Abstract

Severe disturbances in the financial markets in many countries during the 1980s and 1990s caused many stakeholders to examine whether commercial banks had adequate reserves for future loan losses. In the United States, bank regulators considered an adequate Allowance for Loan Losses a ‘safety and soundness’ issue while the SEC became increasingly concerned over the possibility of banks using the Allowance as a method to ‘manage earnings’. Both regulators demanded more rigorous calculations from banks to support their accounting entries. Also the FASB and the IASB have expressed concerns about a lack of harmonization and convergence in standards. An analysis of measurement standards in the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and Australia, as well as by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the IASB, reveals the partially conflicting goals for the Allowance: (a) promote harmonization (IASB), (b) increase transparency (SEC), (c) promote safety and soundness (bank regulators) and (d) maintain reasonable flexibility in recognition of the subjective aspects in determining an appropriate Allowance (bankers). The article offers a methodology which an individual bank may utilize to reconcile the conflicting goals of all interested parties.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call