The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF NEW YORK
$ { -ic n z s t* > )
August 18, 1994
POSTPONEMENT OF CERTAIN BANK REGULATORY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
New Implementation Date —March 31, 1995
T o A ll S ta te M e m b e r B a n k s
in th e S e c o n d F e d e r a l R e s e r v e D i s t r i c t :
Printed on the following pages is a statement issued by the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) that announces the postponement o f certain
bank regulatory reporting requirements proposed for the September 30, 1994, Reports o f
Condition and Income (Call Report) to the March 31, 1995, reports. The FFIEC is
deferring the disclosure o f additional information about off-balance-sheet derivative
financial instruments in response to information received during the public comment
period; the FFIEC’s request for comment appeared in the Federal Register o f March 9.
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to Elaine D. Mauriello, Assistant
Vice President, Statistics Function (Tel. No. 212-720-5722).
William J. McDonough,
President.
/tf
/
o
:ederal Financial Institutions Exam ination C ouncil
100 Pennsylvania Avenue, .MV, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20037 • (202)634-6526 • FAX (202)634-6556
Press Release
For immediate release
August 8, 1994
The Examination Council announced today that it is deferring the implementation o f certain bank
regulatory reporting requirements proposed for the September 30, 1994, Reports o f Condition
and Income (Call Report) to the March 31, 1995, reports. The proposal addresses the disclosure
o f additional information about off-balance-sheet derivative financial instruments.
The
Examination Council is deferring implementation in response to information received during the
public comment period. The deferral will reduce the reporting burden on banks and allow them
to make systems changes to support new reporting requirements in a more orderly, less costly
fashion.
The Examination Council published a request for comment on its proposed additional reporting
requirements for derivatives on March 9, 1994. The information proposed to be collected in the
Call Report from all banks beginning September 30, 1994, involves further breakdowns o f
notional contract amounts by instrument type (i.e ., swaps, options, forwards, and futures), by
risk exposure underlying the contract (i.e ., interest rate, foreign exchange, equities, and
commodities), and by whether the contract is traded on an exchange or over the counter. Under
the proposal, banks with total assets o f $100 million or more would be required to separately
3oard of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration,
Dffice of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision
9
q
?
a
- 2 -
disclose the gross replacement cost of contracts that are marked to market and contracts
accounted for under some other basis of accounting. These data also would be broken down
according to underlying risk exposures. These larger banks also would report the net credit
exposure under all contracts after taking into consideration enforceable bilateral netting
arrangements. In addition, the Examination Council proposed to collect certain income-related
data on derivatives from larger banks beginning March 31, 1995. The comment period for the
Examination Council’s proposal closed on May 9, 1994, and thirty-nine letters were received.
On April 15, 1994, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) published a proposed
accounting standard on disclosures about derivative financial instruments.
If adopted as an
accounting standard, the FASB’s proposal would apply to the 1994 calendar year financial
statements issued by larger institutions.
In their comments on the Examination Council’s proposal, many institutions suggested greater
consistency between the Examination Council’s and the FASB’s final disclosure requirements.
They noted that the requested data is available through the examination process and questioned
the need to make an exception to the Examination Council’s general policy of making changes
to the Call Report only once a year.
The Examination Council was persuaded that, in this
instance, the need for additional data to be gathered on an industry-wide basis as o f
September 30, 1994, was outweighed by the cost and other burdens that would be imposed by
requiring Call Report changes before March 31, 1995.
The Examination Council also was
persuaded that implementation would be less costly and burdensome to banks if all changes
related to derivatives were made at the same time.
/ 0 9 & ?
-3 In addition, the Examination Council noted that the deferred effective date will provide sufficient
time to more closely coordinate its disclosure efforts with the FASB. Implementation o f these
Call Report changes as of March 31, 1995, will provide adequate lead time to reporting banks
to implement the new reporting requirements, thereby reducing the cost and reporting burden
that would be imposed on the industry.
#
#
@FedFRASER