value of the asset. Fair value is defined as the amount at which “an asset could be
bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, other than a forced
liquidation sale.” Under IAS and U.K. accounting standards, the asset’s carrying
amount is compared to its recoverable amount, which is defined as the higher of the
net selling price or value in use, to identify impairment of long-lived assets, includ-
ing goodwill. Value in use is defined as the present value of the expected future cash
flows of the asset. The U.S. concept of fair value is akin to the net selling price con-
cept, which may coincide with the value in use measure in some cases. In a recession
or other market downturn it may be expected that illiquid and volatile markets will
indicate that net selling prices are much lower than value in use, thus increasing the
magnitude of write-downs for similar assets.
After an impairment loss has been recognized, not only is the amount of annual
depreciation or amortization affected, but the future appreciation of the asset’s fair
value can also be treated differently under the various accounting standards. Certain
countries require an impairment loss to be reversed in future periods when the asset’s
fair value appreciates while other countries deem the impaired value to be the new
cost basis and the reversal of prior impairment losses is not allowed.
Even though the concept of impairment is basically the same around the world,
differences in the timing and the amount of impairment recognized under different
countries’ accounting standards could vary significantly. These differences will lead
to continuing confusion and concern with the reliability of financial reporting.
(k) Transfer of Financial Assets and Special Purpose Vehicles. Transfers of financial
assets are daily occurrences, especially as part of the operational strategies of many
financial services institutions. Companies may enter into complex structures to trans-
fer financial assets with the objective of (1) improving certain financial ratios (e.g.,
nonperforming loan ratios, return on asset or equity, and profit margins), (2) mini-
mizing (or sharing) risk in the recoverability of the financial assets, (3) enhancing
liquidity, (4) improving asset/liability management, or (5) completing borrowing
arrangements. Over the past decade, there has been increased scrutiny in the ac-
counting treatment for the transfer of financial assets involving complex structures.
This is especially true with transfers involving securitizations, the process by which
financial assets are transformed into securities, or SPVs, entities that are set up for a
specified unique purpose. The complexity of securitizations has evolved such that
the nature of a transferor’s continuing involvement makes it unclear whether control
has been relinquished and whether the risks and rewards have been retained by the
transferor.
Generally, the accounting framework provides for derecognization when the trans-
ferred asset is isolated from the transferor and the transferor no longer controls the
assetanddoes not retain any of the risks and rewards of the transferred asset. How-
ever, differences may exist depending on the focus of the respective accounting stan-
dards. Additionally, standards in various nations do not provide specific guidance for
derecognition of financial assets and practice may vary as a result of the lack of spe-
cific guidance. Because of this diversity, the IASB joined with national standard set-
ters, including the FASB and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, in a Joint
Working Group to develop, integrate, and harmonize international accounting stan-
dards on financial instruments beginning in 1997. As a result of such efforts, the
FASB and IASB have adopted a similar approach in accounting for the derecognition
of financial assets. However, despite the efforts to harmonize accounting for the
12.6 FINANCIAL STATEMENT EFFECTS 12 • 25