Methodological thoughts on expected loss estimates for IFRS 9 impairment: hidden reserves, cyclical loss predictions and LGD backtesting
Wolfgang Reitgruber

TL;DR
This paper discusses methodological approaches for IFRS 9 impairment estimates, focusing on structural conservatism, hidden reserves, cyclical loss predictions, and LGD backtesting to improve credit risk assessment.
Contribution
It introduces a framework for quantifying conservatism, separating operational effects from credit risk, and proposes a new approach for LGD monitoring and backtesting under IFRS 9.
Findings
Quantification of conservatism using iACV(c)
Framework for cyclical loss prediction and testing
LGD backtesting approach with key risk indicators
Abstract
After the release of the final accounting standards for impairment in July 2014 by the IASB, banks will face the next significant methodological challenge after Basel 2. In this paper, first methodological thoughts are presented, and ways how to approach underlying questions are proposed. It starts with a detailed discussion of the structural conservatism in the final standard. The exposure value iACV(c) (idealized Amortized Cost Value), as originally introduced in the Exposure Draft 2009 (ED 2009), will be interpreted as economic value under amortized cost accounting and provides the valuation benchmark under IFRS 9. Consequently, iACV(c) can be used to quantify conservatism (ie potential hidden reserves) in the actual implementation of the final standard and to separate operational side-effects caused by the local implementation from actual credit risk impacts. The second part…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCredit Risk and Financial Regulations · Insurance and Financial Risk Management
