(326)
(115)
(3,607)
(3,380)
Total financial debt
(9,208)
(1,622)
(6,729)
(5,157)
(22,716)
(21,206)
Financial liabilities
(26,645)
(1,979) (6,789) (6,631) (42,044) (40,485)
Non-currency derivative assets
39
5
3
(6)
41
41
Non-currency derivative liabilities
(215) (29) (42) (7) (293)
(289)
Gross amount receivable from
currency derivatives
11,589
458
2,204
495
14,746
14,553
Gross amount payable from
currency derivatives
(11,370)
(489)
(2,435)
(550)
(14,844)
(14,662)
Net derivatives
43
(55)
(270)
(68)
(350)
(357)
Net financial position
(13,009)
Of which derivatives under cash
flow hedges (b)
(105)
(29)
(42)
(7)
(183)
(180)
(a)
Commercial paper of CHF 3571 million and bonds of CHF 76 million have maturities of less than three
months.
(b)
The periods when the cash flow hedges affect the income statement do not differ significantly from the
maturities disclosed above.
Financial
instruments:
Presentation and disclosure 4219
Extract 50.6: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (2014)
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements [extract]
34.
Financial risk management and financial instruments [extract]
3. LIQUIDITY
RISK [extract]
The solvency and liquidity of the Volkswagen Group are ensured at all times by rolling liquidity planning, a liquidity
reserve in the form of cash, confirmed credit lines and globally available debt issuance programs.
Local cash funds in certain countries (e.g. Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, Malaysia, India and Taiwan) are only available
to the Group for cross-border transactions subject to exchange controls. There are no significant restrictions over and
above these.
The following overview shows the contractual undiscounted cash flows from financial instruments.
MATURITY ANALYSIS OF UNDISCOUNTED CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Remaining contractual maturities
within one
under one
to five
over five
€ million
year
years
years 2014
Put options and compensation rights granted to
noncontrolling interest shareholders
3,185 – –
3,185
Financial liabilities
67,634 63,926 12,011 142,941
Trade payables
19,526 4 –
19,530
Other financial liabilities
4,652 1,470
94 6,216
Derivatives
61,623 51,265
207 113,094
156,619 116,034 12,312 284,965
When calculating cash outflows related to put options and compensation rights, it was assumed that shares would be
tendered at the earliest possible repayment date.
Derivatives comprise both cash flows from derivative financial instruments with negative fair values and cash flows
from derivatives with positive fair values for which gross settlement has been agreed. The cash outflows from
derivatives for which gross settlement has been agreed are matched in part by cash inflows. These cash inflows are
not reported in the maturity analysis. If these cash inflows were also recognized, the cash outflows presented would
be substantially lower.
The cash outflows from irrevocable credit commitments are presented in note 38, classified by contractual maturities.
The maximum potential liability under financial guarantees amounted to €674 million as of December 31, 2014.
Financial guarantees are assumed to be due immediately in all cases. They relate primarily to guarantees.
4220 Chapter 50
Extract 50.7: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (2014)
Notes on the consolidated accounts [extract]
12. Financial
instruments – maturity analysis [extracts]
Assets and liabilities by contractual cash flow maturity [extract]
The tables below show the contractual undiscounted cash flows receivable and payable, up to a period of 20 years,
including future receipts and payments of interest of financial assets and liabilities by contractual maturity.
Financial liabilities are included at the earliest date on which the counterparty can require repayment, regardless of
whether or not such early repayment results in a penalty. If the repayment of a financial instrument is triggered by, or
is subject to, specific criteria such as market price hurdles being reached, the asset is included in the time band that
contains the latest date on which it can be repaid, regardless of early repayment.
The liability is included in the time band that contains the earliest possible date on which the conditions could be
fulfilled, without considering the probability of the conditions being met.
For example, if a structured note is automatically prepaid when an equity index exceeds a certain level, the cash
outflow will be included in the less than three months period, whatever the level of the index at the year end. The
settlement date of debt securities in issue, issued by certain securitisation vehicles consolidated by RBS, depends on
when cash flows are received from the securitised assets. Where these assets are prepayable, the timing of the cash
outflow relating to securities assumes that each asset will be prepaid at the earliest possible date. As the repayments
of assets and liabilities are linked, the repayment of assets in securitisations is shown on the earliest date that the asset can be prepaid, as this is the basis used for liabilities.
The principal amounts of financial assets and liabilities that are repayable after 20 years or where the counterparty has no right to repayment of the principal are excluded from the table, as are interest payments after 20 years.
Held-for-trading assets of £498.2 billion (2013 – £452.1 billion; 2012 – £666.5 billion) and liabilities of £477.1 billion (2013
– £423.3 billion; 2012 – £628.2 billion) have been excluded from the following tables in view of their short term nature.
0-3 months
3-12 months
1-3 years
3-5 years
5-10 years 10-20 years
2014 £m
£m
£m
£m
£m
£m
Liabilities by contractual maturity
Deposits by banks
8,287 754
793 8
575
140
Debt securities in issue
2,591 7,585
12,952
8,536
8,897
1,926
Subordinated liabilities
1,243
2,731 3,045 4,365 13,394 3,698
Settlement balances and other
&nbs
p; liabilities
6,295 5
4
–
–
–
Total maturing liabilities
18,416 11,075
16,794
12,909
22,866 5,764
Customer accounts
328,158 7,884
3,170
1,082 114 23
Derivatives held for hedging
140 348
789
543
949
1,010
346,714 19,307
20,753
14,534
23,929 6,797
Maturity gap
82,122
(4,772) (11,561) (8,179) (16,748) (3,162)
Cumulative maturity gap
82,122 77,350
65,789
57,610
40,862
37,700
Guarantees and commitments – notional amounts
Guarantees
16,721 –
–
–
–
–
Commitments
212,777 –
–
–
–
–
229,498 –
–
–
– –
Unilever, Nestlé, Volkswagen and Royal Bank of Scotland applied IAS 39 in these
financial statements but the disclosure requirements in respect of liquidity risk are
unchanged under IFRS 9.
Financial
instruments:
Presentation and disclosure 4221
5.4.3
Management of associated liquidity risk
In addition to the maturity analyses for financial liabilities, the entity should provide a
description of how it manages the liquidity risk inherent in those analyses. [IFRS 7.39(c)].
These disclosures are, in effect, intended to ‘reconcile’ the maturity analyses which are
prepared on a worst case scenario notion (see 5.4.2 above) with how an entity actually
manages liquidity risk (see 5.4.1 above).13
It is emphasised that a maturity analysis of financial assets held for managing liquidity risk
(e.g. financial assets that are readily saleable or expected to generate cash inflows to meet
cash outflows on financial liabilities) is required if that information is necessary to enable
users of financial statements to evaluate the nature and extent of the entity’s liquidity risk.
[IFRS 7.B11E, BC58D]. IFRS 7 does not specify the basis on which such an analysis should be
provided and in practice they are often prepared on the basis of expected rather than
contractual maturities as this is considered more relevant information.
Other factors that might be considered when making this disclosure include, but are not
limited to, whether the entity: [IFRS 7.B11F]
• has committed borrowing facilities (e.g. commercial paper facilities) or other lines
of credit (e.g. stand-by credit facilities) that it can access to meet liquidity needs;
• holds deposits at central banks to meet liquidity needs;
• has very diverse funding sources;
• has significant concentrations of liquidity risk in either its assets or its funding sources;
• has internal control processes and contingency plans for managing liquidity risk;
• has instruments that include accelerated repayment terms (e.g. on the downgrade
of the entity’s credit rating);
• has instruments that could require the posting of collateral (e.g. margin calls for
derivatives);
• has instruments that allow the entity to choose whether it settles its financial liabilities
by delivering cash (or another financial asset) or by delivering its own shares; or
• has instruments that are subject to master netting agreements.
5.4.4
Puttable financial instruments classified as equity
Certain puttable financial instruments that meet the definition of financial liabilities are
classified as equity instruments (see Chapter 43 at 4.6). In spite of this classification, the
IASB recognises that these instruments give rise to liquidity risk and consequently
requires the following disclosures about them: [IAS 1.136A]
• summary quantitative data about the amount classified as equity;
• the entity’s objectives, policies and processes for managing its obligation to
repurchase or redeem the instruments when required to do so by the instrument
holders, including any changes from the previous period;
• the expected cash outflow on redemption or repurchase of that class of financial
instruments; and
• information about how the expected cash outflow on redemption or repurchase
was determined.
4222 Chapter 50
5.5 Market
risk
IFRS 7 requires entities to provide disclosure of their sensitivity to market risk in one of
two ways which are set out at 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 below. The sensitivity analyses should
cover the whole of an entity’s business, but different types of sensitivity analysis may be
provided for different classes of financial instruments. [IFRS 7.B21]. This is considered by
the IASB to be simpler and more suitable than the disclosure of terms and conditions of
financial instruments previously required by IAS 32 and for which there is no direct
equivalent within IFRS 7. [IFRS 7.BC59].
No sensitivity analysis is required for financial instruments that an entity classifies as
equity instruments. Such instruments are not remeasured so that neither profit or loss
nor equity will be affected by the equity price risk of those instruments. [IFRS 7.B28].
5.5.1
‘Basic’ sensitivity analysis
Except where the disclosures set out at 5.5.2 below are provided, entities should
disclose: [IFRS 7.40]
• a sensitivity analysis for each type of market risk to which the entity is exposed at
the reporting date, showing how profit or loss and equity would have been affected
by changes in the relevant risk variable that were reasonably possible at that date.
The sensitivity of profit or loss (which arises, for example, from instruments measured
at fair value through profit or loss) should be disclosed separately from the sensitivity
of equity (which arises, for example, from investments in equity instruments whose
changes in fair value are presented in other comprehensive income). [IFRS 7.B27].
The term ‘profit or loss’ is used in IAS 1 to mean profit after tax. Therefore, it might well
be argued that the amounts disclosed should take account of any related tax effects, a
view corroborated by the illustrative disclosures in the implementation guidance to
IFRS 7 (see Example 50.10 below). However, as noted below, the application guidance
suggests this requirement should (and the implementation guidance might suggest it
could) be met by disclosing the impact on interest expense, a pre-tax measure of profit.
Given this conflicting guidance, it is difficult to say that a pre-tax approach fails to
comply with the standard and, in practice, both approaches are seen.
Where a post-tax figure is disclosed, it will not always be straightforward to
determine the related tax effects, especially for a multinational group, and it may be
appropriate to use the guidance in Chapter 29 at 10 which deals with the allocation
of income tax between profit or loss, other comprehensive income and eq
uity.
This requirement focuses exclusively on accounting sensitivity, and does not
include market risk sensitivities that do not directly impact profit and loss or
equity, e.g. interest rate risk arising on fixed rate financial assets held at amortised
cost. In December 2008, the IASB considered encouraging entities to discuss the
effect of changes in the relevant risk variable on economic value not manifest in
profit and loss or equity, but decided not to;14
• the methods and assumptions used in preparing the sensitivity analysis; and
• changes from the previous period in the methods and assumptions used, and the
reasons for such changes.
Financial
instruments:
Presentation and disclosure 4223
The standard contains a reminder of the general guidance at 3.1 above and explains that
an entity should decide how it aggregates information to display the overall picture
without combining information with different characteristics about exposures to risks
from significantly different economic environments. For example, an entity that trades
financial instruments might disclose this information separately for financial
instruments held for trading and those not held for trading. Similarly, an entity would
not aggregate its exposure to market risks from areas of hyperinflation with its exposure
to the same market risks from areas of very low inflation. However, an entity that has
exposure to only one type of market risk in only one economic environment, would not
show disaggregated information. [IFRS 7.B17].
Risk variables that are relevant to disclosing market risk include, but are not limited to:
[IFRS 7.IG32]
• the yield curve of market interest rates.
It may be necessary to consider both parallel and non-parallel shifts in the yield curve;
• foreign exchange rates.
The standard requires a sensitivity analysis to be disclosed for each currency to
which an entity has significant exposure; [IFRS 7.B24]
• prices of equity instruments; and
• market prices of commodities.
When disclosing how profit or loss and equity would have been affected by changes in
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 836
