement.
BC79A. The Board noted that these objectives of prudential supervision differ from the objectives of general purpose financial reporting. The latter is intended to provide information about the financial position, performance and changes in financial position of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users in making economic decisions. However, the Board acknowledged that for the purposes of determining what level of capital an institution should maintain, prudential supervisors may wish to understand the circumstances in which a regulated financial institution has chosen to apply the fair value option and evaluate the rigour of the institution's fair value measurement practices and the robustness of its underlying risk management strategies, policies and practices. Furthermore, the Board agreed that certain disclosures would assist both prudential supervisors in their evaluation of capital requirements and investors in making economic decisions. In particular, the Board decided to require an entity to disclose how it has satisfied the conditions in paragraphs 9(b), 11A and 12 for using the fair value option, including, for instruments within paragraph 9(b)(ii), a narrative description of how designation at fair value through profit or loss is consistent with the entity's documented risk management or investment strategy.

Definitions (paragraphs 8 and 9)
Designation as at Fair Value through Profit or Loss
AG4B. Paragraph 9 of this Standard allows an entity to designate a financial asset, a financial liability, or a group of financial instruments (financial assets, financial liabilities or both) as at fair value through profit or loss provided that doing so results in more relevant information.
AG4C. The decision of an entity to designate a financial asset or financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss is similar to an accounting policy choice (although, unlike an accounting policy choice, it is not required to be applied consistently to all similar transactions). When an entity has such a choice, paragraph 14(b) of IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors requires the chosen policy to result in the financial statements providing reliable and more relevant information about the effects of transactions, other events and conditions on the entity's financial position, financial performance or cash flows. In the case of designation as at fair value through profit or loss, paragraph 9 sets out the two circumstances when the requirement for more relevant information will be met. Accordingly, to choose such designation in accordance with paragraph 9, the entity needs to demonstrate that it falls within one (or both) of these two circumstances.
Paragraph 9(b)(i): Designation eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency that would otherwise arise
AG4D. Under IAS 39, measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and classification of recognised changes in its value are determined by the item's classification and whether the item is part of a designated hedging relationship. Those requirements can create a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as an 'accounting mismatch') when, for example, in the absence of designation as at fair value through profit or loss, a financial asset would be classified as available for sale (with most changes in fair value recognised directly in equity) and a liability the entity considers related would be measured at amortised cost (with changes in fair value not recognised). In such circumstances, an entity may conclude that its financial statements would provide more relevant information if both the asset and the liability were classified as at fair value through profit or loss.
AG4E. The following examples show when this condition could be met. In all cases, an entity may use this condition to designate financial assets or financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss only if it meets the principle in paragraph 9(b)(i).
(a) An entity has liabilities whose cash flows are contractually based on the performance of assets that would otherwise be classified as available for sale. For example, an insurer may have liabilities containing a discretionary participation feature that pay benefits based on realised and/or unrealised investment returns of a specified pool of the insurer's assets. If the measurement of those liabilities reflects current market prices, classifying the assets as at fair value through profit or loss means that changes in the fair value of the financial assets are recognised in profit or loss in the same period as related changes in the value of the liabilities.
(b) An entity has liabilities under insurance contracts whose measurement incorporates current information (as permitted by IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts, paragraph 24), and financial assets it considers related that would otherwise be classified as available for sale or measured at amortised cost.
(c) An entity has financial assets, financial liabilities or both that share a risk, such as interest rate risk, that gives rise to opposite changes in fair value that tend to offset each other. However, only some of the instruments would be measured at fair value through profit or loss (ie are derivatives, or are classified as held for trading). It may also be the case that the requirements for hedge accounting are not met, for example because the requirements for effectiveness in paragraph 88 are not met.
(d) An entity has financial assets, financial liabilities or both that share a risk, such as interest rate risk, that gives rise to opposite changes in fair value that tend to offset each other and the entity does not qualify for hedge accounting because none of the instruments is a derivative. Furthermore, in the absence of hedge accounting there is a significant inconsistency in the recognition of gains and losses. For example:
(i) the entity has financed a portfolio of fixed rate assets that would otherwise be classified as available for sale with fixed rate debentures whose changes in fair value tend to offset each other. Reporting both the assets and the debentures at fair value through profit or loss corrects the inconsistency that would otherwise arise from measuring the assets at fair value with changes reported in equity and the debentures at amortised cost.
(ii) the entity has financed a specified group of loans by issuing traded bonds whose changes in fair value tend to offset each other. If, in addition, the entity regularly buys and sells the bonds but rarely, if ever, buys and sells the loans, reporting both the loans and the bonds at fair value through profit or loss eliminates the inconsistency in the timing of recognition of gains and losses that would otherwise result from measuring them both at amortised cost and recognising a gain or loss each time a bond is repurchased.
AG4F. In cases such as those described in the preceding paragraph, to designate, at initial recognition, the financial assets and financial liabilities not otherwise so measured as at fair value through profit or loss may eliminate or significantly reduce the measurement or recognition inconsistency and produce more relevant information. For practical purposes, the entity need not enter into all of the assets and liabilities giving rise to the measurement or recognition inconsistency at exactly the same time. A reasonable delay is permitted provided that each transaction is designated as at fair value through profit or loss at its initial recognition and, at that time, any remaining transactions are expected to occur.
AG4G. It would not be acceptable to designate only some of the financial assets and financial liabilities giving rise to the inconsistency as at fair value through profit or loss if to do so would not eliminate or significantly reduce the inconsistency and would therefore not result in more relevant information. However, it would be acceptable to designate only some of a number of similar financial assets or similar financial liabilities if doing so achieves a significant reduction (and possibly a greater reduction than other allowable designations) in the inconsistency. For example, assume an entity has a number of similar financial liabilities that sum to CU100[*] and a number of similar financial assets that sum to CU50 but are measured on a different basis. The entity may significantly reduce the measurement inconsistency by designating at initial recognition all of the assets but only some of the liabilities (for example, individual liabilities with a combined total of CU45) as at fair value through profit or loss. However, because designation as at fair value through profit or loss can be applied only to the whole of a financial instrument, the entity in this example must designate one or more liabilities in their entirety. It could not designate either a component of a liability (eg changes in value attributable to only one risk, such as changes in a benchmark interest rate) or a proportion (ie percentage) of a liability.
Paragraph 9(b)(ii): A group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy
AG4H. An entity may manage and evaluate the performance of a group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both in such a way that measuring that group at fair value through profit or loss results in more relevant information. The focus in this instance is on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance, rather than on the nature of its financial instruments.
AG4I. The following examples show when this condition could be met. In all cases, an entity may use this condition to designate financial assets or financial liabilities as at fair value through profit or loss only if it meets the principle in paragraph 9(b)(ii).
(a) The entity is a venture capital organisation, mutual fund, unit trust or similar entity whose business is investing in financial assets with a view to profiting from their total return in the form of interest or dividends and changes in fair value. IAS 28 Investments in Associatesand IAS 31 Interests in Joint Venturesallow such investments to be excluded from their scope provided they are measured at fair value through profit or loss. An entity may apply the same accounting policy to other investments managed on a total return basis but over which its influence is insufficient for them to be within the scope of IAS 28 or IAS 31.
(b) The entity has financial assets and financial liabilities that share one or more risks and those risks are managed and evaluated on a fair value basis in accordance with a documented policy of asset and liability management. An example could be an entity that has issued 'structured products' containing multiple embedded derivatives and manages the resulting risks on a fair value basis using a mix of derivative and non-derivative financial instruments. A similar example could be an entity that originates fixed interest rate loans and manages the resulting benchmark interest rate risk using a mix of derivative and nonderivative financial instruments.
(c) The entity is an insurer that holds a portfolio of financial assets, manages that portfolio so as to maximise its total return (ie interest or dividends and changes in fair value), and evaluates its performance on that basis. The portfolio may be held to back specific liabilities, equity or both. If the portfolio is held to back specific liabilities, the condition in paragraph 9(b)(ii) may be met for the assets regardless of whether the insurer also manages and evaluates the liabilities on a fair value basis. The condition in paragraph 9(b)(ii) may be met when the insurer's objective is to maximise total return on the assets over the longer term even if amounts paid to holders of participating contracts depend on other factors such as the amount of gains realised in a shorter period (eg a year) or are subject to the insurer's discretion.
AG4J. As noted above, this condition relies on the way the entity manages and evaluates performance of the group of financial instruments under consideration. Accordingly, (subject to the requirement of designation at initial recognition) an entity that designates financial instruments as at fair value through profit or loss on the basis of this condition shall so designate all eligible financial instruments that are managed and evaluated together.
AG4K. Documentation of the entity's strategy need not be extensive but should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 9(b)(ii). Such documentation is not required for each individual item, but may be on a portfolio basis. For example, if the performance management system for a department - as approved by the entity's key management personnel - clearly demonstrates that its performance is evaluated on a total return basis, no further documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 9(b)(ii).

Approval of Amendments to IAS 39 by the Board
These Amendments to International Accounting Standard 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - Cash Flow Hedge Accounting of Forecast Intragroup Transactions were approved for issue by the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
Sir David Tweedie Chairman
Thomas E Jones Vice-Chairman
Mary E Barth
Hans-Georg Bruns
Anthony T Cope
Jan Engström
Robert P Garnett
Gilbert Gélard
James J Leisenring
Warren J McGregor
Patricia L O'Malley
John T Smith
Geoffrey Whittington
Tatsumi Yamada







Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - The Fair Value Option
Contents
AMENDMENTS TO IAS 39
Standard
Application Guidance
Basis for Conclusions
APPENDIX: AMENDMENTS TO OTHER STANDARDS
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO IAS 39 BY THE BOARD
DISSENTING OPINIONS
These Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - The Fair Value Option are issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410
Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411
Email: iasb@iasb.org
Web: www.iasb.org
The IASB, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF), the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise.
Copyright © 2005 IASCF®
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IASCF.
The IASB logo/'Hexagon Device', 'eIFRS', 'IAS', 'IASB', 'IASC', 'IASCF', 'IASs', 'IFRIC', 'IFRS', 'IFRSs', 'International Accounting Standards', 'International Financial Reporting Standards' and 'SIC' are Trade Marks of the IASCF.
Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement
This document sets out amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IAS 39). The amendments relate to proposals that were contained in an Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 - The Fair Value Option published in April 2004.
Entities shall apply the amendments set out in this document for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006.
In paragraph 9, part (b) of the definition of a financial asset or financial liability at fair value through profit or loss is replaced, as follows.
Definitions
9. …
Definitions of Four Categories of Financial Instruments
A financial asset or financial liability at fair value through profit or loss is a financial asset or financial liability that meets either of the following conditions.
(a) ...
(b) Upon initial recognition it is designated by the entity as at fair value through profit or loss. An entity may use this designation only when permitted by paragraph 11A, or when doing so results in more relevant information, because either
(i) it eliminates or significantly reduces a measurement or recognition inconsistency (sometimes referred to as 'an accounting mismatch') that would otherwise arise from measuring assets or liabilities or recognising the gains and losses on them on different bases; or
(ii) a group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both is managed and its performance is evaluated on a fair value basis, in accordance with a documented risk management or investment strategy, and information about the group is provided internally on that basis to the entity's key management personnel (as defined in IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures (as revised in 2003)), for example the entity's board of directors and chief executive officer.
In IAS 32, paragraphs 66, 94 and AG40 require the entity to provide disclosures about financial assets and financial liabilities it has designated as at fair value through profit or loss, including how it has satisfied these conditions. For instruments qualifying in accordance with (ii) above, that disclosure includes a narrative description of how designation as at fair value through profit or loss is consistent with the entity's documented risk management or investment strategy.
Investments in equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market, and whose fair value cannot be reliably measured (see paragraph 46(c) and Appendix A paragraphs AG80 and AG81), shall not be designated as at fair value through profit or loss.
It should be noted that paragraphs 48, 48A, 49 and Appendix A paragraphs AG69-AG82, which set out requirements for determining a reliable measure of the fair value of a financial asset or financial liability, apply equally to all items that are measured at fair value, whether by designation or otherwise, or whose fair value is disclosed.
Paragraph 11A is added, as follows.
Embedded Derivatives
11A. Notwithstanding paragraph 11, if a contract contains one or more embedded derivatives, an entity may designate the entire hybrid (combined) contract as a financial asset or financial liability at fair value through profit or loss unless:
(a) the embedded derivative(s) does not significantly modify the cash flows that otherwise would be required by the contract; or
(b) it is clear with little or no analysis when a similar hybrid (combined) instrument is first considered that separation of the embedded derivative(s) is prohibited, such as a prepayment option embedded in a loan that permits the holder to prepay the loan for approximately its amortised cost.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 are amended (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through), as follows.
12. If an entity is required by this Standard to separate an embedded derivative from its host contract, but is unable to measure the embedded derivative separately either at acquisition or at a subsequent financial reporting date, it shall treat designate the entire hybrid (combined) contract as a financial asset or financial liability that is held for trading at fair value through profit or loss.
13. If an entity is unable to determine reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and conditions (for example, because the embedded derivative is based on an unquoted equity instrument), the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid (combined) instrument and the fair value of the host contract, if those can be determined under this Standard. If the entity is unable to determine the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 12 applies and the hybrid (combined) instrument is treated as held for trading designated as at fair value through profit or loss.
Paragraph 48A is added, as follows.
Fair Value Measurement Considerations
48A. The best evidence of fair value is quoted prices in an active market. If the market for a financial instrument is not active, an entity establishes fair value by using a valuation technique. The objective of using a valuation technique is to establish what the transaction price would have been on the measurement date in an arm's length exchange motivated by normal business considerations. Valuation techniques include using recent arm's length market transactions between knowledgeable, willing parties, if available, reference to the current fair value of another instrument that is substantially the same, discounted cash flow analysis and option pricing models. If there is a valuation technique commonly used by market participants to price the instrument and that technique has been demonstrated to provide reliable estimates of prices obtained in actual market transactions, the entity uses that technique. The chosen valuation technique makes maximum use of market inputs and relies as little as possible on entity-specific inputs. It incorporates all factors that market participants would consider in setting a price and is consistent with accepted economic methodologies for pricing financial instruments. Periodically, an entity calibrates the valuation technique and tests it for validity using prices from any observable current market transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) or based on any available observable market data.
Effective Date and Transition
Paragraph 105 is amended (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through) and paragraphs 105A-105D are added, as follows.
…
105. When this Standard is first applied, an entity is permitted to designate a previously recognised financial asset or financial liability as a financial asset or financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss or available for sale despite the requirement in paragraph 9 to make such designation upon initial recognition. For any such financial asset designated as available for sale, the entity shall recognise all cumulative changes in fair value in a separate component of equity until subsequent derecognition or impairment, when the entity shall transfer that cumulative gain or loss to profit or loss. For any financial instrument designated as at fair value through profit or loss or available for sale, t The entity shall also:
(a) restate the financial asset or financial liability using the new designation in the comparative financial statements; and
(b) disclose the fair value of the financial assets or financial liabilities designated into each category at the date of designation and their classification and carrying amount in the previous financial statements.
105A. An entity shall apply paragraphs 11A, 48A, AG4B-AG4K, AG33A and AG33B and the 2005 amendments in paragraphs 9, 12 and 13 for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006. Earlier application is encouraged.
105B. An entity that first applies paragraphs 11A, 48A, AG4B-AG4K, AG33A and AG33B and the 2005 amendments in paragraphs 9, 12 and 13 in its annual period beginning before 1 January 2006
(a) is permitted, when those new and amended paragraphs are first applied, to designate as at fair value through profit or loss any previously recognised financial asset or financial liability that then qualifies for such designation. When the annual period begins before 1 September 2005, such designations need not be completed until 1 September 2005 and may also include financial assets and financial liabilities recognised between the beginning of that annual period and 1 September 2005. Notwithstanding paragraph 91, any financial assets and financial liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with this subparagraph that were previously designated as the hedged item in fair value hedge accounting relationships shall be de-designated from those relationships at the same time they are designated as at fair value through profit or loss.
(b) shall disclose the fair value of any financial assets or financial liabilities designated in accordance with subparagraph (a) at the date of designation and their classification and carrying amount in the previous financial statements.
(c) shall de-designate any financial asset or financial liability previously designated as at fair value through profit or loss if it does not qualify for such designation in accordance with those new and amended paragraphs. When a financial asset or financial liability will be measured at amortised cost after de-designation, the date of de-designation is deemed to be its date of initial recognition.
(d) shall disclose the fair value of any financial assets or financial liabilities de-designated in accordance with subparagraph (c) at the date of de-designation and their new classifications.
105C. An entity that first applies paragraphs 11A, 48A, AG4B-AG4K, AG33A and AG33B and the 2005 amendments in paragraphs 9, 12 and 13 in its annual period beginning on or after 1 January 2006
(a) shall de-designate any financial asset or financial liability previously designated as at fair value through profit or loss only if it does not qualify for such designation in accordance with those new and amended paragraphs. When a financial asset or financial liability will be measured at amortised cost after de-designation, the date of de-designation is deemed to be its date of initial recognition.
(b) shall not designate as at fair value through profit or loss any previously recognised financial assets or financial liabilities.
(c) shall disclose the fair value of any financial assets or financial liabilities de-designated in accordance with subparagraph (a) at the date of de-designation and their new classifications.
105D. An entity shall restate its comparative financial statements using the new designations in paragraph 105B or 105C provided that, in the case of a financial asset, financial liability, or group of financial assets, financial liabilities or both, designated as at fair value through profit or loss, those items or groups would have met the criteria in paragraph 9(b)(i), 9(b)(ii) or 11A at the beginning of the comparative period or, if acquired after the beginning of the comparative period, would have met the criteria in paragraph 9(b)(i), 9(b)(ii) or 11A at the date of initial recognition.
In Appendix A, paragraphs AG4B-AG4K are added, as follows.
Appendix A Application Guidance

Basis for Conclusions
In the Basis for Conclusions on IAS 39, paragraph BC222(s)-(u) is renumbered BC222(t)-(v), and a new subparagraph (s) is inserted.
BC222. The main changes from the Exposure Draft's proposals are as follows:
...
(s) The Exposure Draft maintained the prior guidance that a forecast intragroup transaction may be designated as the hedged item in a foreign currency cash flow hedge provided the transaction is highly probable, meets all other hedge accounting criteria, and will result in the recognition of an intragroup monetary item. The Standard (as revised in 2003) did not include this guidance in the light of comments received from some constituents questioning its conceptual basis. After the revised Standard was issued, constituents raised concerns that it was common practice for entities to designate a forecast intragroup transaction as the hedged item and that the revised IAS 39 created a difference from US GAAP. In response to these concerns, the Board published an Exposure Draft in July 2004. That Exposure Draft proposed to allow an entity to apply hedge accounting in the consolidated financial statements to a highly probable forecast external transaction denominated in the functional currency of the entity entering into the transaction, provided the transaction gave rise to an exposure that would have an effect on the consolidated profit or loss (ie was denominated in a currency other than the group's presentation currency). After discussing the comment letters received on that Exposure Draft, the Board decided to permit the foreign currency risk of a forecast intragroup transaction to be the hedged item in a cash flow hedge in consolidated financial statements provided the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss. In issuing this amendment the Board concluded that:
(i) allowing a forecast intragroup transaction to be designated as the hedged item in consolidated financial statements is consistent with the functional currency framework in IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, which recognises a functional currency exposure whenever a transaction (including a forecast transaction) is denominated in a currency different from the functional currency of the entity entering into the transaction.
(ii) allowing a forecast transaction (intragroup or external) to be designated as the hedged item in consolidated financial statements would not be consistent with the functional currency framework in IAS 21 if the transaction is denominated in the functional currency of the entity entering into it. Accordingly, such transactions should not be permitted to be designated as hedged items in a foreign currency cash flow hedge.
(iii) it is consistent with paragraphs 97 and 98 that any gain or loss that is recognised directly in equity in a cash flow hedge of a forecast intragroup transaction should be reclassified into consolidated profit or loss in the same period or periods during which the foreign currency risk of the hedged transaction affects consolidated profit or loss.

Hedged Items
Qualifying Items
...
80. For hedge accounting purposes, only assets, liabilities, firm commitments or highly probable forecast transactions that involve a party external to the entity can be designated as hedged items. It follows that hedge accounting can be applied to transactions between entities or segments in the same group only in the individual or separate financial statements of those entities or segments and not in the consolidated financial statements of the group. As an exception, the foreign currency risk of an intragroup monetary item (eg a payable/receivable between two subsidiaries) may qualify as a hedged item in the consolidated financial statements if it results in an exposure to foreign exchange rate gains or losses that are not fully eliminated on consolidation under in accordance with IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates. Under In accordance with IAS 21, foreign exchange rate gains and losses on intragroup monetary items are not fully eliminated on consolidation when the intragroup monetary item is transacted between two group entities that have different functional currencies. In addition, the foreign currency risk of a highly probable forecast intragroup transaction may qualify as a hedged item in consolidated financial statements provided that the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss.
...
Effective Date and Transition
...
108A. An entity shall apply the last sentence of paragraph 80, and paragraphs AG99A and AG99B, for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006. Earlier application is encouraged. If an entity has designated as the hedged item an external forecast transaction that
(a) is denominated in the functional currency of the entity entering into the transaction,
(b) gives rise to an exposure that will have an effect on consolidated profit or loss (ie is denominated in a currency other than the group's presentation currency), and
(c) would have qualified for hedge accounting had it not been denominated in the functional currency of the entity entering into it,
it may apply hedge accounting in the consolidated financial statements in the period(s) before the date of application of the last sentence of paragraph 80, and paragraphs AG99A and AG99B.
108B. An entity need not apply paragraph AG99B to comparative information relating to periods before the date of application of the last sentence of paragraph 80 and paragraph AG99A.
In Appendix A, Application Guidance, paragraphs AG99A and AG99B are renumbered AG99C and AG99D. Paragraphs AG99A, AG99B and AG133 are added.
Appendix A Application Guidance
Hedged Items (paragraphs 78-84)
Qualifying Items (paragraphs 78-80)
...
AG99A. Paragraph 80 states that in consolidated financial statements the foreign currency risk of a highly probable forecast intragroup transaction may qualify as a hedged item in a cash flow hedge, provided the transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity entering into that transaction and the foreign currency risk will affect consolidated profit or loss. For this purpose an entity can be a parent, subsidiary, associate, joint venture or branch. If the foreign currency risk of a forecast intragroup transaction does not affect consolidated profit or loss, the intragroup transaction cannot qualify as a hedged item. This is usually the case for royalty payments, interest payments or management charges between members of the same group unless there is a related external transaction. However, when the foreign currency risk of a forecast intragroup transaction will affect consolidated profit or loss, the intragroup transaction can qualify as a hedged item. An example is forecast sales or purchases of inventories between members of the same group if there is an onward sale of the inventory to a party external to the group. Similarly, a forecast intragroup sale of plant and equipment from the group entity that manufactured it to a group entity that will use the plant and equipment in its operations may affect consolidated profit or loss. This could occur, for example, because the plant and equipment will be depreciated by the purchasing entity and the amount initially recognised for the plant and equipment may change if the forecast intragroup transaction is denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the purchasing entity.
AG99B. If a hedge of a forecast intragroup transaction qualifies for hedge accounting, any gain or loss that is recognised directly in equity in accordance with paragraph 95(a) shall be reclassified into profit or loss in the same period or periods during which the foreign currency risk of the hedged transaction affects consolidated profit or loss.
Transition (paragraphs 103-108A)
AG133. An entity may have designated a forecast intragroup transaction as a hedged item at the start of an annual period beginning on or after 1 January 2005 (or, for the purpose of restating comparative information, the start of an earlier comparative period) in a hedge that would qualify for hedge accounting in accordance with this Standard (as amended by the last sentence of paragraph 80). Such an entity may use that designation to apply hedge accounting in consolidated financial statements from the start of the annual period beginning on or after 1 January 2005 (or the start of the earlier comparative period). Such an entity shall also apply paragraphs AG99A and AG99B from the start of the annual period beginning on or after 1 January 2005. However, in accordance with paragraph 108B, it need not apply paragraph AG99B to comparative information for earlier periods.

Approval of Amendments to IAS 39 by the Board
These Amendments to International Accounting Standard 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement-Transition and Initial Recognition of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities were approved for issue by the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board.
Sir David Tweedie    Chairman
Thomas E Jones    Vice-Chairman
Mary E Barth    
Hans-Georg Bruns    
Anthony T Cope    
Jan Engström    
Robert P Garnett    
Gilbert Gélard    
James J Leisenring    
Warren J McGregor    
Patricia L O'Malley    
John T Smith    
Geoffrey Whittington    
Tatsumi Yamada    



Amendment To International Accounting Standard IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - Cash Flow Hedge Accounting of Forecast Intragroup Transactions
Contents
Amendments To IAS 39
Hedged Items
Effective Date and Transition
Application Guidance
Basis for Conclusions
Approval Of Amendments To IAS 39 By The Board
These Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement - Cash Flow Hedge Accounting of Forecast Intragroup Transactions are issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411 Email: iasb@iasb.org Web: www.iasb.org
The IASB, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF), the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise.
ISBN: 1-904230-80-6
Copyright © 2005 IASCF®
International Financial Reporting Standards (including International Accounting Standards and SIC and IFRIC Interpretations), Exposure Drafts, and other IASB publications are copyright of the IASCF. The approved text of International Financial Reporting Standards and other IASB publications is that published by the IASB in the English language. Copies may be obtained from the IASCF. Please address publications and copyright matters to:
IASCF Publications Department, 1st Floor, 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7332 2730 Fax: +44 (0)20 7332 2749 Email: publications@iasb.org Web: www.iasb.org
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IASCF.
International Accounting Standards Board
The IASB logo/'Hexagon Device', 'eIFRS', 'IAS', 'IASB', 'IASC', 'IASCF', 'IASs', 'IFRIC', 'IFRS', 'IFRSs', 'International Accounting Standards', 'International Financial Reporting Standards' and 'SIC' are Trade Marks of the IASCF.
Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement
This document sets out amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IAS 39). The amendments relate to proposals that were contained in an Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 - Cash Flow Hedge Accounting of Forecast Intragroup Transactions published in July 2004.
Entities shall apply the amendments set out in this document for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006.
In the Standard paragraph 80 is amended (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through) and paragraphs 108A and 108B are added.

Appendix Amendments to IFRS 1
The amendments in this appendix shall be applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. If an entity applies IFRS 1 for an earlier period, these amendments shall be applied for that earlier period.
A1 IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards is amended as described below.
In paragraph 13, subparagraphs (j) and (k) are amended, and subparagraph (l) inserted, as follows (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through):
(j) decommissioning liabilities included in the cost of property, plant and equipment (paragraph 25E); and
(k) leases (paragraph 25F).; and
(l) fair value measurement of financial assets or financial liabilities at initial recognition (paragraph 25G).
After paragraph 25F a new heading and paragraph 25G are inserted as follows:
Fair value measurement of financial assets or financial liabilities
25G Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs 7 and 9, an entity may apply the requirements in the last sentence of IAS 39 paragraph AG76, and paragraph AG76A, in either of the following ways:
(a) prospectively to transactions entered into after 25 October 2002; or
(b) prospectively to transactions entered into after 1 January 2004.
In the Basis for Conclusions, paragraph BC74 is amended as follows (new text is underlined and deleted text is struck through):
BC74 The Board reconsidered practical implementation difficulties that could arise from the retrospective application of two aspects of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement:
(a) hedge accounting (paragraphs BC75-BC80); and
(b) the treatment of cumulative fair value changes on available-for-sale financial assets at the date of transition to IFRSs (paragraphs BC81-BC83).; and
(c) 'day 1' gain or loss recognition (paragraph BC83A).
Paragraph BC83A is added as follows:
BC83A IFRS 1 originally required retrospective application of the 'day 1' gain or loss recognition requirements in IAS 39, paragraph AG76. After the revised IAS 39 was issued, constituents raised concerns that retrospective application would diverge from the requirements of US GAAP, would be difficult and expensive to implement, and might require subjective assumptions about what was observable and what was not. In response to these concerns, the Board decided to permit entities to apply the requirements in the last sentence of IAS 39 paragraph AG76, and paragraph AG76A, in any one of the following ways:
(a) retrospectively;
(b) prospectively to transactions entered into after 25 October 2002; or
(c) prospectively to transactions entered into after 1 January 2004.

Basis for Conclusions
In the Basis for Conclusions on IAS 39, paragraph BC222(u) is added.
BC222. The main changes from the Exposure Draft's proposals are as follows:
(u) The Exposure Draft proposed, and the revised Standard originally required, retrospective application of the 'day 1' gain or loss recognition requirements in paragraph AG76. After the revised Standard was issued, constituents raised concerns that retrospective application would diverge from the requirements of US GAAP, would be difficult and expensive to implement, and might require subjective assumptions about what was observable and what was not. In response to these concerns, the Board decided:
(i) to permit entities to apply the requirements in the last sentence of paragraph AG76 in any one of the following ways:
•    retrospectively, as previously required by IAS 39
•    prospectively to transactions entered into after 25 October 2002, the effective date of equivalent US GAAP requirements
•    prospectively to transactions entered into after 1 January 2004, the date of transition to IFRSs for many entities.
(ii) to clarify that a gain or loss should be recognised after initial recognition only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price. Some constituents asked the Board to clarify that straight-line amortisation is an appropriate method of recognising the difference between a transaction price (used as fair value in accordance with paragraph AG76) and a valuation made at the time of the transaction that was not based solely on data from observable markets. The Board decided not to do this. It concluded that although straight-line amortisation may be an appropriate method in some cases, it will not be appropriate in others.

Amendments to International Accounting Standard 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement Transition and Initial Recognition of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
December 2004
Contents
Amendments to IAS 39
Effective Date and Transition
Application Guidance
Basis for Conclusions
Appendix: Amendments To IFRS 1
Approval Of Amendments To IAS 39 By The Board
These Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement-Transition and Initial Recognition of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities are issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410
Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411
Email: iasb@iasb.org
Web: www.iasb.org
The IASB, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF), the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise.
Copyright © 2004 IASCF
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IASCF.
Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement
This document sets out amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IAS 39) as amended up to 31 March 2004. The amendments finalise proposals that were contained in an Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 - Transition and Initial Recognition of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities published in July 2004. The Appendix sets out amendments to IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards.
Entities shall apply the amendments set out in this document for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 and IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation (both as amended up to 31 March 2004) to that period.
In the Standard, paragraph 107A is added.
Effective Date and Transition
107A. Notwithstanding paragraph 104, an entity may apply the requirements in the last sentence of paragraph AG76, and paragraph AG76A, in either of the following ways:
(a) prospectively to transactions entered into after 25 October 2002; or
(b) prospectively to transactions entered into after 1 January 2004.
In Appendix A, Application Guidance, paragraph AG76A is added.
Application Guidance
Measurement (paragraphs 43-70)
No Active Market: Valuation Technique
AG76A.The subsequent measurement of the financial asset or financial liability and the subsequent recognition of gains and losses shall be consistent with the requirements of this Standard. The application of paragraph AG76 may result in no gain or loss being recognised on the initial recognition of a financial asset or financial liability. In such a case, IAS 39 requires that a gain or loss shall be recognised after initial recognition only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price.

Appendix Amendments to IAS 32
The amendments in this appendix shall be applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. If an entity applies this Standard for an earlier period, these amendments shall be applied for that earlier period.
A1. IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation is amended as described below.
Paragraph IN21 is deleted.
Paragraph 96 is amended to read as follows (new text is underlined).
96. An entity shall apply this Standard for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. Earlier application is permitted. An entity shall not apply this Standard for annual periods beginning before 1 January 2005 unless it also applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003), including the amendments issued in March 2004. If an entity applies this Standard for a period beginning before 1 January 2005, it shall disclose that fact.
Approval of Amendments to IAS 39 by the Board
These Amendments to International Accounting Standard 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement Fair Value Hedge Accounting for a Portfolio Hedge of Interest Rate Risk were approved for issue by thirteen of the fourteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr Smith dissented. His dissenting opinion is set out on the following page.
Sir David Tweedie Chairman Thomas E Jones Vice-Chairman Mary E Barth Hans-Georg Bruns Anthony T Cope Robert P Garnett Gilbert Gélard James J Leisenring Warren J McGregor Patricia L O'Malley Harry K Schmid John T Smith Geoffrey Whittington Tatsumi Yamada
Dissenting Opinion
Dissent of John T Smith
DO1. Mr Smith dissents from these Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement Fair Value Hedge Accounting for a Portfolio Hedge of Interest Rate Risk. He agrees with the objective of finding a macro hedging solution that would reduce systems demands without undermining the fundamental accounting principles related to derivative instruments and hedging activities. However, Mr Smith believes that some respondents' support for these Amendments and their willingness to accept IAS 39 is based more on the extent to which the Amendments reduce recognition of ineffectiveness, volatility of profit or loss, and volatility of equity than on whether the Amendments reduce systems demands without undermining the fundamental accounting principles.
DO2. Mr Smith believes some decisions made during the Board's deliberations result in an approach to hedge accounting for a portfolio hedge that does not capture what was originally intended, namely a result that is substantially equivalent to designating an individual asset or liability as the hedged item. He understands some respondents will not accept IAS 39 unless the Board provides still another alternative that will further reduce reported volatility. Mr Smith believes that the Amendments already go beyond their intended objective. In particular, he believes that features of these Amendments can be applied to smooth out ineffectiveness and achieve results substantially equivalent to the other methods of measuring ineffectiveness that the Board considered when developing the Exposure Draft. The Board rejected those methods because they did not require the immediate recognition of all ineffectiveness. He also believes those features could be used to manage earnings.