Variable Interest 2013
Variable Interest 2013
Variable Interest 2013
com
201
This publication has been prepared for general information on matters of interest
only, and does not constitute professional advice on facts and circumstances
specific to any person or entity. You should not act upon the information contained
in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation
or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of
the information contained in this publication. The information contained in this
material was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes
of avoiding penalties or sanctions imposed by any government or other regulatory
body. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, its members, employees and agents shall not
be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity who relies on this
publication.
The content of this publication is based on information available as of May 15,
2013. Accordingly, certain aspects of this publication may be superseded as new
guidance or interpretations emerge. Financial statement preparers and other users
of this publication are therefore cautioned to stay abreast of and carefully evaluate
subsequent authoritative and interpretive guidance that is issued.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary:....................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1:
1.1
1.2
1.3
Primary Beneficiary..................................................................................................1-4
1.4
Variable Interest........................................................................................................1-4
1.5
1.6
1.6.1
1.7
1.7.1
1.7.1.1
1.7.1.2
1.7.1.3
1.7.1.4
1.7.2
1.8
1.9
Chapter 2:
2.1
Definition of an Entity...............................................................................................2-3
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
Scope Exceptions.....................................................................................................2-5
The So-Called Business Scope Exception..........................................................2-5
Not-for-Profit Organizations..................................................................................2-13
Employers That Offer Employee Benefit Plans....................................................2-14
Investment Companies..........................................................................................2-14
Separate Accounts of Life Insurance Entities......................................................2-15
Information-Out...................................................................................................2-16
Governmental Organizations.................................................................................2-18
2.3
2.4
Chapter 3:
Variable Interests
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.10
3.3.11
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Chapter 4:
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.9
3.3.9.1
3.3.9.2
3.3.9.3
3.3.9.4
3.3.9.5
3.3.9.6
3.3.9.7
iv / Table of Contents
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.1.1
4.2.1.2
4.2.1.3
4.3.7
4.3.8
4.3.9
4.4
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
Table of Contents / v
Chapter 5:
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.3
Examples.................................................................................................................5-28
Chapter 6:
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.3
Chapter 7:
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
Disclosure..................................................................................................................7-3
Disclosure Objectives...............................................................................................7-3
The Aggregation Principle.......................................................................................7-4
Specific Required Disclosures About VIEs.............................................................7-5
7.2
Presentation..............................................................................................................7-7
7.3
7.4
7.5
Chapter 8:
8.1
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.1.4
8.1.5
8.1.6
vi / Table of Contents
8.1.7
8.1.8
8.2
Effective Date..........................................................................................................8-13
8.3
Appendices
Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810.................... B-1
Executive Summary
Executive Summary / 1
Executive Summary
Recognizing that the application of voting control based consolidation accounting
models to certain types of entities and structures did not result in the most
meaningful financial presentation, the FASB created an accounting model to
specifically address variable interest entities or VIEs. Over time, the FASB has
made significant changes to the VIE consolidation model and is in deliberations
following the issuance of an exposure draft to further amend the model.
This fifth edition of our monograph provides the latest additional discussion and
examples on a number of emerging practice issues involving the accounting for
variable interest entities to consider in applying the model. The purpose of this guide
is to clarify a complex area of accounting by bringing together, in one publication, all
of the relevant PwC guidance on accounting for variable interest entities; to provide
an overall framework for the application of the VIE model; to highlight key questions
and answers; and to offer our perspectives, based on our analysis of the guidance
and experience in applying it.
The Consolidation Model for Variable Interest Entities in a Nutshell
Under GAAP, a reporting entity must consolidate any entity in which it has a
controlling financial interest. Under the voting interest model, generally the investor
that has voting control (usually more than 50 percent of an entitys voting interests)
consolidates the entity. Under the VIE model, the party that has the power to direct
the entitys most significant economic activities and the ability to participate in the
entitys economics consolidates the entity. This party could be an equity investor,
some other capital provider, or a party with contractual arrangements.
To determine which accounting model applies, and whichif anyparty must
consolidate a particular entity, a reporting entity must first determine whether the
entity is a voting interest entity or a variable interest entity. An entity is considered a
VIE if it possesses one of the following characteristics:
Characteristic 1The entity is thinly capitalized: Traditionally, it has been
presumed that the equity provided by residual equity holders is sufficient to support
the entitys operations. If the equity is not sufficient, voting power attributed to the
entitys equity holders (i.e., under the voting interest model) is not the only factor that
should be considered in a determination of who should consolidate the entity.
Characteristic 2Residual equity holders do not control the entity: The voting
interest model should not be applied if the residual equity holders cannot control the
entitys destiny. This runs counter to conventional economic thinking, which suggests
that the holder of an entitys residual equity should be in a position to control its
destiny.
Characteristics 3 & 4Equity holders are shielded from economic losses or do
not participate fully in an entitys residual economics: Conventional economic
thinking suggests that residual equity holders should not only enjoy the rewards
of owning an entity, but also be exposed to the risks of ownership. Such thinking
does not extend to contractual arrangements that shield equity holders from
losses associated with the entitys predominant risks or that either cap the return
on equity or allow the returns to be shared with other parties. In the case of such
arrangements, a reporting entity should not use the voting interest model to decide
which party consolidates the entity.
2 / Executive Summary
Executive Summary / 3
4 / Executive Summary
Executive Summary / 5
6 / Executive Summary
Executive Summary / 7
Chapter 1:
Definition of Key Terms
Executive Takeaway
There are several terms and concepts that are important to understand before
attempting to apply Variable Interest Entities Subsections of FASB Accounting
Standards Codification 810, Consolidation (the VIE model). Many of these
concepts necessitate a different way of thinking and make the guidance a
challenge to understand and apply.
Expected losses and expected residual returns are not GAAP losses and returns.
The primary beneficiary is the party required to consolidate a variable interest
entity.
Shared power is when power to direct activities that are most significant to the
entitys economic success is shared among non-related variable interest holders
and decisions with regard to these activities require the consent of each of the
parties sharing power.
The identification of related parties and de facto agents is critical in evaluating
entities under the VIE model.
The definition of expected losses and expected residual returns is further defined as
follows:
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-20:
Expected Losses A legal entity that has no history of net losses and
expects to continue to be profitable in the foreseeable future can be a
variable interest entity (VIE). A legal entity that expects to be profitable
will have expected losses. A VIEs expected losses are the expected
negative variability in the fair value of its net assets exclusive of variable
interests and not the anticipated amount or variability of the net income
or loss.
Expected Residual Returns A variable interest entitys (VIEs) expected
residual returns are the expected positive variability in the fair value of
its net assets exclusive of variable interests.
Expected losses are not the GAAP losses that are expected to be incurred by the
entity; and expected residual returns are not the GAAP income that is expected to
be earned by the entity. Rather, they are statistical measures of the variability (or risk)
inherent in the fair value of a particular entity.
Many reporting entities have mistakenly assumed that entities that generate only
net income (i.e., entities that do not expect to incur GAAP losses) would not have
expected losses. That logic is flawed since expected losses do not reflect the
anticipated amount of variability of net income or loss, but rather the negative
variability in the fair value of an entitys net assets. This point is clarified in the
definition of expected losses as included in the excerpt above.
Generally speaking, the riskier the activities (or the assets) of the entity, the greater
the expected losses and expected residual returns. All entities have expected losses
and expected residual returns since there is at least some level of risk associated
with their activities.
ASC 810-10-55-42 through 55-49 demonstrates the calculation of an entitys
expected losses and expected residual returns (included below), using the presentvalue methodology, as described in CON 7. The cash flow modeling approach used
in CON 7 requires a determination of expected cash flows by considering multiple
cash flow scenarios and the inherent uncertainty as to the timing and amount of
those cash flows. Possible cash flow scenarios are to be identified, along with the
relative probability of each scenario occurring. The probability-weighted cash flow
estimates are then discounted using an appropriate discount rate to arrive at their
present values. Using this approach, the present value of the total expected cash
flows associated with those assets should equal their fair value.
The determination of the appropriate discount rate requires judgment. Under the
CON 7 model, the FASB indicated that the individual cash flows should be explicitly
adjusted for the risk of uncertainty and discounted back using the risk-free rate.
However many traditional valuation techniques do not involve adjustments to each
cash flow scenario to account for the risk of uncertainty. Instead, many valuation
experts utilize a weighted-average cost of capital because this discount rate
considers the uncertainty in the entitys cash flows. We believe that clients should
consider consulting with designated PwC valuation specialists when faced with
such decisions. These two methods are further described in ASC 820, Fair Value
Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820).
Probability
5.0%
10.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
Expected Cash
Flows
$ 32,500
70,000
187,500
200,000
170,000
135,000
Fair Value
$ 30,952
66,667
178,571
190,477
161,905
128,571
100.0%
$795,000
$757,143
For each scenario where the estimated cash flow is less than the expected cash flow
of the entity, there is an expected loss. For example, from the illustration below, in the
first scenario the estimated cash flows are $650,000 and the expected cash flows of
the entity are $795,000, resulting in negative deviation in that scenario of $145,000.
When probability-weighted and present-valued, the expected loss generated by the
first scenario is $6,905. The sum of all of the scenarios in which the estimated cash
flows are less than the expected cash flows equals the total expected losses of the
entity ($26,667).
Estimated
Cash Flows
$650,000
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
900,000
Expected
Cash Flows
$795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
Difference
Estimated
(Losses)
Residual
Returns
$(145,000)
(95,000)
(45,000)
5,000
55,000
105,000
Probability
5.0%
10.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
100.0%
Expected
Losses
Basedon
Expected
Expected Losses Based
Cash Flows on Fair Value
$ (7,250)
$ (6,905)
(9,500)
(9,048)
(11,250)
(10,714)
$(28,000)
$(26,667)
The same calculation is performed for the expected residual returns, only using the
scenarios where the estimated cash flows are greater than the expected cash flows.
For example, from the illustration below, the entitys expected residual returns are
calculated as $26,667. It is no coincidence that these two amounts are equivalent,
since an entitys expected losses will always equal its expected residual returns as a
result of this calculation.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-55-48:
Estimated
Cash Flows
$650,000
700,000
750,000
800,000
850,000
900,000
Expected
Cash Flows
$795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
795,000
Difference
Estimated
(Losses)
Residual
Returns
$(145,000)
(95,000)
(45,000)
5,000
55,000
105,000
Probability
5.0%
10.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
100.0%
Expected
Residual
Return
Basedon
Expected
Cash Flows
Expected
Residual
Return
Basedon
FairValue
$ 1,250
11,000
15,750
$ 28,000
$ 1,191
10,476
15,000
$ 26,667
While the CON 7 methodology is outlined as the model for calculating an entitys
expected losses and expected residual returns, it is not the only acceptable method.
Since expected losses and expected residual returns are calculated based on how
widely potential future outcomes differ from the expected outcome, expected losses
can be calculated using the value of a put option written on the value of an asset
(or group of assets). The volatility related to the expected outcome can usually be
calculated by reference to readily available capital-market information relating to
asset values and may be preferable to subjectively determined distributions of future
value under the CON 7 methodology.
There is little guidance on how a reporting entity would derive the cash flow
estimates necessary to perform these calculations. It is clear that the first step for a
reporting entity is to identify the variable interests in the entity. Variable interests in
an entity are those assets, liabilities, or equity that absorb an entitys variability. For
purposes of the expected loss calculation, net assets of the entity are those assets
and liabilities that create variability in the entity and thus are not variable interests.
It is the riskiness of the cash flows inherent in the fair value of these net assets that
drive the calculation of an entitys expected losses and expected residual returns.
The estimated cash flows of the entity should not include payments that are made
to variable interest holders (i.e., absorbers of the entitys variability). For example,
Partnership X borrows money from Bank Y. Assume the debt is a variable interest.
Partnership Xs estimated cash flows should not include interest or principal
payments to Bank Y for purposes of calculating the entitys expected losses and
expected residual returns.
Another nuance to these calculations is excluding variable interests in specified
assets. Any variable interests in specified assets of an entity that are not variable
interests in the entire entity should also be identified. Expected losses absorbed
and expected residual returns received by variable interests in specified assets are
generally excluded from the entitys calculation of expected losses and expected
residual returns. This concept is discussed in VE 3.
Related-party and de facto agency relationships can play a critical role in the VIE
model in two ways: (i) the determination of whether the entity is a VIE, and (ii) the
determination of a VIEs primary beneficiary, if one exists. As noted above, for the
purposes of the VIE model, the related-party definition includes de facto agency
relationships.
Related parties are defined as follows:
Excerpt from the ASC Master Glossary:
Related parties include:
a. Affiliates of the entity
b. Entities for which investments in their equity securities would
be required, absent the election of the fair value option under
the Fair Value Option Subsection of Section 825-10-15, to be
accounted for by the equity method by the investing entity
c. Trusts for the benefit of employees, such as pension and profitsharing trusts that are managed by or under the trusteeship of
management
d. Principal owners of the entity and members of their immediate
families
e. Management of the entity and members of their immediate
families
f. Other parties with which the entity may deal if one party controls
or can significantly influence the management or operating
policies of the other to an extent that one of the transacting
parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its own separate
interests
g. Other parties that can significantly influence the management
or operating policies of the transacting parties or that have an
ownership interest in one of the transacting parties and can
significantly influence the other to an extent that one or more of
the transacting parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its
own separate interests.
A reporting entity, along with its affiliates, employees, agents and other related
parties, may collaborate to create and manage a VIE. In expanding the definition of
related parties in the VIE model to include de facto agency relationships, the intent
was to prevent a variable interest holder from avoiding consolidation of a VIE by
protecting its interest(s) or indirectly expanding its holdings through related parties
or de facto agents. It is important to understand this rationale when evaluating the
related-party guidance in the VIE model, as the application of this guidance will often
necessitate judgment on the part of preparers and auditors.
While the definition of a related party is well established, the concept of de facto
agents is unique and merits further discussion. Some of the de facto relationships
in the VIE model are relatively straightforward. Parties are deemed de facto agents
of a reporting entity if they (a) are financially dependent on the enterprise; (b) receive
the investment or the funds to make the investment from the enterprise; or (c) are an
officer, employee or on the governing board of the enterprise.
Under the VIE model, a de facto agency relationship is created when a party cannot
sell, transfer, or encumber their interests without the approval of the reporting entity
(often referred to as transfer restrictions). However, mutual transfer restrictions do
not cause a de facto agency relationship if they are based on mutually agreed terms
by willing, independent parties. A de facto agency relationship is also created when
a party provides significant amounts of professional services or other similar services
to a reporting entity (significant service provider). De facto relationships due to
transfer restrictions and significant service provider relationships are more difficult to
apply and necessitate judgment on the part of both preparers and auditors.
rights or transfer restrictions may not always be evident, and considerable judgment
will be involved.
Care should be used when evaluating whether a restricted party truly has the means
to realize the economics associated with its interest in the entity. If a restricted
party has the right to encumber its interest in the entity without prior approval, but
due to market factors, can only borrow against a small percentage of the interests
fair value (say, below 80 percent of its value), it would be difficult to conclude that
the restricted party has the ability to realize the economics of its interest. We believe
an appropriate comparison is the one described in ASC 860, Transfers and Servicing
(ASC 860), which reads as follows:
Excerpt from ASC 860-10-40-15:
Many transferor-imposed or other conditions on a transferees right
to pledge or exchange both constrain a transferee from pledging or
exchanging and, through that constraint, provide more than a trivial
benefit to the transferor. Judgment is required to assess whether a
particular condition results in a constraint. Judgment also is required to
assess whether a constraint provides a more-than-trivial benefit to the
transferor. If the transferee is an entity whose sole purpose is to engage
in securitization or asset-backed financing activities, that entity may be
constrained from pledging or exchanging the transferred financial assets
to protect the rights of beneficial interest holders in the financial assets
of the entity. Paragraph 860-10-40-5(b) requires that the transferor look
through the constrained entity to determine whether each third-party
holder of its beneficial interests has the right to pledge or exchange the
beneficial interests that it holds. The considerations in paragraphs 86010-40-16 through 40-18 apply to the transferee or the third-party holders
of its beneficial interests in an entity that is constrained from pledging or
exchanging the assets it receives and whose sole purpose is to engage
in securitization or asset-backed financing activities.
If the restricted party has the ability to obtain all or most of the cash flows associated
with its interest in the entity without prior approval, there is no substantive transfer
restriction for purposes of this analysis.
Preparers and auditors should consider involving internal and external legal counsel,
as well as the appropriate level of company management when assessing the
design of these rights/restrictions.
Many questions have been raised in practice with regard to how the phrase without
the prior approval of the enterprise should be applied in practice. For example,
should transfer restrictions be applied generically to any circumstance whereby
an approval right exists (regardless of its effect), or should one look at the level of
approval required? There is no single answer and the determination depends upon
the specific facts and circumstances.
transferring variable interest holders interest at the same price. We believe that a right
of first refusal does not create a de facto agency relationship because the variable
interest holder is not constrained from managing its economic interest in the entity.
model if such right is not considered a right that most significantly impacts the
entitys economic performance. Further, we believe that protective rights under the
VIE model are the opposite of participating rights and include any rights to block the
actions of an enterprise that are not considered participating rights. Said another
way, we believe protective rights are the ability to block the actions through which
an enterprise exercises the power to direct the activities of a variable interest entity
that do not most significantly impact the entitys economic performance. The VIE
model clarifies that protective rights should not be considered in assessing whether
an enterprise has the power to direct activities that most significantly impact a VIEs
economic performance. Determining whether rights are protective or participating
may involve significant judgment. For example, depending upon the facts, rights that
are protective in the case of one entity may not be protective in the case of another
entity. See VE 5.1 for more details.
Under the VIE model, only substantive kick-out and participating rights that can
be unilaterally exercised by a single party (including related parties and de facto
agents) should be considered in determining which enterprise, if any, is the primary
beneficiary of a VIE and whether an enterprise has the power to direct activities that
most significantly impact a VIEs economic performance.
Chapter 2:
Scope and Scope Exceptions
Executive Takeaway
The variable interest entity consolidation model typically only applies when the
reporting entity has a variable interest in a legal entity.
There is no blanket scope exception for entities that meet the definition of a
business. The business scope exception contains a number of requirements which
are often difficult to meet.
The VIE model eliminated the scope exception for reporting entities with interests
in qualifying special purpose entities.
Other scope exceptions exist for certain not-for-profits, certain employee
benefit plans, certain governmental organizations, as well as certain investment
companies.
The FASB deferred the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 for certain
investment entities that have the attributes of entities subject to ASC 946 (the
investment company guide). The deferral also applies to registered money
market funds as well as all other (unregistered) funds that operate in a similar
manner as registered money market funds. For these entities subject to the
deferral, the pre-amended VIE model consolidation analysis (formerly FIN 46(R))
should be applied.
The FASB is currently in the process of re-deliberating a proposal that would
remove the deferral of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 (FAS 167) for
investment companies. A final standard is expected in the second half of 2013.
The VIE model applies to legal entities that are used to conduct activities or to hold
assets. It does not apply to arrangements between individuals. Concluding that an
arrangement involves a legal entity necessitates evaluating the relevant facts of the
transaction. Following are examples that illustrate the importance of evaluating all of
the facts prior to concluding that the guidance in the VIE model does not apply:
A franchise agreement may be entered into between the franchisor and an
individual. This arrangement does not fall within the scope of the VIE model. On
the other hand, if the franchise agreement is between the franchisor and a legal
entity (e.g., a corporation, partnership, LLC, or unincorporated entity), that entity
falls within the scope of the VIE model.
In the insurance industry, it is common practice to use syndicates to accept
insurance business on behalf of the members of the syndicate. Depending on the
legal form of the structure, some syndicates may fall within the scope of the VIE
model, since the activities take place in a legal entity (e.g., a partnership), while
other syndicates may be scoped out of these subsections because there is no
legal form in which they conduct their underwriting activities.
Following are factors that may be considered when evaluating whether a structure is
a legal entity:
Does the structure meet the definition of a legal entity in the resident country?
If not, does the structure have characteristics similar to those of a legal entity
in the U.S. For example, does the unincorporated foreign joint venture have
characteristics similar to those of a U.S. partnership or LLC?
Is the structure/entity permitted to enter into contracts under its own name (i.e.,
not in the name of the partners or parent company)?
Can the structure sue or be sued in its own name?
Is the liability of the partners limited or do the liabilities of the structure flow
through to the partners?
Is the structure recognized for tax purposes? Is a tax return filed in the structures
name?
Is the structure able to open a bank account in its own name?
Prior to assessing these factors, it may be necessary to seek the legal advice of an
attorney to fully understand the characteristics of the structure (i.e., to understand
what the structure can and cannot do). Additionally, it is possible that one indicator
may not be conclusive in evaluating that the entity is in fact, a legal entity. Therefore,
all of the factors should be considered.
Virtual SPEs (divisions, departments, branches, or pools of assets subject to
liabilities that are otherwise nonrecourse to the reporting entity) are excluded from the
scope of the VIE model because they are not separate legal structures from the entity
that holds title to the assets. However, there are certain rules that may require virtual
SPEs or silos to be consolidated. Silos are discussed in more detail in VE 3.6.
Majority-Owned or Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries
Even a wholly- or majority-owned subsidiary (that is, a legal entity separate from the
parents legal entity) is subject to the VIE model and may be a variable interest entity
(VIE). If the subsidiary is a VIE, it is possible that a reporting entity, other than the
subsidiarys legal parent, may be required to consolidate it. In this case, the owner of
a majority (or all) of the voting rights may be required to deconsolidate its subsidiary.
Consider the following example:
Reporting Entity A holds a majority of the voting rights of Entity XYZ and had
appropriately consolidated Entity XYZ pursuant to the voting interest guidance in
ASC 810-10.
Entity XYZ entered into certain contractual arrangements with Reporting Entity B
that transfer to Reporting Entity B certain risks and rewards relative to all of the
activities of Entity XYZ.
Reporting Entity B has not made any equity investments in Entity XYZ.
Since consolidated subsidiaries are not exempt from the VIE model, the parent and
other parties that hold interests in Entity XYZ must determine whether it is a VIE. It
does not matter whether or not Reporting Entity B has any equity investment in Entity
XYZ. Therefore, Reporting Entity A and Reporting Entity B must re-evaluate whether
either reporting entity should consolidate Entity XYZ. This situation represents an
example of how the analysis of consolidation accounting regarding any entity must
begin with the VIE model. The other subsections in ASC 810 would apply only after
concluding that Entity XYZ is not a VIE subject to the scope of the VIE model.
What is a Business?
In order to apply the business scope exception, the reporting entity must determine
whether or not the entity is a business. The guidance for accounting for business
combinations is located in ASC 805, Business Combinations (ASC 805). ASC 80510-55-4 through 55-9 state that the definition of a business for use in the VIE model
is as follows:
Excerpts from ASC 805-10:
20: A business is an integrated set of activities and assets that is
capable of being conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a
return in the form of dividends, lower costs, or other economic benefits
directly to investors or other owners, members, or participants.
55-4: A business consists of inputs and processes applied to those
inputs that have the ability to create outputs. Although businesses
usually have outputs, outputs are not required for an integrated set to
qualify as a business. The three elements of a business are defined as
follows:
a. Input. Any economic resource that creates, or has the ability to
create, outputs when one or more processes are applied to it.
Examples include long-lived assets (including intangible assets or
rights to use long-lived assets), intellectual property, the ability to
obtain access to necessary materials or rights, and employees.
b. Process. Any system, standard, protocol, convention, or rule that,
when applied to an input or inputs, creates or has the ability
to create outputs. Examples include strategic management
processes, operational processes, and resource management
processes. These processes typically are documented, but an
organized workforce having the necessary skills and experience
following rules and conventions may provide the necessary
processes that are capable of being applied to inputs to create
outputs. Accounting, billing, payroll, and other administrative
systems typically are not processes used to create outputs.
c. Output: The result of inputs and processes applied to those inputs
that provide or have the ability to provide a return in the form
of dividends, lower costs, or other economic benefits directly to
investors or other owners, members, or participants.
ASC 805-10-55-5: To be capable of being conducted and managed
for the purposes defined, an integrated set of activities and assets
requires two essential elementsinputs and processes applied to those
inputs, which together are or will be used to create outputs. However, a
business need not include all of the inputs or processes that the seller
used in operating that business if market participants are capable of
acquiring the business and continuing to produce outputs, for example,
by integrating the business with their own inputs and processes.
(continued)
This condition (the design of the entity condition) requires an understanding of the
dynamics involved in the design (or redesign) of the entity being evaluated. Indicators
that the reporting entity was involved in the design (or redesign) of the entity include
input to activities involving
capital structure;
governance structure; or
operating activities.
If the capital structure, governance structure and/or operating activities are
significantly revised as a result of the reporting entitys involvement with the
entity being evaluated or shortly thereafter then the entity has been substantively
redesigned. Moreover, the reporting entity must identify whether its related parties
participated in these activities. If so, this scope exception may not be available. For
purposes of evaluating the design of the entity condition, related parties include de
facto agents identified in ASC 810-10-25-43, except for de facto agents under ASC
810-10-25-43(d) as a result of transfer restrictions (refer to VE 1.7 for a discussion of
related parties and de facto agents).
In addition, when an entity undergoes a redesign or restructuring, the reporting entity
must re-evaluate this condition (refer to VE 4.3 for discussion of reconsideration
events of the VIEs status).
There are two exceptions to the design of the entity condition:
Operating joint ventures under joint control of the reporting entity and one or more
related parties
To qualify for this exception, the entity must meet the definition of a joint venture
as defined in the ASC Master Glossary, An entity owned and operated by a small
group of entities (the joint venturers) as a separate and specific business or project
for the mutual benefit of the members of the group, (the 1979 AcSEC Issues Paper,
Joint Venture Accounting also provides guidance for determining which entities are
operating joint ventures). Joint control over decision making is the most significant
attribute of a joint venture. Under the design of the entity condition, it is critical
that the reporting entity and at least one other unrelated party jointly control the
entity. This means that neither party may have unilateral control. For example, if
one joint venture partner (or another party) controls an entity through an operating
or management agreement, the reporting entity would be required to apply the VIE
model. A distinguishing feature of a corporate joint venture is joint control. Joint
control requires that all venturers consent to the major decisions of the entity. For
example, an entity with three or more shareholders where decisions are made
by majority is not a joint venture. While not specifically addressed as part of the
exception to the design of the entity condition for joint ventures, given the principles
in the guidance, preparers should consider whether evaluating the power to direct
activities of the entity that have a significant impact on the entitys performance (i.e.,
consistent with the primary beneficiary analysis) is jointly controlled.
Although joint control is a key defining feature of a corporate joint venture, the
existence of joint control is not the only determinant when identifying whether an
entity is a joint venture. Other factors must also be present to distinguish a corporate
joint venture from other entities (such as those discussed in the ASC Master
Glossary). Lastly, operating joint ventures must still be evaluated under the remaining
conditions of the business scope exception prior to utilizing this scope exception.
Other Indicators*
* With respect to evaluating these indicators, the term reporting entity covers the reporting entitys
related parties (as defined in ASC 810-10-25-43, other than those de facto agents resulting from ASC
810-10-25-43(d)).
There are no broad rules of thumb that can be used to shortcut the evaluation
required for the substantially all condition. Instead, reporting entities will need to
evaluate the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding each individual situation.
Absent mitigating factors (e.g., indicators that point to a different conclusion), we
believe that the presence of a single item from the Strong Indicators column may,
at times, be sufficient to support a conclusion that substantially all of the activities
of the entity either involve or are conducted on behalf of the reporting entity. At
other times, multiple strong indicators may need to be present to reach the same
conclusion. There are no bright lines and this assessment requires judgment. If
the reporting entity meets several of the Other Indicators, it may need to seriously
consider whether or not the requirements of the substantially all condition have been
met, and consultation with an accounting professional familiar with these provisions
may be appropriate.
Franchise agreements entered into by a franchisor with a franchisee often possess
unique attributes in order to protect the franchise brand. As a result, the criterion in
the substantially all condition must be carefully analyzed. The table on the previous
page should prove useful when evaluating whether a franchise is designed so
that substantially all of its activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of
the franchisor. However, there may be other factors to consider in the franchise
relationship, including the ability to select and set pricing of the menu (or products
sold by the franchise) and other factors, some of which are described in more detail
in ASC 952, Franchisors (ASC 952), specifically in ASC 952-810-55-2.
Condition 3: Subordinated Financial Support
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-17(d)(3):
The reporting entity and its related parties provide more than half of the
total of the equity, subordinated debt, and other forms of subordinated
financial support to the legal entity based on an analysis of the fair
values of the interests in the legal entity.
Subordinated financial support is defined under the VIE model as variable interests
that will absorb some or all of a variable interest entitys (VIEs) expected losses.
Therefore, virtually any variable interest in the entity is considered subordinated
financial support. Consequently, reporting entities making this evaluation must
consider all variable interests they and other parties have with the entity, including
variable interests in the form of guarantees, management contracts, derivatives,
purchase options, and supply contracts, as well as loans and equity investments.
This will not be easy since fair-value information is often not available. Therefore,
we believe that this assessment may be difficult to perform, particularly in situations
where the various forms of financial support provided to the entity by the reporting
entity are substantial. Therefore, from a practical perspective, this scope exception
would generally be available when it is obvious that the reporting entity would not
absorb the majority of the economics of the entity on a fair value basis. For many
arrangements, such as for example, 50:50 ventures, it will be difficult to make
this assertion. In a 50:50 venture, while the economics are intended to be shared
on a 50:50 basis, it may not be the case in practice. There are often commercial
arrangements between the venturers and the venture that may be variable interests
and it becomes very hard to establish without a complex analysis that the economics
with respect to all the variable interests held by the venturers are split exactly on a
50:50 basis. Therefore, the entity will more often than not need to be evaluated under
the VIE model.
Condition 4: Common Financing Structures
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-17(d)(4):
The activities of the legal entity are primarily related to securitizations
or other forms of asset-backed financings or single-lessee leasing
arrangements.
This condition (the common financing structure condition) is the most
straightforward. The primary logic for including this criterion is to ensure that entities
that were previously considered typical SPE structures are always assessed under
the VIE model. In applying this condition, we believe the phrase single-lessee
leasing arrangements should be interpreted broadly. Therefore, it includes entities
that have entered into long-term supply arrangements that contain an embedded
lease under ASC 840-10-15-6. In fact patterns where an entity is deemed to be a
single-lessee leasing arrangement, the reporting entity would not be eligible for this
scope exception.
A for-profit reporting entity could use certain leasing structures involving NFPs to
circumvent the provisions of the VIE model. In these cases, the scope exception
would not apply. In most cases, we would not expect a NFP charitable foundation
that was established by a reporting entity to be subject to the VIE model.
Although EITF 90-15, Impact of Nonsubstantive Lessors, Residual Value Guarantees,
and Other Provisions in Leasing Transactions (EITF 90-15), was nullified by the
guidance in the Variable Interest Entities subsections of ASC 810-10 for entities
within the scope of that guidance, we believe that NFP entities previously evaluated
by way of analogy to EITF 90-15 should continue to be evaluated in that manner.
An entity that early adopted SOP 07-1 is allowed to continue to follow this guidance
in which case, at each reporting period end, the parent (i) will first need to evaluate
whether or not the subsidiary or equity method investee continues to qualify as an
Investment Company per SOP 07-1, and (ii) determine if the parent is able to retain
the specialized accounting in consolidation. If the parent company is unable to retain
the specialized accounting in consolidation, the parent company will then need to
evaluate each investee of the consolidated entity under the applicable guidance.
For those entities that did not early adopt SOP 07-1 but invest in entities that follow
the specialized accounting in the Audit Guide, the investee entity is not required
to consider whether any of the investee entitys investments are VIEs potentially
requiring consolidation under the VIE model. The parent of such a consolidated
entity retains the specialized accounting in consolidation under EITF Issue No. 85-12,
Retention of Specialized Accounting for Investments in Consolidation, and EITF Topic
D-74, Issues Concerning the Scope of the AICPA Guide on Investment Companies.
The FASB and IASB are currently working on a joint project to provide
comprehensive guidance for assessing whether an entity is an investment company
and to provide measurement requirements for an investment companys investments.
The FASB and IASB are redeliberating certain aspects of their proposal and
preparers should continue to monitor developments of this project.
Reporting entities such as investors, managers and other parties that hold an
interest in an entity that follows the specialized accounting in the Audit Guide need
to consider whether the entity itself is a VIE potentially requiring consolidation under
the VIE model. If the reporting entity determines that it is required to consolidate the
entity under the VIE model, it then needs to apply the discussion in the paragraphs
above to determine whether or not the reporting entity is required to apply the VIE
model to each investee of the consolidated entity.
2.2.6 Information-Out
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-17(c):
A reporting entity with an interest in a VIE or potential VIE created
before December 31, 2003, is not required to apply the guidance in the
Variable Interest Entities Subsections to that VIE or legal entity if the
reporting entity, after making an exhaustive effort, is unable to obtain
the information necessary to (1) determine whether the legal entity is
a VIE, (2) determine whether the reporting entity is the VIEs primary
beneficiary, or (3) perform the accounting required to consolidate the VIE
for which it is determined to be the primary beneficiary. This inability to
obtain the necessary information is expected to be infrequent, especially
if the reporting entity participated significantly in the design or redesign
of the legal entity. The scope exception in this provision appliesonly
as long as the reporting entity continues to be unable to obtain the
necessary information. Paragraph 810-10-50-6 requires certain
disclosures to be made about interests in VIEs subject to this provision.
Paragraphs 810-10-30-7 through 30-9 provide transition guidance for a
reporting entity that subsequently obtains the information necessary to
apply the Variable Interest Entities Subsections to a VIE subject to this
exception.
The FASB recognized that there may be instances where reporting entities have
entered into arrangements prior to December 31, 2003 and are unable to obtain the
information necessary to apply the VIE model. Oftentimes, the reporting entity may
not have the contractual or legal right to the information necessary to apply the VIE
model, and the entity is unwilling to supply the information to the reporting entity.
The FASB has indicated that it expects such instances to be infrequent, especially if
the reporting entity was involved in the design of the entity or if the reporting entity is
exposed to substantial risks of the entity. The FASB declined to provide examples or
further explain the term exhaustive as it is used in this context. The reporting entity
must also continue to make exhaustive efforts to obtain the necessary information
in subsequent periods. ASC 810-10-65 provides transition guidance for subsequent
adoption when the reporting entity obtains the necessary information to apply
the provisions of the VIE model (refer to VE 8.1 for a discussion of the transition
guidance).
As reporting entities enter into arrangements with new entities or change
arrangements with existing entities, they should ensure that they obtain the right to
access the information that is necessary for applying the provisions of the VIE model.
At the 2004 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments, Jane Poulin
of the SEC stated:
I would also like to address the information scope out in FIN 46R. While the staff
recognizes that FIN 46R is a challenging area, it is a companys responsibility to
prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The staff believes that
an investor has the same responsibility for analyzing whether to consolidate a
variable interest entity, and for preparing financial statements in which a variable
interest entity is consolidated, as they do in the case of a voting interest entity.
FIN 46R only includes an information out for enterprises involved in entities
created prior to December 31, 2003. We, therefore, expect that all the information
necessary to make a FIN 46R assessment and, if required, to consolidate a
variable interest entity is available for entities created after December 31, 2003.
Additionally, in those cases where a company believes they can avail themselves
of the information out for entities created before December 31, 2003, companies
should be prepared to support how you have satisfied the exhaustive efforts
criterion.
Given the Staffs comments and the FASBs current views on the informationout exception, we anticipate that the use of this scope exception will be rare and
reporting entities using this exception will come under scrutiny.
If the information-out scope exception has been previously applied and the
information subsequently becomes available the VIE model must be applied (i.e., the
scope exception is no longer available). If the reporting entity has determined that
the entity being considered for consolidation is a VIE and the reporting entity is the
primary beneficiary, then the reporting entity may consolidate the entity through a
cumulative effect of an accounting change or a restatement of prior periods, which is
described in ASC 810 (see VE 8.1 for more details).
and Accounting Guide, Audits of State and Local Governments, 1.01 and 1.02, which
states the following:
Excerpt from AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits of State and
Local Governments, 1.01 and 1.02
Public corporations4 and bodies corporate and politic are governmental
entities. Other entities are governmental if they have one or more of the
following characteristics:
Popular election of officers or appointment (or approval) of a
controlling majority of the members of the organizations governing
body by officials of one or more state or local governments;
The potential for unilateral dissolution by a government with the net
assets reverting to a government; or
The power to enact and enforce a tax levy.
Furthermore, entities are presumed to be governmental if they have
the ability to issue directly (rather than through a state or municipal
authority) debt that pays interest exempt from federal taxation. However,
entities possessing only that ability (to issue tax-exempt debt) and none
of the other governmental characteristics may rebut the presumption
that they are governmental if their determination is supported by
compelling, relevant evidence.
Entities are governmental or nongovernmental for accountingbased
solely on the application of the above criteria; other factors are not
determinative. For example, the fact that an entity is incorporated as
a not-for-profit organization and exempt from federal income taxation
under the provisions of Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code is
not a criterion in determining whether an entity is governmental or
nongovernmental for accountingpurposes.
4
Blacks Law Dictionary defines a public corporation as: An artificial person (e.g. [a]
municipality or a governmental corporation) created for the administration of public affairs.
Unlike a private corporation it has no protection against legislative acts altering or even
repealing its charter. Instrumentalities created by [the] state, formed and owned by it in
[the] public interest, supported in whole or part by public funds, and governed by managers
deriving their authority from [the] state. Sharon Realty Co. v. Westlake, Ohio Com. Pl.,
188 N.E.2d 318, 323, 25, O.O.2d 322. A public corporation is an instrumentality of the state,
founded and owned in the public interest, supported by public funds and governed by
those deriving their authority from the state. York County Fair Assn v. South Carolina Tax
Commission, 249 S.C. 337, 154 S.E.2d 361, 362.
This definition should be carefully considered when applying this scope exception.
This scope exception requires that a reporting entity should apply the VIE model to a
financing entity that is created by a governmental organization if
the financing entity was established in order for the reporting entity to circumvent
the provisions of the model; and,
the financing entity is not itself a governmental organization.
Since the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) establishes the
accounting rules for state and local governmental organizations, the VIE model does
2.3 Deferral of the 2009 Revisions to the VIE Model for Certain
InvestmentEntities
On February 25, 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued
Accounting Standards Update 2010-10 (ASU 2010-10) to defer the VIE model as
amended by ASU 2009-17 for certain investment entities that have the attributes of
entities subject to ASC 946 (the investment company guide). The deferral amends
the guidance in the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 to defer its effective
date for entities that meet the following conditions:
1. The entity either:
Has all of the attributes specified in ASC 946-10-15-2(a) through (d) (i.e., the
attributes of an entity that would be considered subject to investment company
accounting) or,
Does not have all of the attributes specified in ASC 946-10-15-2(a) through (d),
but is an entity for which it is industry practice to apply guidance consistent
with the measurement principles in ASC 946 (including recognizing changes
in fair value currently in the statement of operations) for financial reporting
purposes.
2. The reporting enterprise does not have an explicit or implicit obligation to fund
losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the entity. This condition
should be evaluated considering the legal structure of the reporting enterprises
interest, the purpose and design of the entity, and any guarantees provided by the
reporting enterprises related parties.
3. The entity is not a securitization entity, an asset-backed financing entity, or an
entity formerly considered a qualifying special-purpose entity.
The deferral is not optional. In order for an entity to be subject to the deferral, all
three conditions must be met on the date the reporting entity adopts the VIE model
as amended by ASU 2009-17. If the conditions are no longer met after the reporting
entity has adopted the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17, the reporting entity
must apply the provisions of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 to the
entity, and the entity cannot re-qualify for the deferral in the future.
Even though an entity may initially be subject to the deferral, a subsequent change
in facts and circumstances may result in it ceasing to qualify. Accordingly, reporting
entities will need to establish a process to monitor ongoing qualification for the
deferral.
performance of the entity over its life along with its nature and design should be
considered in making the determination as to whether the reporting enterprise (i.e.,
the general partner) has an obligation to fund losses of the entity that could be
potentially significant. Accordingly, claw back arrangements, where an investment
manager may be required to refund prior fees to the entity, may not violate the
conditions for the deferral.
Similarly, any future capital commitments required to be made by the reporting
enterprise to the entity should be analyzed to determine whether they represent
the funding of future investments or the funding of prior losses. This determination
should be based on the facts and circumstances. If a capital commitment is
determined to be a funding of investments as the investment manager finds suitable
investments, it would not violate the conditions for the deferral. If, on the other hand,
a capital commitment is determined to be a funding of prior losses, it would violate
the deferral conditions even if all investors were funding the losses on a pro-rata
basis.
Determining whether capital commitments are the funding of future investments or
the funding of prior losses may be challenging. For example, a reporting enterprise
may choose to fund losses by having the entity issue a subordinate class of equity
such that the holder of that class will in essence fund the initial or continuing losses
of the entity. In such a case, if the reporting enterprise acquires the subordinate
class of equity, this may violate the deferral conditions. Reporting entities may want
to consider the guidance in ASC 323-10-35-29 (formerly EITF 02-18) to determine
whether a capital commitment represents the funding of future investments or prior
losses.
Entities generally expected to meet the requirements for deferral
The FASB expects the deferral to generally apply to a limited number of types of
entities, including, but not limited to, mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity funds,
venture capital funds, and certain mortgage REITs. The FASB recognizes that there
are investments funds that are (1) not subject to U.S. GAAP or (2) are not included in
the scope of ASC 946 but have the same characteristics as entities within the scope
of ASC 946. For example, certain real estate investment trusts (REITs) may meet the
conditions for the deferral even though they are not subject to ASC 946.
The deferral applies to an entity regardless of the magnitude of the reporting entitys
investment in the entity provided that all the conditions for the deferral are met.
Application of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 is also deferred for
reporting entities with interests in money market funds that comply with or operate in
accordance with requirements that are similar to those included in Rule 2a-7 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 as discussed below.
Entities not expected to meet the requirements for deferral
The deferral does not apply to securitization entities, asset-backed financing entities
or entities formerly classified as qualifying special-purpose entities, even if practice
considers those entities to have the characteristics similar to that of an investment
company as defined in ASC 946 or for which it is industry practice to apply the
guidance in ASC 946. Some examples of entities that do not meet the conditions for
deferral include structured investment vehicles, commercial paper conduits, credit
card securitization structures, residential or commercial mortgage-backed entities,
and government sponsored mortgage entities.
Entities with multiple levels of subordinated investors for which the primary purpose
is to provide credit enhancement to the senior interest holders do not qualify for the
deferral. These may include certain collateralized debt obligations and collateralized
loan obligations as these types of entities are typically considered to be assetbacked financing entities and not investment companies that meet the conditions for
the deferral.
ASU 2010-10 states that entities with characteristics like those examples included in
ASC 810-10-55-93 will not meet the conditions for the deferral.
Money market mutual funds
In addition to the deferral requirements discussed above, ASU 2010-10 also includes
a separate deferral for a reporting enterprises interest in a fund that is required to
comply with or operates in accordance with requirements that are similar to those
included in Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for registered money
market funds. Judgment will be required to determine whether unregistered money
market funds qualify for the deferral.
Money market funds generally invest in short-term government securities, certificates
of deposit, and commercial paper and pay dividends that generally reflect short-term
interest rates. Although credit losses in a money market fund could occur, these
funds are typically required to be managed in a manner to minimize credit losses.
Money market funds recognize their investments at amortized cost and maintain a
constant net asset value (NAV) (typically $1.00) per share by adjusting the returns to
their investors as general interest rates fluctuate.
Some believe that a money market managers fees represent a variable interest in the
money market fund as a result of implicit or explicit guarantees to fund credit losses
when the NAV decreases to a value less than $1.00 (often referred to as breaking
the buck). In other words, some believe that historical funding provided by an asset
manager implies that investors would be protected, at least in part, by the asset
manager, even in situations in which the asset manager has no contractual obligation
to provide future funding. Such an interpretation could result in the money market
manager concluding that consolidation of the fund is required under ASU 2009-17.
However, the FASB decided not to conclude on whether it agreed or disagreed with
these views until the broader joint consolidation project with the IASB is completed.
Based on the restrictive requirements under which money market funds operate, and
the required credit quality of the assets they are permitted to hold, the FASB believes
that the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 should not result in reporting
entities having to consolidate money market funds. Therefore, ASU 2010-10 provides
for a deferral of the implementation of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17
for money market funds until the FASBs joint project with the IASB is completed.
The FASB made the deferral explicit, because some may have concluded that money
market funds are not subject to the broader deferral described above given the
view that many money market managers generally provide either implicit or explicit
guarantees to money market funds.
Application of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 to a money market fund
is unconditionally deferred, even if its investment managers or others provide support
arrangements or guarantees. Any such support arrangement or guarantee (implicit
or explicit) would be subject to the pre-amended VIE model consolidation analysis
(formerly FIN 46(R)) as such funds would continue to be subject to the consolidation
guidance prior to the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17.
Disclosures
The amendments in ASU 2010-10 do not defer the disclosure requirements of the VIE
model as amended by ASU 2009-17. Accordingly, public and nonpublic companies
will be required to provide the disclosures required by ASC 810-10-50-1 through
50-19 for all variable interests in variable interest entities, including variable interest
entities that qualify for the deferral and were variable interest entities prior to the VIE
model as amended by ASU 2009-17. A reporting entity is not required to provide
these disclosures if an entity qualifies for the deferral under ASU 2010-10 and was
not a variable interest entity prior to the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17.
Effective date and transition
The effective date for the deferral is the same as the effective date of the VIE model
as amended by ASU 2009-17 which is as of the beginning of the reporting entitys
first annual reporting period that begins after November 15, 2009, and for interim
periods within that first annual reporting period. If an entity meets the conditions
for the deferral, the reporting entity should continue to apply the pre-amended VIE
model in ASC 810-10 (i.e., FIN 46(R) prior to its amendment) or other applicable
consolidation guidance, such as ASC 810-20 (formerly EITF 04-5), when evaluating
the entity for consolidation. Refer to the 2007 edition of PwCs Guide to Accounting
for Variable Interest Entities which includes the guidance under FIN 46(R) prior to its
amendment.
QSPEs
Question 2-3: Do investors in a QSPE need to apply the guidance in the VIE model
or are they scoped out?
PwC Interpretive Response: Yes, investors in a QSPE need to consider the
VIE model since the scope exception previously available has been eliminated
under the VIE model. The QSPE concept was introduced by the FASB to permit
derecognition of transferred financial assets in securitization, provided that the
securitization vehicle was considered a passive entity that met certain conditions.
Those conditions included the requirement that the entity only hold passive
financial assets and that its activities be significantly limited and entirely specified
in the legal documents establishing the entity or creating beneficial interests.
However in practice these conditions proved difficult to achieve because few
assets were truly passive such that little or no-decision making is required.
Consequently, the FASB decided to eliminate the QSPE concept from the
accounting guidance.
Separate Accounts of Life Insurance Entities
Question 2-4: Does the separate account scope exception described in VE 2.2.5
include the general account of a life insurance entity (as described in the AICPAs
Audit and Accounting Guide, Life and Health Insurance Entities)?
PwC Interpretive Response: No, an insurance company must consider the
guidance in the VIE model to determine whether the investments made by the
general account are variable interests in a VIE that would necessitate consolidation
or disclosure pursuant to the VIE model.
Governmental Organizations
Question 2-5: An entity (the Entity) was formed through a competitive bid process
to issue revenue bonds in order to finance the construction of a power plant (the
facility). Although the Entity will legally own the facility, the facility was constructed
for the sole benefit of a governmental entity (i.e., an entity that meets the definition
per AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits of State and Local Governments). The
owners of the Entity selected to issue revenue bonds are in the business of managing
power plants. The facility was constructed on government owned land, and that land
was leased to the Entity for the estimated life of the facility. At the end of the land
lease term the title to the facility will automatically transfer to the governmental entity.
At the inception of the land lease, the governmental entity simultaneously entered
into an arrangement with the Entity that required the governmental organization
to purchase 100 percent of the output of the facility, i.e., electricity, on a long term
basis. The governmental entity also had a fair value purchase option that allowed it
to purchase the facility at any time during the lease term. As part of a competitive
bidding process, Company X, a party that is not related to the Entity or to the
governmental entity, entered into an arrangement with the Entity to guarantee the
revenue bonds.
Company X is evaluating whether or not the Entity is in the scope of the VIE model
because of the application of ASC 810-10-15-12(e). If the Entity is in the scope of the
VIE model, then Company X would need to (1) determine if it holds a variable interest
in the Entity (through its guarantee), (2) whether the Entity is a VIE, and if the Entity is
a VIE (3) whether Company X should consolidate the Entity.
ASC 810-10-15-12(e) states that a reporting entity shall not consolidate a
governmental organization and shall not consolidate a financing entity established
by a governmental organization unless the financing entity (1) is not a governmental
organization and (2) is used by the reporting entity in a manner similar to a variable
interest entity in an effort to circumvent the provisions of the VIE model.
What factors should be considered when assessing the governmental organization
scope exception?
PwC Interpretive Response: The first step in determining whether the Entity
is eligible for the governmental organization scope exception is to determine
whether the Entity meets the definition of a governmental organization. Guidance
for making that determination is found in Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board (FASAB), the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards
and in paragraphs 1.01 and 1.02 of the AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits
of State and Local Governments, and not in accounting standards issued by the
FASB. If the Entity is a governmental organization, then it is excluded from the
scope of the VIE model.
In this fact pattern, it is assumed that the Entity does not meet the definition of a
governmental organization. Therefore, Company X must also consider whether
the Entity is in substance a financing entity established by a governmental
organization. This analysis is subjective and requires an understanding of all the
facts and circumstances. While the Entity was formed to finance the construction
of a power plant to be used by a governmental organization, it may not be clear
whether the Entity was formed by a governmental organization. Listed below are
some factors that should be considered when making this determination:
What was the nature of the governments involvement in establishing the
Entity?
What was the level of the governments involvement with the selection of the
board members of the Entity?
Does the government have the right to unilaterally dissolve the Entity?
What percent of the activities of the Entity are on behalf of the government?
What are the terms of the contract between the government and the Entity?
Do the assets revert back to the government at the end of the contract term?
Did the government provide any guarantees?
(Note: This list is not all inclusive.)
In addition, Company X is required to determine if the Entity was set up to
circumvent the VIE model. When making this assessment, Company X should
consider the intent and purpose of the Entity and whether Company X was
involved in the design of the Entity for the purpose of obtaining off-balance sheet
treatment for its relationship with the Entity.
(continued)
Chapter 3:
Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 1
Executive Takeaway
The VIE model introduced a new accounting term: variable interest. A holder of
a variable interest in an entity is required to determine whether the entity is a VIE
and, if so, whether it must consolidate the entity.
Variable interests must be identified and evaluated under the VIE model, as they
can impact whether an entity is a VIE and which party, if any, is the entitys primary
beneficiary.
Variable interests can take many forms, including equity and debt investments,
guarantees, derivatives, management contracts, service contracts, and leases.
Variable interests can exist in implicit relationships, especially if related party
relationships are involved.
3 - 2 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 3
Now lets consider what would happen if the entity were to finance the
acquisition of a new manufacturing facility through a subordinated loan from
a third-party bank. The existence of the loan does not create variability in the
value of the business, rather the new manufacturing facility does. The bank
is exposed to the risks and uncertainties of the entitys activities through its
loan. The bank and the equity investors stand to lose or gain from changes
in the value of the business, and thus they each have a variable interest in
the entity. The equity investors are not the only parties with a variable interest
because the bank also has a variable interest that stands to lose or gain
depending upon the changes in the value of the business.
Most assets of an entity create variability in an entity. They create changing cash
flows that drive the success or failure of the entity, and therefore drive the economic
performance (variability) in the entity. Most forms of financing or capital (including
guarantees of debt and the value of assets and some derivative instruments) absorb
variability in an entity (or an asset). The return to the lender or capital provider
depends on the success or failure of the assets or liabilities that create the variability.
Only those arrangements that absorb the variability of the entity are considered
variable interests under the VIE model.
3 - 4 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 5
The purpose of Step 2 is to identify which of the risks identified in Step 1 create
variability and are relevant to the assessment of an entitys variability. Under the by
design model, the relevant risks are those that the entity was designed to pass
along to variable interest holders. Step 2 is further elaborated in the by design
model as follows:
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-25-25:
In determining the purpose for which the legal entity was created and
the variability the legal entity was designed to create and pass along to
its interest holders in Step 2, all relevant facts and circumstances shall
be considered, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
a. The activities of the legal entity
b. The terms of the contracts the legal entity has entered into
c. The nature of the legal entitys interests issued
d. How the legal entitys interests were negotiated with or marketed
to potential investors
e. Which parties participated significantly in the design or redesign
of the legal entity.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-25-26:
Typically, assets and operations of the legal entity create the legal
entitys variability (and thus, are not variable interests), and liabilities and
equity interests absorb that variability (and thus, are variable interests).
Other contracts or arrangements may appear to both create and absorb
variability because at times they may represent assets of the legal entity
and at other times liabilities (either recorded or unrecorded). The role of
a contract or arrangement in the design of the legal entity, regardless
of its legal form or accounting classification, shall dictate whether
that interest should be treated as creating variability for the entity or
absorbing variability.
In performing Step 2 of the by design model, a careful analysis of an entitys
governing documents, formation documents, marketing materials, and terms of
all other contractual arrangements should be closely examined to determine the
variability that the entity was designed to create (i.e., which risks in Step 1 the entity
was designed to create).
To further assist financial statement preparers in making this determination, the
guidance highlights a number of strong indicators that suggest whether or not an
interest is a variable interest (i.e., absorber of variability).
These indicators relate to the following:
the terms of the interest;
subordination of the interest;
certain interest rate risk; and,
certain derivative instruments.
3 - 6 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 7
Example 3-3: A reporting entity leases one asset from a legal entity that holds
only two assets. The reporting entity has a fixed price purchase option to
acquire the asset. The fair value of the leased asset is more than 50 percent
of the fair value of the legal entitys total assets. The lease was previously
accounted for as a capital lease. The fixed price purchase option would be
viewed as a variable interest in the entity. If the entity was considered a VIE
(which would be very likely in this fact pattern), the reporting entity could be
required to consolidate the VIE under the power and losses/benefits criteria
(see VE 5.1). The results achieved by consolidating the entire entity (i.e., both
assets and the liabilities of the VIE) could be substantially different from those
achieved by applying prior capital lease accounting to only the leased asset.
3 - 8 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 9
3 - 10 / Variable Interests
believe that if the derivative is at least pari passu with the most senior interest issued
by the entity, this condition would be met. Although, in practice, this condition
is typically met for many market-based derivatives, this condition should still be
carefully considered.
However, the by design guidance specifies that even if the two conditions
discussed above are met, a derivative may still be a variable interest if the changes
in the value of the instrument are expected to offset all, or essentially all, of the risk
or return related to the majority of the assets or operations of the entity. In these
cases, the design of the entity must be further evaluated. If the entity was designed
to create and pass along specific risks to the derivative counterparty, the derivative
would likely be considered a variable interest.
Refer to VE 3.3.7 for a further discussion of derivatives and embedded derivatives.
Equity Securities
Beneficial Interests
Debt Instruments
Guarantees
Put Options
Call Options
Management Contracts
Franchise Arrangements
Co-Manufacturing Arrangements
Leases
Co-Marketing Arrangements
Cost-Plus Arrangements
Forward Contracts
Service Contracts
Derivatives
Residual Value Guarantees
Purchase Options
Technology License
Collaborative R&D Arrangements
Variable Interests / 3 - 11
3 - 12 / Variable Interests
As the level of priority with respect to returns of investments increases, the variability
associated with those returns diminishes. Senior debt (e.g., investment grade
debt) and senior beneficial interests with fixed interest rates or other fixed returns,
are nevertheless interests that qualify as variable interests. The level of variability
absorbed by senior interests may be reduced by the nature of subordinated interests
and the relative credit quality of the entity.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-55-24:
Any of a VIEs liabilities may be variable interests because a decrease in
the fair value of a VIEs assets could be so great that all of the liabilities
would absorb that decrease. However, senior beneficial interests
and senior debt instruments with fixed interest rates or other fixed
returns normally would absorb little of the VIEs expected variability. By
definition, if a senior interest exists, interests subordinated to the senior
interests will absorb losses first. The variability of a senior interest with
a variable interest rate is usually not caused by changes in the value of
the VIEs assets and thus would usually be evaluated in the same way as
a fixed-rate senior interest. Senior interests normally are not entitled to
any of the residual return.
Variable Interests / 3 - 13
The analysis can be different for a guarantee is on the entitys assets compared to a
guarantee on the entitys liabilities.
If a guarantor has guaranteed the value of an asset of the entity, that guarantee is a
variable interest in the entity only if the fair value of the guaranteed assets constitutes
a majority (greater than 50 percent) of the fair value of the entitys total assets. A
guarantee of the value of an entitys assets must first be evaluated to determine
when it is a variable interest in the entire entity (as opposed to a variable interest in
specified assets). This concept, known as variable interests in specified assets, is
described in further detail in VE 3.5.
Similar to a guarantee, a put option written by a reporting entity and purchased
by the entity is a variable interest in the asset underlying the put. The entity (that
purchased the put) receives the right, but not the obligation, to put a specified item
to the reporting entity at a fixed price (i.e., the strike price) during a specified period
or on a specified date. When an entity purchases a put option, it receives the right
to transfer the potential risk of loss on certain assets to the writer of the put (i.e., the
option writer absorbs the risk of loss on the assets value).
Typically, in these arrangements, the purchaser of a put option pays a premium to the
writer for its rights under the contract (i.e., the price of protection on the underlying
asset). That amount is influenced by factors such as the duration of the option, the
difference between the exercise price and the fair value of the underlying assets,
price volatility, and other characteristics of the underlying assets. In return for the
premium, a writer of a put option is exposed to the risk of loss if the fair value of the
underlying assets declines, but profits only to the extent of the premium received,
and if the underlying assets increase in value (because the holder of the option will
not exercise it).
If a reporting entity has guaranteed (e.g., written a put option) a liability of the entity,
that guarantee is a variable interest in the entity. This is because the guarantee is
protecting holders of other variable interests from suffering losses. For example,
a financial guarantor of beneficial interests issued by a securitization entity has a
variable interest in that entity. When assessing such financial guarantee of liabilities
of the entity, it is important to note that they are always variable interests, regardless
of the design of the entity.
If the entity has the option to buy an asset (i.e., a call option) from the writer of the
option at a specified price, this contract is not a variable interest in the entity, as the
option is creating variability for the entity.
3.3.4 Guarantees, Put Options, and Similar Obligations: Options Written by the
Entity (see VE 3.3.5 for arrangements among variable interest holders)
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-55-26:
If a VIE is the writer of a guarantee, written put option, or similar
arrangement, the items usually would create variability. Thus, those
items usually will not be a variable interest of the VIE (but may be a
variable interest in the counterparty).
If the entity is a writer of a put option, the contract transfers risk of loss to the
entity and therefore creates variability for the entity. As a result, such contracts
are not generally viewed as variable interests. The variability resulting from these
3 - 14 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 15
55-28: A forward contract to sell assets that are owned by the VIE at
a fixed price will usually absorb the variability in the fair value
of the asset that is the subject of the contract. Thus, most
forward contracts to sell assets that are owned by the VIE are
variable interests with respect to the related assets. Because
forward contracts to sell assets that are owned by the VIE
relate to specific assets of the VIE, it will be necessary to apply
the guidance in paragraphs 810-10-25-55 through 25-56 to
determine whether a forward contract to sell an asset owned by
a VIE is a variable interest in the VIE as opposed to a variable
interest in that specific asset.
Forward contracts include contracts that meet the characteristics of a derivative
under ASC 815-10 as well as long-term contracts such as purchase or supply
contracts relating to plant output, raw materials, or other goods.
The contract should be evaluated to determine whether it contains an operating lease
(considering applicable lease accounting guidance in ASC 840, Leases (ASC 840)).
If the contract contains a lease, then refer to VE 3.3.11 for a further discussion of
evaluating leases to determine if they are variable interests. The non-lease elements
should also be analyzed to determine if they are variable interests.
If the contract does not contain an operating lease, the contract should be evaluated
to determine whether it constitutes a derivative. If the forward contract meets the
characteristics of a derivative under ASC 815-10, the contract should be evaluated
under the derivative strong indicator in the by design model (see VE 3.2.4).
For those forward contracts and supply arrangements which are not determined
to be creators of variability, a careful analysis of the terms of the contract and the
design of the entity should be considered. The pricing of a contract (e.g., fixed
price or fixed formula, cost plus, etc.) might affect the determination of whether the
contract is a variable interest.
ASC 810-10-55-81 through 55-86 (see Appendix A) illustrates an example of how a
forward purchase contract (i.e., a contract to purchase assets in the future at a fixed
price) may be evaluated when considering whether the contract creates or absorbs
variability. However, we believe that forward contracts are and will continue to be
some of the most difficult interests to evaluate under the VIE model. Whether or not
fixed price forward contracts absorb or create variability in an entity will often depend
on whether there are significant other risks in the entity, other than the volatility in the
pricing of the assets in a forward contract.
Generally, a forward or supply contract to sell assets owned by an entity at a fixed
price (or fixed formula) will absorb the variability in the fair value of those assets.
Similarly, a contract that has certain types of a variable pricing mechanism (e.g., cost
plus) may also be variable interests. However, this does not automatically lead to a
conclusion that such forward contacts are variable interests in the entity. A careful
consideration of the risks associated with the underlying entity and its design must
be considered in making this determination.
A question sometimes arises as to when an asset purchase contract is a variable
interest. In certain cases, it may be viewed similarly to a traditional fixed price
forward contract and, therefore, be considered a variable interest.
3 - 16 / Variable Interests
Note that if a forward contract relates to specified assets that comprise less than
50 percent of the fair value of the entitys total assets, the contract would not be a
variable interest in the entity (see VE 3.5).
Variable Interests / 3 - 17
3 - 18 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 19
have a senior claim in bankruptcy, it would seem that such a fee may not be typical
of other service providers of the entity, as it is only owed if there is a residual profit
to calculate it against. However, we believe that preparers could interpret that level
of seniority as only referring to rights in liquidation, or view it more broadly based on
how the fee is determined, provided that either interpretation is consistently applied.
Note that if an accounting policy decision is made to interpret seniority based upon
the contracts standing in liquidation, a careful evaluation of how the service contract
is paid in liquidation should be made. Preparers may require the assistance of legal
counsel in making this evaluation.
Additionally, the new VIE model does not provide guidance to help assess
substantially all. While the guidance allows some element of the fee to not be
considered as senior, it neither discusses a bright line, nor how to measure such a
threshold. Some of the factors that could be considered in interpreting substantially
all are as follows:
Substantially all is intended to be a very high threshold. While we do not believe
that there are any bright lines in interpreting such threshold, substantially all has
been interpreted in other areas of GAAP to mean greater than 90%.
The design of the fee arrangement and the role of the service provider may provide
insights into why there is a fee element which could be earned that is not at least
pari passu to other operating liabilities.
A critical assessment of the underlying fee economics. For example a qualitative
understanding of both of the following may aid in performing this assessment:
Expectations regarding the anticipated portion of both the senior fee element
and the non-senior fee element.
The potential variability of the senior fee element and the non-senior fee
element.
3.3.9.3 Condition 3: Service Provider and Related Parties Do Not Hold Other
Variable Interests in the VIE
A service provider fee is considered a variable interest if the service provider or its
related parties have another variable interest in the VIE that absorbs more than an
insignificant amount of the entitys variability. We understand from our discussions
with the FASB that it believes that probability should be one of the factors considered
in assessing the requirements of Condition 3.
With respect to this condition, the term related parties denotes all related parties
and de facto agents as defined in the VIE model except that employees and
employee benefits plans of the service provider are excluded unless the employees
and employee benefit plans are used in an effort to circumvent the provisions of the
standard.
Companies should identify and consider all contractual arrangements with an entity in
the aggregate (including, for example, equity investments, debt investments, lines of
credit, liquidity arrangements, letters of credit, derivatives, financial guarantees, etc.).
Judgment will be required to assess whether another interest or interests absorb
more than an insignificant amount of the entitys expected losses or receive more
than an insignificant amount of the entitys expected residual returns. While the
FASB has included the concept of expected losses and expected residual returns,
they did not intend for this requirement to be demonstrated by performing a detailed
3 - 20 / Variable Interests
expected loss analysis. Rather, the FASB expects preparers to exercise judgment
in performing a qualitative assessment of the economics provided by the service
providers other interests.
Additionally, more than an insignificant amount has not been defined and is
intended to mean the same as significant. However, in assessing more than an
insignificant amount, it is clear that the FASB does not expect it to be a bright
line analysis. In assessing this threshold, the FASBs objective of identifying
arrangements that are fiduciary in nature should be considered. We believe that the
interpretation of the more than an insignificant amount is a fairly low threshold and
if the reporting entity determines it absorbs more than an insignificant amount with
respect to a variable interest, then it will likely also meet the losses/benefits criterion
(see VE 5.1.3). We also believe that a qualitative assessment of the additional variable
interest(s) held by the service provider (and its related parties) utilizing the following
factors may assist in that determination:
The size of the variable interest to the overall capitalization of the entity.
The commercial reasons as to why such variable interest is held by the service
provider. For example, consider situations in which investments by the service
provider were made to support marketing of investments into the entity. In this
case, it may indicate that the service provider made such investment to signal
to others that the service provider is willing to put its own interests at risk. This
may indicate that the service provider is not acting as a fiduciary as it made the
investment to demonstrate to the other investors that it has skin in the game.
The relative risks and rewards of the variable interests held by the reporting entity
to the overall economics of the structure.
The seniority of the other variable interests. We believe that as the variable
interests seniority becomes lower (i.e., more subordinate to other interests) the
threshold at which the interest is more than insignificant becomes lower.
The FASB decided to exclude interests held by employees from this evaluation
in recognition of the fact that employees of investment managers often invest in
their employers funds. The FASB did not believe this should prevent the fees from
qualifying for the exception under condition 3. Further, the FASB also decided
to exclude interests held by employee benefit plans because it believed that the
substantive regulatory and fiduciary requirements governing employee benefit plans
are sufficient to permit this exclusion.
3.3.9.5 Conditions 5 and 6: Total Anticipated Fees and Their Variability are
Insignificant Relative to the VIEs Anticipated Economic Performance and
the VIEs Variability
The FASB included these two conditionsone based on anticipated performance
and the other based on the variability in performanceto assist in the identification
Variable Interests / 3 - 21
of whether the fees of a service contract may indicate that the service provider is
acting as a principal rather than an agent. The FASB believes that if the fee is more
than insignificant to the entity (i.e., the fee is significant), then it would indicate that
the service provider has sufficient economic benefit to conclude that it is not solely
acting as a fiduciary. This is despite contractual limitations that may be provided
in the contract to act as a fiduciary (e.g., contractual terms that require the service
provider to act as a fiduciary or to provide professional due care in carrying out its
role as a service provider).
The FASB does not believe that more than insignificant is a bright line analysis,
but rather should be assessed on a qualitative basis. Additionally, when assessing
service contracts under these two conditions, it is not expected that preparers
would perform an analysis that is consistent with the expected losses and expected
residual return analyses that may have been typically performed under the prior
VIE model. In performing the evaluation of these two conditions, the following
considerations may be useful:
The anticipated economic performance of the entity and the service contract over
the anticipated life of the entity should be considered based on its design.
In considering the variability of the economic performance of the entity and the
service contract, a careful consideration should be made with respect to the key
drivers of variability of the entity (based upon the analysis described in VE 3.2).
The performance elements of the fee may have certain hurdle rates whereby
the fee will only be earned if such a rate is met. An evaluation of the likelihood
of meeting that rate could be useful in the analysis as well as the size of the fee
relative to the performance of the entity (if the hurdle is met).
We understand from our discussions with the FASB that it believes that probability
should be considered in considering the anticipated economic performance of the
entity and its variability.
3.3.9.7 ASU 2010-10 and Its Potential Impact on Decision Maker and Service
Provider Arrangements
On February 25, 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2010-10
(ASU 2010-10) to defer the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 for certain
investment entities that have the attributes of entities subject to ASC 946. Included
in ASU 2010-10 were two clarifications to the variable interest evaluation of service
provider and decision maker arrangements. The ASU clarifies that related parties
should be considered when evaluating each of the criteria (i.e., each of the conditions
described above) for determining if a decision maker(s) or service provider(s) fee
represents a variable interest, with an exclusion for an employee of the service
3 - 22 / Variable Interests
provider or an employee benefit plan as long as the exception is not used in an effort
to circumvent the provisions of the VIE model. Based upon the language used in the
guidance, some users had inferred that related parties had to only be considered
when evaluating Condition 3.
In addition, ASU 2010-10 clarifies the FASBs view that when evaluating whether
a decision maker or service provider holds other interests in the variable interest
entity that would absorb more than an insignificant amount of the expected losses
or receive more than an insignificant amount of the expected residual returns (i.e.,
Condition 3), a formal quantitative assessment (e.g., expected loss calculation) is
not required and should not be the sole determinant as to whether such rights and
obligations exist.
3.3.11 Leases
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-55-39:
Receivables under an operating lease are assets of the lessor entity and
provide returns to the lessor entity with respect to the leased property
during that portion of the assets life that is covered by the lease. Most
operating leases do not absorb variability in the fair value of a VIEs net
assets because they are a component of that variability.
Guarantees of the residual values of leased assets (or similar
arrangements related to leased assets) and options to acquire leased
assets at the end of the lease terms at specified prices may be variable
interests in the lessor entity if they meet the conditions described
in paragraphs 810-10-25-55 through 25-56. Alternatively, such
arrangements may be variable interests in portions of a VIE as described
in paragraph 810-10-25-57. The guidance in paragraphs 810-10-55-23
through 55-24 related to debt instruments applies to creditors of lessor
entities.
Entity Is Lessor (Entity Leases Assets to Others)
Lease receivables of the entity are not variable interests. Rather, receivables under
operating leases create variability in the entitys operations and fair value.
Variable Interests / 3 - 23
3 - 24 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 25
consolidation of variable interest entities by a company that (a) has the power to make
decisions that significantly affect the economic performance of the entity and (b)
absorbs losses or has the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially
be significant to the VIE. It also prevents reporting entities from circumventing the
provisions of the VIE model by absorbing variability indirectly, such as through an
arrangement with another interest holder, rather than directly from the entity.
Implicit variable interests may arise from transactions with related parties, as well
as unrelated parties. The VIE model provides one clear example: Reporting Entity
A leases a facility from Entity B, which is owned by one of Reporting Entity As
two owners and has the facility as its only asset. The lease, which qualifies as an
operating lease, contains no explicit guarantees or purchase options, and is therefore
not considered a variable interest. Reporting Entity A should consider whether it
holds an implicit variable interest in Entity B as a result of its leasing arrangement
and its relationship with the owner of Entity B. All relevant facts and circumstances
should be considered to determine whether Reporting Entity A may effectively
protect all or a portion of the owners investment or would be expected to make
funds available (this would indicate that an implicit variable interest exists). Those
facts and circumstances may include both impediments to protect and incentives to
protect. The following table illustrates this concept:
Impediments to Protect
Incentives to Protect
Another indicator is whether Reporting Entity A has, in the past, provided any
guarantees or indemnified losses of Entity B.
It is important to note that implicit interests can also result from contractual
arrangements with unrelated variable interest holders. A reporting entity may enter
into contractual agreements with variable interest holders that effectively protect
those holders from absorbing a significant amount of an entitys variability. In these
circumstances, the contractual agreements with the variable interest holders may be
considered implicit interests in the variable interest entity, although there may be no
direct contractual interest in the variable interest entity.
At a minimum, reporting entities should consider the following questions (which by
no means constitute an all-inclusive list) when assessing whether an implied variable
interest is held in an entity:
Was the arrangement entered into in contemplation of the entitys formation?
Was the arrangement entered into contemporaneously with the issuance of a
variable interest?
Why was the arrangement entered into with a variable interest holder instead of
with the entity?
Did the arrangement reference specified assets of the entity?
3 - 26 / Variable Interests
We believe that all activities between variable interest holders, the entity, and entities
involved with the entity must be considered in the application of the VIE model. A
reporting entity should also consider the substance of the arrangement, including
all economic and related-party relationships between the reporting entity and the
entity in assessing whether the reporting entity might be exposed to the majority
of the risks associated with the VIE. The need to determine the substance of such
arrangements underscores the importance of understanding and assessing the terms
for all significant contracts and arrangements.
Variable Interests / 3 - 27
We believe that this guidance applies only to variable interests in specified assets. A
guarantee on the repayment of debt which is dependent on the general credit of the
entity, regardless of how much debt the guarantee relates to, is a variable interest in
the entity.
The following example illustrates the application of variable interest in specified
assets of a VIE:
Example 3-6: Background: Assume that an entity owns two assets: a building
worth $5.2 million and equipment worth $4.8 million. The building is leased to
Reporting Entity A under a long-term lease, and Reporting Entity A provides
a residual value guarantee that the building will be worth $4.2 million at the
end of the leases term. The equipment is leased to Reporting Entity B under
a long-term lease, and Reporting Entity B provides a residual value guarantee
that the equipment will be worth at least $3.0 million at the end of the leases
term.
Evaluation of Residual Value Guarantee Provided by Reporting Entity A: The
residual value guarantee provided by Reporting Entity A is a variable interest
in the entity, since the guarantee is on an asset that represents more than 50
percent of the total fair value of the entitys assets (the fair value of the asset
is 52 percent of the total fair value of assets).
Evaluation of Residual Value Guarantee Provided by Reporting Entity B: The
residual value guarantee provided by Reporting Entity B is not a variable
interest in the entity since it is on an asset that represents less than 50
percent of the total fair value of the entitys assets (the fair value of the asset is
only 48 percent of the total assets). Expected losses covered by this residual
value guarantee would not be considered as part of the expected losses of
the overall entity.
It is important to note that the determination of whether the variable interest relates
to the entity or a specified asset in the entity is based solely on the fair value of
the asset compared to the fair value of the entitys total assets, and not the level
of protection provided to the asset or rights to upside on the asset. The reporting
entitys actual obligation related to the specified assets does not influence the
evaluation. For example, a guarantee related to the value of assets that comprise 90
percent of the entitys assets may be limited to 10 percent of the total loss in value
of those assets. Although limited, that guarantee would constitute a variable interest
in the entire entity and would likely result in the entitys being considered a VIE
because that guarantee protects the equity investors from first-dollar losses on their
investments.
How Variable Interests in Specified Assets Affect the Determination of the Expected
Losses of the Entity
If a variable interest is determined to be a variable interest in specified assets and
not a variable interest in the entity as a whole, the expected losses and expected
residual returns related to those specified assets that are absorbed by such
interests should be excluded from the calculation of the entitys expected losses
and expected residual returns. Effectively, this means that the entitys expected
losses and expected residual returns are calculated net of the effects of any variable
interests in specified assets that are not variable interests in the entity as a whole. If
an interest is determined to be a variable interest in specified assets and not in the
entity as a whole, it is viewed in essence as a creator of variability, not an absorber.
3 - 28 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 29
Given this guidance, we believe that silos will exist in very limited circumstances and
only be given recognition when the following conditions are met:
Specified assets, specified liabilities, and specified equity are separate from the
overall entity.
Specified assets, specified liabilities, and specified equity are clearly identifiable.
Essentially none of (1) the returns from the separate assets are shared/used by
holders of interests in the larger VIE and (2) the specified liabilities are not paid
using assets of the larger VIE.
There is a primary beneficiary of the silo.
The entity as a whole is a VIE.
How Silos Affect VIE Analysis
A silo can only exist within a VIE. If the silo is deconsolidated from the larger VIE,
expected losses and expected residual returns of the silo would not be considered
in the calculation of expected losses and expected residual returns of the larger legal
entity. Therefore, in determining the expected losses and expected residual returns o
the remaining VIE the following steps should be performed:
Identify potential silos.
Determine whether a primary beneficiary exists for the potential silo.
If so, exclude the expected losses and expected residual returns of the potential
silo from the overall entity.
Performing these steps complicates the expected-loss considerations of the larger
legal entity. However, silos only exist in a few limited cases (i.e., the conditions of
being a silo are extremely restrictive and very difficult to meet). Therefore, most
reporting entities will not need to perform this step.
3 - 30 / Variable Interests
PwC Interpretive Response: The new guidance does not specify whether the
reassessment of whether or not a decision maker or service provider contract is
variable interest should be re-performed when the entity has a significant change
in its anticipated performance. We believe that reporting entities can reassess
on an ongoing basis whether or not a decision maker or service provider fee is
a variable interest for such situations. If a reporting entity were to establish an
accounting policy requiring such assessment, we would generally expect that
only significant economic changes in the performance of the entity could change
previous conclusions reached. For example, if a reporting entity has concluded
that the service contract is no longer a variable interest because other interests
held no longer absorb more than an insignificant amount of the entitys variability
(Condition 3), then the reporting entity must be comfortable that the likelihood of
the interest attracting significant variability in the future is highly unexpected or
anticipated. Additionally, it would be important to assess whether the substance
of the entitys role as a service provider has evolved as that of a fiduciary (or vice
versa).
Additionally, we believe there can be specific events that occur that would require
a re-evaluation, for example, a sale of another interest held by the reporting entity
which would result in the service provider no longer holding another interest in the
entity therefore allowing it to now meet Condition 3 (other interest that absorb a
more than insignificant amount of the entitys expected losses).
Question 3-2: Do servicing arrangements that include servicing advances and
clean up calls meet the service arrangement includes customary terms, conditions
or amounts condition (i.e., Condition 4) to not be considered as a variable interest?
PwC Interpretive Response: Yes, we believe that servicing contracts that include
the right to provide servicing advances and the right to exercise clean up calls
are customary in many asset-backed securitization arrangements and would
generally meet Condition 4 (i.e., the service arrangement includes customary
terms, conditions or amounts condition to not be considered as a variable
interest).
Implied Variable Interests
Question 3-3: The chief executive officer (CEO) owns 100 percent of Lessor and
holds 61 percent of the voting rights of Lessee. Lessor is a real estate company that
principally leases office buildings to Lessee. Lessee is a publicly traded financial
institution. Lessee is governed by an independent board of directors and is regulated
by governmental banking agencies. Both the board of directors and the banking
regulators govern related party transactions. All of the lease arrangements between
the two companies are classified as operating leases under ASC 840. In addition,
the lease terms are considered at market rates and terms. The leases do not have
residual value guarantees or purchase options, and therefore are not explicit variable
interests that Lessee has in Lessor. From Lessees perspective, are the lease
agreements considered implied variable interests in Lessor?
Variable Interests / 3 - 31
PwC Interpretive Response: No, the facts do not support this conclusion.
The independent board of directors that governs Lessee and the governmental
banking regulatory oversight preclude the CEO from making any decisions
regarding Lessees involvement with Lessor that would not be in the best interest
of Lessees public shareholders.
The identification of an implicit or explicit variable interest may affect (1) the
determination of whether the entity should be considered a VIE, (2) the calculation
of expected losses and expected residual returns, and (3) the determination of
the VIEs primary beneficiary (or, alternatively, the determination that the VIE has
no primary beneficiary). The determination of whether the Lessee is effectively or
implicitly guaranteeing all or a portion of the CEOs investment in the Lessor or the
property subject to lease should take into consideration all of the relevant facts
and circumstances, including the following:
Does the lessee have an economic incentive to act as guarantor or to make
funds available to the lessor, even though the lessee is not contractually
required to do so?
Has economic protection been historically provided?
In performing a consolidation analysis, clients and engagement teams should
consider both the impediments and incentives. In this particular fact pattern, the
impediments far outweigh the incentives.
An implicit guarantee may exist if there were incentives for Lessee to protect
Lessor and there were no substantive barriers impeding the following:
CEOs decision making ability vis--vis Lessor in the setting of lease rates
between Lessor and Lessee.
CEOs ability to require Lessee to make payments to Lessor, above and
beyond those contractually stipulated under the lease arrangements as
reimbursement for losses that Lessor incurred by virtue of holding the leased
assets.
In this fact pattern, however, the CEOs decision making ability is thwarted by
various impediments, including the independent audit committee, the board of
directors, and the need to comply with governmental banking regulations. These
barriers preclude Lessee from (1) entering into leases with above-market rents
to protect the CEOs interest in Lessor; (2) making payments other than rental
payments required by the lease; (3) entering into lease agreements for space that
is not needed; and (4) providing Lessor with additional cash to protect the CEOs
equity in the event that losses are incurred. Historically, Lessee has not leased
property from Lessor at above-market terms or that it did not need.
3 - 32 / Variable Interests
Call Options
Question 3-4: A venture is created, whereby Company A and Company B each
contributes $50 million in cash in exchange for a 50% equity ownership. The
ventures board of directors consists of 4 directors. Company A and Company B
each has equal representation on the board and decisions require a unanimous vote.
Company A has an option to purchase Company Bs equity interest for $60 million
two years from the ventures inception date. Is the option to purchase Company Bs
equity interest a variable interest at inception under ASC 810?
PwC Interpretive Response: Yes. The option is a variable interest since it is
exercisable at a fixed price and as a result Company A absorbs the positive
variability from the change in the fair value of the venture.
We believe that if the strike price of the option is at true fair value, then such
an option is not to be a variable interest since the option price fluctuates with the
change in the fair value of the entity. Caution should be exercised with respect to
fair value call options to ensure that the definition of fair value in the agreement
is consistent with true fair value. Some agreements may define formulas for
the strike price of the call option designed to mimic fair value or expectations of
fair value (e.g., formulas based on trailing earnings before interest, depreciation
and taxes). In many cases, these formulas may be close to fair value, but do not
represent fair value.
Non-refundable Deposits
Question 3-5: Company A (reporting entity) enters into a purchase and sale
agreement with Company X (entity) under which Company A will buy from Company
X and Company X will sell to Company A land and building. Company Xs sole asset
is the land and building under the agreement. As part of the agreement, Company A
is required to pay a non-refundable deposit to Company X. Company A also has the
right to terminate the contract, subject to the loss of its deposit. Does Company A
have a variable interest in Company X due to the purchase and sale agreement?
PwC Interpretive Response: Generally yes. This situation is common with land
deposits for homebuilders but is equally relevant to many purchase and sale
agreements for real estate.
A plain vanilla purchase and sale agreement for real estate that provides for
conditions precedent to closing generally would not be considered a variable
interest since it typically does not transfer to the buyer the usual risks and rewards
of ownership, primarily as a result of the many substantive conditions that
exist and that result in the purchase being contingent upon satisfaction of such
conditions. Some relevant considerations include:
Does the execution of the purchase and sale agreement transfer the risk of
loss with respect to the property to the prospective buyer?
Is sale contingent upon the existing lenders consent to the transfer of the
property and assumption of existing loan?
(continued)
Variable Interests / 3 - 33
3 - 34 / Variable Interests
Variable Interests / 3 - 35
Chapter 4:
Determining Whether an Entity is a VIE
Executive Takeaway
One of most critical steps in applying the VIE model is assessing whether or
not an entity is a VIE. The overall objective is to identify those entities for which
voting interests are not effective in determining whether the holder of the voting
interests or another party has a controlling financial interest in the entity. The VIE
model assumes that voting equity holders do not have traditional characteristics
of control (and therefore that the entity is a VIE) if any of the following conditions
exist:
The entity is thinly capitalized (i.e., the equity is not sufficient to fund the entitys
activities without additional subordinated financial support).
The equity holders as a group have one of the following four characteristics:
Lack the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entitys
economic performance.
Possess nonsubstantive voting rights.
Lack the obligation to absorb the entitys expected losses.
Lack the right to receive the entitys expected residual returns.
To determine whether the characteristics of a VIE are present, it is necessary to
identify which investors and investments are considered at risk, as described in
the VIE model.
The VIE model requires the reporting entity to determine whether an entity is a VIE
at the time of its creation and/or design (or on the reporting entitys first date of
involvement with that entity) and to re-evaluate whether or not that entity is a VIE if
certain events occur.
4.1 First Step: Identifying the Holders of the Equity Investment at Risk
The definition of an equity investment at risk (or equity at risk) in the VIE model
must be used to determine whether or not any of the characteristics of a VIE are
present. Equity investments that are recorded in the equity section of the entitys
GAAP financial statements are the starting point for this evaluation. However, just
because an investment is labeled as equity in the entitys financial statements does
not necessarily mean that it is at risk. A careful analysis is necessary to ensure that
an equity investment meets the conditions of being at risk. An equity investment at
risk is defined as follows:
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-14(a):
For this purpose, the total equity investment at risk has all of the
following characteristics:
1. Includes only equity investments in the legal entity that
participate significantly in profits and losses even if those
investments do not carry voting rights
2. Does not include equity interests that the legal entity issued in
exchange for subordinated interests in other VIEs
3. Does not include amounts provided to the equity investor directly
or indirectly by the legal entity or by other parties involved with
the legal entity (for example, by fees, charitable contributions, or
other payments), unless the provider is a parent, subsidiary, or
affiliate of the investor that is required to be included in the same
set of consolidated financial statements as the investor
4. Does not include amounts financed for the equity investor (for
example, by loans or guarantees of loans) directly by the legal
entity or by other parties involved with the legal entity, unless
that party is a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the investor that is
required to be included in the same set of consolidated financial
statements as the investor.
Examples of equity instruments that do not qualify as equity at risk include the
following:
Equity that, due to its legal rights, does not participate significantly in income and
losses of the entity. For example, nonparticipating, fixed-rate, preferred stock
would not qualify, since it does not participate in the income of the entity.
Equity provided to the equity investor in the form of fees, such as sweat equity
or certain management or development fees that were received by the equity
investor from the entity or from other involved parties.
Equity that was issued in exchange for a note from the equity investor that is
payable in the future after the entity was created (refer to VE 4.1.1).
by recording an equal and offsetting debit in the equity section of the entitys financial
statements, it would reduce the equity investment.
Whats Next: Is it at Risk?
After an identification of the components of GAAP equity, the next step is to assess
whether the equity is considered at risk for purposes of the analysis under the VIE
model. There are four conditions (see VE 4.1.2.5) that the reporting entity must
consider to conclude that GAAP equity is at risk under the VIE model. If there is more
than one investor, the reporting entity must evaluate each investment separately
against the four conditions.
4.1.2 Equity Must Participate Significantly in the Entitys Profits and Losses
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-14(a)(1):
Includes only equity investments in the legal entity that participate
significantly in profits and losses even if those investments do not carry
voting rights.
Based on our discussions with the FASB staff, the terms profits and losses refer
to GAAP profits and losses (as opposed to expected losses and expected residual
returns). This means that the equity investment must share (or participate) in the net
income or loss of the entity. Some equity investments may share only in the profits
of the entity and are not exposed to the losses of the entity. In that case, the equity
investment would not be considered at risk. For example, while equity investors that
receive a minimum guaranteed return of their investment participate in the profits of
the entity, they may not necessarily participate in the losses of the entity. Thus, such
equity may not be at risk.
Even if the equity investment shares in the profits and losses of the entity, the
participation must be significant. The final determination of whether an equity
investment participates significantly in profits and losses is based solely on the
specific facts and circumstances. The following key factors should be considered
when making this assessment:
Fixed Rates of Return or Low Levels of Returns or Loss
Generally, investments with a fixed rate of return do not participate significantly
in profits and losses. However, there may be circumstances whereby the
substance should govern over form. If the fixed rate of return is substantial to
the overall equity return, the fixed rate of return could be viewed in essence as
participating significantly in profits and losses. For example, preferred stock with
a fixed dividend of 10 percent in an entity expected to generate a rate of return
of 15 percent on its invested capital would generally be considered to participate
significantly in the profits. Conversely, preferred stock with a fixed dividend of
8 percent in an entity expected to generate a rate of return of 35 percent
is generally considered to be more debt-like in its return and would not be
considered to participate substantively in the profits.
In addition, an equity investment that participates at a level that is consistent with
its equity ownership (e.g., a 1 percent general partnership interest that participates
in 1 percent of the entitys profits and losses) would participate significantly in
profits and losses.
Guaranteed Returns
Generally, when an equity investors returns are guaranteed by another party
involved with the entity, the investors equity investment does not participate
significantly in the losses of the entity.
Certain Put or Redemption Rights
Oftentimes, investors can redeem or put their equity interests at fixed prices
or prices determined based on a formula. Generally, when an investment has
these puttable characteristics (i.e., the investor has the ability to put an equity
investment back to other investors or the entity), it would not participate
significantly in the losses of the entity. However, it is important to consider whether
these put features substantively protect the investors investment or limit exposure
to risks and rewards.
Other factors to consider include the following:
Whether the length of the period during which the put option may be exercised
varies.
Terms associated with the put option, including the price at which the investment
may be sold or bought (e.g., fixed, variable, or fair market value).
Sometimes equity interests are issued for a de minimis amount and, as a result, that
investor may not participate significantly in losses. For example, consider a situation
where a general partner purchases a 1 percent general partner interest for $1,000,
while the limited partners contribute $1,000,000 for each of the remaining 1 percent
interests. Under this scenario, the general partners interest would not be viewed
as participating significantly in the losses of the entity. In making this assessment,
we believe that both the dollar amount of the investment and the percentage of the
investment to the total equity investments should be considered.
4.1.5 Equity Investments Financed for the Equity Investor by the Entity or Other
Parties Involved with the Entity
Excerpt from ASC 810-15-14(a)(4):
Does not include amounts financed for the equity investor (for example,
by loans or guarantees of loans) directly by the legal entity or by other
parties involved with the legal entity, unless that party is a parent,
subsidiary, or affiliate of the investor that is required to be included in
the same set of consolidated financial statements as the investor.
The purpose of this condition is to exclude from the equity at risk amounts funded
from sources other than the equity investor. The burden of the investors to absorb
potential losses decreases when the entity, or other parties that are involved with the
entity, provide loans or guarantees of loans to the equity investors.
In these circumstances, the funding that supports the entity is provided by parties
other than the equity investor. The guidance specifically states that such interests are
not considered equity at risk.
In addition, a party that receives its interests as a contribution or a loan from the
reporting entity is a de facto agent of the reporting entity. This may have significant
ramifications. For example, assume that Investor A loans Investor B $500 and
Investor B uses the $500 to acquire a 50 percent interest in Partnership X. Investor
A contributes $500 in cash and also receives a 50 percent interest in Partnership X.
Investor B would not have an equity investment at risk because Investor A provided
the financing for that investment. In addition, Investor A and Investor B would be
considered as related parties (de facto agents) under the VIE model.
The VIE model includes a method for assessing the sufficiency of the equity
investment at risk that is based on the potential negative variability in the returns of
the entityits expected losses. The equity investment at risk must be large enough
to absorb the potential downside variability of the entitys activities in order to be
sufficient. The guidance indicates that either a qualitative and quantitative analysis (or
both) may be used to evaluate the sufficiency of the total equity investment at risk.
We believe that to determine the amount of the equity investment at risk, the
securities included in GAAP equity should be evaluated based on their fair value on
the determination date. That date may be different from the entitys formation date.
Also, the book value of the entitys equity will not often represent the fair value of
the equity. In addition, there are cases when, even at formation, the fair value of the
equity is different from its book value (e.g., entities that are required by GAAP to carry
over historical cost to record equity contributions such as in the formation of a joint
venture). The concepts of variable interests and expected losses are based on fairvalue assumptions about the entitys activities and potential returns, thus using the
fair value of equity will provide for consistent comparisons when evaluating whether
an entity is a VIE.
Equity Investors and Commitments to Fund Equity, Loans, and Guarantees
An equity investment that is issued in return for an equity investors obligation to
provide additional capital is not generally considered equity at risk, as the receivable
recorded in equity is an offset to GAAP equity. If an investor is obligated to fund
an entitys activities on a continual basis, the entity may be a VIE. Additionally, an
equity investors personal guarantee of an entitys debt(s) is not part of the equity
investment (i.e., it is not GAAP equity). However, the guarantee generally is a variable
interest that may be called to provide financial support to the entity and the existence
of such guarantees may be indicative of insufficient equity at risk.
additional equity investment, the quality of the debt and associated interest rate are
important factors to consider in this analysis. We believe that the ability to obtain
investment-grade debt (at least a rating of BBB by Standard and Poors or Baa by
Moodys) may be evidence that the equity investment at risk is sufficient and that the
lenders risk of loss is remote. On the other hand, higher-risk financing may indicate
that the lender (or other parties) shares in the risks of the entitys activities (i.e.,
absorbing some or all of the entitys expected losses). What makes this assessment
more difficult is that debt is not the only type of variable interest that may provide
additional subordinated financial support. The existence of guarantees on the
value of assets, non-fair value options to put an equity investment to other parties,
and similar arrangements are also variable interests that often provide additional
subordinated financial support and may even impact the quality of the debt that the
entity can procure.
We believe that depending on the facts and circumstances of the arrangement, the
existence of guarantees of an entitys debt may indicate that the equity investment
at risk is insufficient. For example, if a personal guarantee was necessary for the
entity to receive financing from a third-party bank, the equity investment at risk may
not be sufficient. Otherwise, the bank would not have negotiated for such guarantee
or the equity investors would not have been willing to provide the guarantor if such
guarantees were not necessary for receiving the financing under the terms provided.
Traditionally Viewed SPEs
Historically, special purpose entities (SPEs) were thinly capitalized, and most SPEs
were structured under the previous accounting rules, which stated that the total
equity investment only needed to be 3 percent of the entitys total assets. Instead of
equity investments that were exposed to the residual risks and rewards of ownership
in an SPE, other arrangements with the entity, or other parties associated with the
entity, bore most of the risk of loss related to the entitys activities and often received
most of the residual benefit of the SPEs activities (i.e., these contracts functioned in
a manner that is often associated with an equity investment). SPEs will often be VIEs
because the equity investment at risk will be insufficient.
performance of the entity are not held by the equity investors at risk. Specifically, the
issue centers on whether, as a group, the equity investors at risk have embedded in
their rights the key decisions of the entity that can impact its economic performance.
Fundamentally, if the economic interests in the entity that are outside of the equity
investment at risk (e.g., debt interests or management contracts) also provide the
holders of those interests with a substantive power to direct the activities that have
the most significant impact on the economic performance of the entity, the entity
would generally be considered a VIE.
4.2.2.3 How to Evaluate Whether the Equity Holders as a Group Have Power
Determining which activities most significantly impact the entitys economic
performance may require significant judgment. In certain circumstances, an
entitys operations may be straightforward or one dimensional. In those instances,
determination of whether or not the holders of the equity investment at risk meet the
power criterion may not require significant judgment. Critical to this analysis is to
identify the decisions of the entity and how the decisions could affect the economic
performance of the entity. It is important to consider the design of the entity in
making this determination. Once the key decisions are determined, it must then be
ensured that the decisions are made by the group of equity investors at risk rather
than by parties outside of that group.
Some believe that substantive liquidation rights, as defined in ASC 810-20, held by a
single limited partner (including its related parties and de-facto agents) whose equity
is at risk, automatically represents a controlling financial interest. We do not believe
that a single limited partner (including its related parties and de-facto agents) whose
equity is at risk with substantive liquidation rights, as defined in ASC 810-20 and
ASC 970-323-25-3 through 25-8, holds a controlling financial interest, unless those
liquidation rights are designed in a manner that is consistent with removal rights.
Substantive liquidation rights would only indicate that a controlling financial interest
exists if the liquidation rights are designed so that the limited partner could liquidate
the entity and establish a new limited partnership with a new general partner to own
the same assets and pursue the same objectives of the previous partnership. Given
these circumstances, the right and ability of the limited partner to liquidate would
be, in substance, no different than a removal right. However, this is generally not the
case, as the limited partner generally would not have the ability to retain ownership
of the same assets of the entity through liquidation. Accordingly, the entity would be
considered a VIE with respect to the second characteristic. See VE 5.1.2 for kick-out
rights.
Lastly, the mere fact that a single limited partner holds substantive participating
rights is not sufficient to conclude that the limited partner has a controlling financial
interest, since such limited partner will only have the ability to block or participate in
decisions made by the general partner.
Given below is a summary that is helpful in evaluating when a limited partnership is a
VIE and in case it is not a VIE, the evaluation under the voting interest model:
Substantive
Kick-OutRights
Held byOne Limited
Partner Investor
Substantive
Kick-Out Rights
Held by Multiple Limited
Partner Investors
No Substantive
Kick-Out Rights
General
Partner Equity
Considered at
Risk
General Partner
Equity NOT
Considered at
Risk
VIE under
Characteristic 2.
General Partner
likely consolidates
under the VIE model
as it has power
(decision making)
and benefits/losses.
Note: The above chart does not take into account the effect of related parties on
the evaluation as to whether the general partners equity is considered at risk (see
controlling interest should be combined with the economic interests of all related
parties. The combination of those interests will generally alleviate decision making
exception and cause the fund to be a voting interest entity, unless one of the other
characteristics of a VIE is met.
The presumption that the economic interests of a related party should be
combined with those of the general partner may be overcome based on facts and
circumstances. Consideration should be given to whether the general partner has the
ability to arbitrarily choose the legal entity that will hold the economic interest in the
fund and whether the economic risks and rewards associated with that interest will
ultimately revert to the general partner. If the economic interest held by the related
party is independent of the general partners influence (both from a control and
economic perspective), the presumption that combining interests is appropriate may
be overcome. For example, the presumption may be overcome if (1) management
or employees of the general partner make investments in the entity, (2) management
and the employees are able to invest and withdraw the fair value of their funds at
their own discretion, (3) the investments are made from compensation that is deemed
to be at fair value, and (4) investment returns have no impact on future compensation
levels.
Given the significant diversity in structure of partnerships and general partner
management agreements, specific facts and circumstances must be considered in all
such arrangements.
The above observation is consistent with a speech from Mark Mahar of the SEC Staff
at the 2006 AICPA Conference on SEC and PCAOB Developments, where he stated
the following:
We understand that certain general partner (GP)/limited partner (LP) arrangements
have become common in which the partnership might be considered a variable
interest entity (VIE).
When the GP considers its relationship with the entity in isolation, it comes to the
conclusion that the entity is a VIE because the holders of the equity investment at
risk as a group, i.e., the LPs, do not have the ability to make decisions about the
entitys activities that have a significant effect on its success.
However, a view that analyzes the GP and the entity in isolation seems to
be incomplete because of the relationships with certain of the LP investors.
Depending on the significance of those relationships, I believe the GP and LPs
may be so closely associated that it is most appropriate to consider their interests
in the aggregate. This analysis depends heavily on the particular facts and
circumstances, thus a degree of reasonable judgment is necessary.
If the GP and LP are considered a group, the FIN 46R [ASC 810] analysis could
yield different results. If the GP and certain LP equity interests are combined,
then the entity, all other things being equal, would likely pass the paragraph 5(b)
(1) [ASC 810-10-15-14 (b) (1)] test. That is, the equity holders as a group, inclusive
of the GP rights, would have the ability to make decisions about the entitys
activities that affect its success. The result would be the entity is not a VIE and the
accounting consideration would revert to the voting interest model with the GP
consolidating.
(continued)
If the GP and LP are considered a group, the FIN 46R [ASC 810] analysis could
yield different results. If the GP and certain LP equity interests are combined, then
the entity, all other things being equal, would likely pass the paragraph 5(b)(1) test.
That is, we understand that some of these structures may have been designed
specifically to circumvent EITF 04-5 [ASC 810-20], which would generally result
in consolidation by the GP if the partnership is not a VIE. This gives me a chance
to make the point that using professional judgment is not a cover or license to
engineer around the intent of accounting literature. Frankly, its attempts like this
that often lead to restatements and more accounting standards as the standard
setters seek to close the door on abusive transactions. I do not like complex
standards any more than you. With more restatements and complex standards, no
one is a winner, investors, preparers and auditors alike.
contract, the entity might be considered a VIE. Similarly, we believe that if decision
making is determined by a shareholders agreement (i.e., a separate contractual
arrangement among the shareholders that gives voting control to some of the
shareholders and not to others) and all parties to the shareholder agreement are
holders of equity investment at risk, the entity would not necessarily be considered a
VIE. In contrast, the existence of contractual decision making service arrangements
between an entity and an equity investor may cause the entity to be considered a VIE
with respect to this characteristic.
In many fact patterns, determining whether decision making rights are held
within the equity interest can be difficult in practice. This is particularly true in
assessing whether a general partners interest holds the decision making rights in
a limited partnership when there are separate management contracts held by the
general partners related parties. In such cases, the following questions should be
considered:
What is the ownership structure of/relationship between the general partner and
the related party that holds the investment management agreement (i.e., whether
the entities are commonly controlled)? In the event that the general partner and
investment manager are controlled by the same parent and the substance of the
arrangement is that the investment decisions are effectively made by an equity
investor at risk (due to the common control relationship of the investment manager
and the general partner), it could be determined that the significant decision
making rights remain within the equity group at risk.
Does the general partner have the legal right to sell/transfer its decision making
rights to an unrelated entity? Specifically, the reporting entity should consider
whether the right to appoint the investment manager remains with the general
partner interest, if the general partners interest is sold to an outside party. If the
legal right to appoint the investment manager always remains with the general
partners interest, the substantive decision making rights may still reside with the
equity holders as a group, and no decision making exception would be present
(i.e., the entity would not be considered a VIE with respect to Characteristic 2).
Does the general partner have the legal right to terminate the investment
management agreement? If the general partner holds the legal right to terminate
the investment management agreement at any time and at its sole discretion,
the equity group at risk has most likely retained the substantive decision making
rights of the entity. All factors including penalties associated with early termination
should be considered to determine whether or not the termination right is
substantive.
de facto agents should not be considered in the evaluation of Criterion 1, but should
be considered in an evaluation of Criterion 2 (discussed further below).
We believe that for the purposes of examining the proportionality of the voting rights
relative to the economics of the entity, these amounts do not necessarily need to be
exactly equal. Judgment should be applied based on the facts and circumstances.
Generally, the two amounts only need to be approximately the same to be
considered proportional (e.g., 75 percent voting rights, which would result in control
of the entity, and 80 percent economics). However, when the two amounts straddle
50 percent (i.e., 48 percent voting rights and 52 percent economics), the amounts
should not be considered proportional, regardless of the magnitude of the difference
between the amountseven 49.9 percent vote and 50.1 percent economics should
be considered non-proportional. This conclusion is a result of the reporting entitys
possession of control, but not of a majority of the economics (or vice versa). In
practice, joint ventures and partnerships frequently meet this criterion, as equity
investors typically have other variable interests in the entity, which create economics
that are disproportionate to voting rights.
Based on the literal wording, evaluation of this criterion would require a comparison
of each participants variable interests to their voting interest, which would
necessitate the determination of all expected losses and expected residual
returns for the entity and for each participant. However, in some circumstances,
detailed analyses may not be necessary. For example, if one party clearly has an
economic participation of 60 percent or greater, but only has 50 percent of the vote,
Criterion 1 would be met (i.e., the voting interests and economic interests would be
disproportionate). Criterion 2 would then need to be evaluated to determine if the
entity should be considered a VIE. Conversely, if one party has 50 percent of the vote
and 40 percent of the equity, but also has a variable interest via a long-term purchase
contract, a detailed calculation may be required to determine if the equity plus the
purchase contract results in more than 50 percent of the entitys expected losses and
residual returns.
The determination of the level of voting rights may require considerable judgment,
since, in many cases voting percentages are not defined by the underlying
agreements. For example, many partnerships and limited liability companies do
not define voting percentages. Rather, they operate under provisions whereby both
parties must agree on all (or substantially all) of the major decisions (i.e., neither
party has voting control). In such cases, we believe that the entity is under joint
control, with both parties having 50 percent voting interests for the purposes of this
characteristic, even though the percentages of legal ownership may be different.
In essence, the focus should be on whether the governance of the entity would be
substantively different if voting rights had been equal to economic rights.
To further understand the application of Criterion 1, consider the following examples:
Example 4-4: Assume that Reporting Entity A holds a 65 percent equity
interest in Entity 1 and that Reporting Entity B holds the remaining 35 percent
equity interest. Each equity interest holder shares in the entitys profits
and losses in proportion to the holders equity investment. The governing
documents include specific provisions granting Reporting Entity B rights that
provide it with joint control over the substantive operating decisions of Entity
1 (i.e., voting rights). As a result, Reporting Entity As voting rights (i.e., 50
percent) are disproportionately low in relation to its exposure to the risks (i.e.,
65 percent) and Criterion 1 is met. If Criterion 2 is met (i.e., substantially all of
the entitys activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of Reporting
Entity A), Entity 1 would be considered a VIE.
4 - 26 / Determining Whether an Entity is a VIE
Other Indicators*
The reporting entity sold assets to the entity The reporting entity sold assets to the
in an effort to remove underperforming
entity.
assets from the reporting entitys balance
sheet.
The entitys major activities include selling
substantially all of its products to the
reporting entity under long-term contracts.
(continued)
Strong Indicators*
Other Indicators*
* With respect to evaluating these indicators, the term reporting entity covers the reporting entitys related
parties (as defined in ASC 810-10-25-43).
When evaluating whether substantially all of the activities either involve or are
conducted on behalf of the investor that has disproportionately few voting rights, the
investor must combine interests held by its related parties and de facto agents with
its own interests (refer to VE 1.7 for a detailed description of related parties and de
facto agents).
There are no broad rules of thumb that can be used to shortcut the evaluation
required under Criterion 2. Instead, reporting entities will need to evaluate the
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding each individual situation. Absent
mitigating factors (e.g., indicators that point to a different conclusion), we believe that
the presence of a single item from the Strong Indicators column may be sufficient
to support a conclusion that substantially all of the activities of the entity either
involve or are conducted on behalf of the reporting entity. At other times, multiple
strong indicators may need to be present to reach the same conclusion. There
are no bright lines. This assessment requires judgment. We also believe that the
SEC shares this view as indicated by Eric Schuppenhauer of the SEC Staff at the
December 2003 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments, where
he stated the following:
In the event that a registrant concludes that it has disproportionately few voting
rights compared to its economics, there must be an assessment of whether
substantially all of the activities of the entity either involve or are conducted on
behalf of the registrant. There is no bright-line set of criteria for making this
assessment. All facts and circumstances, qualitative and quantitative, should be
considered in performing the assessment.
If the reporting entity includes several of the Other Indicators, it may need to
consider seriously whether or not the requirements of Criterion 2 have been met. In
this instance, consultation with an accounting professional who is familiar with these
provisions may be appropriate.
implied guarantee of the only asset of an entity, the entity would be considered a VIE
under Characteristic 4 since the equity investors at risk are protected by this implied
variable interest. See VE 3 for a further discussion of implicit variable interests.
The evaluation should only focus on the equity ownership interests themselves, and
not on the investors. For example, an equity investor may also hold participating
debt that provides rights to a portion of the entitys residual returns. Since that right
resides in the participating debt agreement and is not inherent in the investors
equity interest at risk, the entity may be considered a VIE if the participating debt
participates in the residual profits at an amount that is large relative to the entitys
expected residual returns. We believe that this is what the FASB intended as
illustrated in the excerpt below:
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-15-14(b):
If interests other than the equity investment at risk provide the holders
of that investment with these characteristics or if interests other than
the equity investment at risk prevent the equity holders from having
these characteristics, the entity is a VIE.
Disproportionate sharing of expected residual returns among equity investments at
risk does not cause the entity to be considered a VIE under Characteristic 5, since
it merely represents sharing of expected residual returns among the group of equity
investments at risk.
4.2.5.1 Examples
There are many contracts that may or may not meet Characteristic 5. The following
are some examples:
Call Option on the Entitys Assets
Assume that an entity writes a call option on its sole asset and therefore the call
option is a variable interest in the entity (refer to VE 3 for a discussion of variable
interests). We believe that such a call option may function as a cap to the equity
investors right to receive residual profits. Whether the call option actually functions
as a cap depends on the specific facts and circumstances. Relevant factors will
include whether or not the option price is fixed, formula-based, or at fair market
value. A call option with a fair market value price would not meet Characteristic 5,
while a call option that is formula-based may or may not meet Characteristic 5.
Equity Investments That Are Not Considered At Risk
In some situations, equity may be issued in return for the promise to provide services
to the entity. Consider an entity that is capitalized with equity investments from two
parties: Party A and Party B. Assume that Party A contributes cash for its 65 percent
ownership interest and that Party B receives its 35 percent ownership interest in
return for services. Further assume that all cash flows are distributed among the
parties in accordance with their ownership percentages. The equity held by Party B
would most likely not be considered at risk. Since Party B participates in the entitys
expected residual returns, Characteristic 5 may be present, and if so the entity would
be considered a VIE.
Other Contracts Tied to an Entitys Performance
Many operating entities have contracts that allow for some sharing in the entitys
expected residual returns. We believe that the following types of contracts should be
considered in making this assessment assuming that they are variable interests (see
VE 3 for a discussion on variable interests):
Service contracts that are indexed to the entitys performance.
Decision maker fees.
License, royalty and other similar arrangements.
We believe that in an assessment of these contractual agreements, profits should be
interpreted more broadly, and not limited to items such as net income or earnings
before taxes. Other performance measures (e.g., revenue, operating income, EBITDA)
should also be considered. However, only those arrangements that share in amounts
that are large relative to the level of expected residual returns would result in the
presence of this characteristic. In most entities, these contracts would not cause
the entity to be considered a VIE with respect to this characteristic. However, in
assessing this characteristic, the reporting entity should evaluate the terms of each
contract and the entitys level of sharing in the entitys returns.
A reporting entity must re-evaluate whether or not an entity is a VIE upon the
occurrence of one of the reconsideration events only if the event is significant.
Generally speaking, if the reporting entity concludes that the VIE status of the entity
would change upon the occurrence of one of these events, the event would be
considered significant enough to merit reconsideration under the VIE model.
Note that the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 removed the exception for
troubled debt restructurings as a VIE reconsideration event. Previously troubled debt
restructurings were exempted from triggering a reconsideration event because ASC
310-40, ReceivablesTroubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors (ASC 310-40) and
ASC 470-60, DebtTroubled Debt Restructurings by Debtors (ASC 470-60) were
essentially the only accounting guidance for debtors and creditors. However, any
debt restructuring that did not qualify as a troubled debt restructuring was evaluated
to determine whether it represented a reconsideration event under the VIE model.
Now a troubled debt restructuring is no longer exempt from being a reconsideration
event. The FASBs removal of the troubled debt restructuring exemption may
significantly impact banks and other lenders. In most instances, if the entity becomes
a VIE upon a troubled debt restructuring, banks/lenders may conclude that they are
not the primary beneficiary, however, they may become subject to the disclosure
requirements (see VE 7 for a discussion about disclosure requirements).
a prior history of operating losses that have reduced the equity investment at risk
will need to be considered as part of that analysis. Note that irrespective of whether
or not a VIE reconsideration event has occurred, the primary beneficiary analysis
is required to be carried out every reporting period by the reporting entity if such
reporting entity has a variable interest in a VIE (see VE 5.1.1 for details).
Immediately Before
Modification
Reconsideration
Event?
Sufficient Equity
No
Sufficient Equity
Insufficient Equity
Yes
Insufficient Equity
No
Insufficient Equity
Sufficient Equity
Yes
In the table above, the notions of sufficient and insufficient equity refer to whether or
not the entity qualifies as a VIE under Characteristic 1: Insufficient Equity Investment
at Risk. Sufficient equity indicates that the entity would not possess Characteristic
1, while insufficient equity indicates that the entity would possess this characteristic.
By evaluating the sufficiency of the equity immediately before and immediately after
the modification and whether equity at risk investors as a group lost power over the
entity, the reporting entity can assess the effect of that modification on the adequacy
of the equity without the impact of prior operating losses.
occurred in an SPE that holds financial assets, the reporting entity should emphasize
the significance of new acquisitions/undertakings relative to the current portfolio of
the SPEs assets, including changes in the volatility or risk of the overall portfolio
resulting from the new acquisitions/undertakings.
4.3.8 Bankruptcy
Generally, when an entity files for bankruptcy, the equity at risk holders as a group
lose the power to make decisions that have a significant impact on the economic
performance of the entity because this decision making would typically transfer
to the bankruptcy court. Therefore, we believe that the act of filing for bankruptcy
typically constitutes a reconsideration event under the VIE model. Note that the
primary beneficiary analysis is required to be carried out every reporting period by
the reporting entity if such reporting entity has a variable interest in a VIE (see VE
5.1.1 for details).
PwC Interpretive Response: No. Consistent with the conclusion in SAB 103,
Topic 1.1 (originally concluded upon in the AICPAs February 1986 notice to
practitioners entitled ADC Arrangements and subsequently reprinted without
modification as exhibit I of the AICPAs Practice Bulletin 1, dated November 1987),
sweat equity is not considered at risk for the purposes of determining the equity
investment at risk. In effect, sweat equity is financed for the equity holder by
the entity itself. The VIE model specifically precludes such amounts from being
considered part of the equity investment at risk for the purposes of determining
whether there is sufficient equity at risk in the entity. Therefore, the equity holder
that received the sweat equity would not be included in the group of equity
investors at risk for purposes of evaluating the characteristics of qualifying for
equity investment at risk. As a result, in an evaluation of whether the group of
holders of the equity investment at risk has the characteristics of a controlling
financial interest, Characteristic 2: Equity Lacks Decision Making Rights, would
potentially be met if the equity holder that received sweat equity also received
voting shares. Similarly, Characteristic 4: Lacking the Obligation to Absorb an
Entitys Expected Losses would be potentially met because the equity holder that
received sweat equity shares would have a right to the expected residual returns
of the entity.
Question 4-3: Company A is occasionally included in legal actions alleging that it
has infringed patents. Company A expects the volume of these claims to increase
as its business grows. As a result, the Company obtains a 49.5 percent limited
partnership interest in a private-equity fund (the PEF), which effectively operates
like a patent troll (i.e., it uses invested funds to acquire patents in certain industries
and then seeks license fees by enforcing these patents).
In order to obtain the limited partnership interest, Company A paid $4 million,
which included an upfront license fee. The upfront license fee was $2.4 million and
the terms of the partnership agreement call for the license fee to be immediately
distributed to the PEFs limited partners (including Company A) based on their
ownership interests (with the amount being limited to each partners capital
contribution amount). These fees would be considered unconditional in nature.
Company A is assessing the impact of the VIE model on this transaction. How does
the distribution of the upfront license fee impact the calculation of the equity at risk?
PwC Interpretive Response: The VIE model states that equity investment
at risk does not include amounts provided to the equity investor directly or
indirectly by entity or other parties involved with the entity. Generally, fees that
are paid concurrent with the formation of an entity (or shortly thereafter) and are
unconditional in nature would be considered a return of the amounts invested by
the equity investors. Therefore, the distribution of the upfront license fees would
result in a reduction of equity investment at risk for both Company A and the other
parties in the limited partnership.
Question 4-4: The general partner of a limited partnership investment fund makes
no initial cash contribution to the partnership interest but has the right to elect that
investment management fees earned in the future be allocated to its partnership
interest. The following two questions arise, assuming that the entity is a VIE due to
meeting Characteristic 2: Equity Lacks Decision Making Rights on day 1:
1. As fees are earned, will the fair value of the general partners equity interest
qualify as equity at risk under Characteristic 1: Insufficient Equity Investment at
Risk?
2. If so, does the general partners earning of management fees paid to its
partnership interest qualify as a reconsideration event under the VIE model?
PwC Interpretive Response:
Answer 1: Investment management fees earned and allocated by the general
partner to its equity interest will be considered equity at risk whenever the
following conditions are met:
i. The fees are commensurate with the fair value of the service rendered; and
ii. If
a. the general partner has the right to elect cash or have its fee allocated to
its equity interest, the services provided are substantive and the fees are
conditional upon the performance of the general partner (i.e., fees are not
earned unless prescribed duties are carried out to the satisfaction of the
limited partners); or
b. the general partner does not have the right to elect cash and its fee is
allocated to its equity interest, the limited partners by simple majority
vote hold substantive kick-out rights with respect to removing the general
partner. If the limited partners do not have substantive kick-out rights
exercisable by simple majority vote, the fees earned by the general partner
would be considered unconditional and therefore not equity at risk.
If the foregoing conditions are met, the allocation of fees earned should be
considered the same as if the fees were paid out in cash and then re-invested by
the general partner into the limited partnership fund.
Answer 2: Yes, if the fees are considered to be equity at risk, the reallocation
of capital between the limited partners and the general partner with respect to
investment management fees earned represents the infusion of equity capital into
the entity and will result in a reconsideration event under the VIE model, unless
the reconsideration event is insignificant. At the date on which the allocated fees
represent an amount that will participate significantly in the profits and losses of
the entity, the general partners equity interest will be considered at risk. Refer to
VE 4.3 for a discussion of reconsideration events.
PwC Interpretive Response: The partial sale of the interest would not in and of
itself cause the GP to reconsider whether or not the Partnership is a VIE under the
VIE model. We believe that the initial combination of the GPs controlling interest
and the related parties economic interest should be viewed as one interest in
the Partnership for evaluation of whether or not the entity is a VIE. Given that at
inception the combined interest was determined to be equity at risk for evaluation
under the VIE model, the remaining portion of that interest after the partial sale
would continue to be considered equity at risk. Effectively, the remaining GP
interest would be considered equity at risk.
Characteristic 3: Equity with Nonsubstantive Voting Rights
Question 4-8: Consider a reporting entity whose economic interest in an entity
is greater than its voting interest in the same entity. Is the disproportionate voting
interest and economic interest criterion met if the voting interest held by that
reporting entity would not be substantively different if those voting rights were
proportionate to its economic rights?
PwC Interpretive Response: The disproportionate voting interest and economic
interest criterion was included to identify entities designed with nonsubstantive
voting rights and to subject those entities to the economic risk and rewards model
established in the VIE model. In situations where a technical disproportionality
exists, it is not automatically assumed that the disproportionate voting interest
and economic interest criterion is met. Rather, the focus should be on whether the
governance of the entity would be substantially different had voting rights been
equal to economic rights.
For example, if an entity had 25 percent of the economic risks and rewards of an
entity, but held only 15 percent of the voting rights (as determined through review
of the investors ability to vote on the substantive operating decisions of the
entity), whether the investor would be able to participate in additional substantive
operating decisions through voting or veto rights at the 25 percent voting level
should be considered. If the investor would not have any additional rights at the
increased voting percentage, no substantive disproportionality would be assumed
under the disproportionate voting interest and economic interest criterion.
However, when the two amounts straddle 50 percent (i.e., 48 percent voting rights
and 52 percent economics), the amounts should not be considered proportional,
regardless of the magnitude of the difference between the amountseven 49.9
percent vote and 50.1 percent economics should be considered non-proportional.
If additional voting or veto rights would be achieved at the increased level,
whether the investor meets the substantially all criterion should be considered.
Chapter 5:
Identifying the Primary Beneficiary of a VIE
Executive Takeaway
The primary beneficiary is the reporting entity that is required to consolidate the
VIE.
The VIE model is predominantly a qualitative model for determining which entity
has a controlling financial interest and is the primary beneficiary of a VIE. However,
for VIEs subject to the deferral of ASU 2010-10, the primary beneficiary analysis is
based upon absorption of a majority of expected risks and rewards.
The primary beneficiary is the variable interest holder that has (1) the power to
direct activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the
VIE, and (2) the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of the
VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
Individual parties within a related party group (including de facto agents) should
first separately consider whether any party within the related party group is the
primary beneficiary on a stand-alone basis (which may frequently be the case). If
no party within the related party group is the primary beneficiary on a stand-alone
basis, the determination of the primary beneficiary within such group is based on
an analysis of the facts and circumstances with the objective of determining which
party is most closely associated with the VIE (i.e., the related party tiebreaker).
A reporting entity is required to reconsider whether it is the primary beneficiary of a
VIE on an ongoing basis.
The reporting entity is deemed to be the primary beneficiary if it meets both criteria
below:
Power Criterion: Power to direct activities of the VIE that most significantly impact
the VIEs economic performance (power criterion).
Losses/Benefits Criterion: Obligation to absorb losses from or the right to receive
benefits of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE (losses/benefits
criterion).
In assessing whether a reporting entity has both the power criterion and the losses/
benefits criterion in an entity, it should consider the entitys purpose and design,
including the risks that the entity was designed to create and pass through to its
variable interest holders.
Only one reporting entity (if any) is expected to be identified as the primary
beneficiary of a VIE. Although more than one reporting entity could meet the losses/
benefits criterion, only one reporting entity (if any) will have the power to direct the
activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the VIEs economic performance.
The VIE model calls for increased skepticism in situations where a reporting entitys
economic interest in a VIE is disproportionately greater than its stated power to
direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entitys economic
performance. As the level of disparity increases, the level of skepticism about a
reporting entitys lack of power is expected to increase.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-25-38G:
Consideration shall be given to situations in which a reporting entitys
economic interest in a VIE, including its obligation to absorb losses or
its right to receive benefits, is disproportionately greater than its stated
power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the
VIEs economic performance. Although this factor is not intended to be
determinative in identifying a primary beneficiary, the level of a reporting
entitys economic interest may be indicative of the amount of power that
reporting entity holds.
The VIE model requires an ongoing reconsideration of whether a reporting entity is
the primary beneficiary of a VIE due to changes in facts and circumstances.
In establishing this requirement, the FASB noted that requiring reconsideration in
response to changes in facts and circumstances would provide benefits to users that
would outweigh the anticipated costs to comply with the requirement. For example,
if a party has a variable interest in a VIE in the form of a guarantee and over time the
VIEs performance declines significantly, then the guarantor may become the primary
beneficiary. Further, the FASB also expects that the ongoing qualitative assessment
would require less effort and be less costly than the quantitative assessment of
expected losses and expected residual returns required under the earlier model.
When a reporting entity identifies a change in the primary beneficiary of a VIE, it will
need to determine the date within the reporting period when the change occurred
and recognize the effects as of that date.
First, Fruit Co. must determine the purpose and design of Juice Co., including
the risks it was designed to create and pass through to its variable interest
holders. Juice Co. was created to provide Fruit Co. access to Bottle Co.s low
cost bottling process as well as its distribution network while providing Bottle
Co. access to Fruit Co.s supply of organic fruit. Profits and losses of Juice
Co. will be allocated equally to Fruit Co. and Bottle Co. based on their equity
ownership percentages.
Next, Fruit Co. must determine which activities of Juice Co. most significantly
impact its economic performance and determine whether it has the power
to direct those activities. The party with the power to direct those activities
would meet the power criterion.
Fruit Co. has determined the activities which most significantly impact Juice
Co.s economic performance are as follows:
Activity
Agricultural
Production/Bottling
Distribution
Next, Fruit Co. must determine which party has the power over the activities
which most significantly impact the economic performance of Juice Co. Fruit
Co has determined the parties with the power to direct activities which most
significantly impact Juice Co.s economic performance as follows:
Activity
Responsible Party
Agricultural
Production/Bottling
Distribution
Fruit Co.
Bottle Co.
Bottle Co.
the contingent event may drive the determination of power criterion even prior to the
occurrence of the contingent event. In other words, the contingent event triggers
the most significant activities of the entity.
If it is determined that the activities which occur both before and after the contingent
event may significantly impact the economic performance of the entity, the
power criterion analysis should focus on the purpose and design of the entity, the
significance of the activities throughout the life of the entity, the ability of the variable
interest holders to impact the occurrence of the contingent event and the likelihood
of the contingent event occurring. The assumptions about which activities most
significantly impact the economic performance of the entity may change as of each
reassessment date. For example, if an entity appears to have significant activities
that are linear (i.e., in stages) such that each significant activity is contingent upon
the prior significant activity, the focus may be on the uncertainty of completing the
initial stage and each subsequent stage as well as which stage will most significantly
impacts the economic performance over the life of the entity based on assumptions
at the date of the assessment.
Example 5-4: An entity is formed by Company A and Company B for the
purpose of constructing a manufacturing facility. Company A and Company
B each own 50 percent of the equity ownership of the entity. The entity is
determined to be a VIE. Once construction is complete, the VIE will operate
the facility and sell the manufactured goods to third parties unrelated to
Company A and Company B. Company A is responsible for directing the
significant activities during the construction of the manufacturing facility, while
Company B will direct the significant activities related to manufacturing and
sales of the finished product after construction of the facility is complete. All
the appropriate approvals for the manufacturing site have been obtained (e.g.,
permits) and Company A has constructed similar facilities in the past.
The decisions made during both the construction phase and the subsequent
manufacturing and sales stage are determined to have a significant impact on
the economic performance of the entity. Neither Company A nor Company B
have any other variable interest in the VIE.
In this example, the variable interest holder that meets the power criterion
during the construction stage and after may be different. The VIE was
created with two separate and distinct phases, both of which will significantly
impact the economic performance of the entity. Company A and Company
B have entered into similar projects in the past with each party having the
responsibility for similar activities. In each case, the construction phase was
successfully completed in accordance with the business plan and approvals
have been obtained to construct the facility and Company B was able to
begin manufacturing and selling the finished product in accordance with the
entitys original business plan.
In this example, given Company As positive historical experience in
completing similar projects and the expectation that construction will be
successfully completed, Company B may be deemed to meet the power
criterion throughout the lifecycle of the entity (even during the construction
phase) since the activities over which it has power (manufacturing and sales)
are truly the drivers of the entitys economic performance.
If on the other hand, significant uncertainties existed (such as zoning and
design issues) with respect to the construction and/or Company A did not
In situations involving shift in power, determining which party meets the power
criterion will likely require significant judgment during the initial assessment of power
as well as during each subsequent reassessment. The basic model for determining
which entity meets the power criterion does not change in these situations. However,
if it is determined that the activities performed both before and after the contingent
event occurs are significant to the economic performance of the entity, which will
likely be the case in the context of a power shift, then the party who meets the power
criterion may change after the contingent event occurs.
Some examples of when power may shift from one party to another and thereby
change the determination of the primary beneficiary include:
The expiration of kick out rights or participating rights.
The trigger of a contingent event that causes kick-out rights or participating rights
to become exercisable.
Acquisition of interests or contractual arrangements which allow a party to now
exercise power over the entity.
Example 5-6: Company A and Company B purchase output from Company
X that owns and operates a power plant under a power purchase agreement
(PPA). Company X is determined to be a VIE and both Company A and
Company Bs PPAs are determined to be variable interests. The estimated
life of the power plant is 30 years. Company As PPA provides it with the
contractual right to operate the power plant for the first 15 years of the power
plants life, while Company Bs PPA provides it with the contractual right to
operate the power plant for the remaining 15 years. The power granted to
Company A and Company B through their PPAs is determined to provide
them with the power to direct the activities of Company X that will most
significantly impact the economic performance of Company X during the
effective periods of their contracts.
While both Company A and Company Bs variable interest provide them
with the power to direct the significant activities of Company X. However,
Company Bs power is contingent upon the passage of time and does not
become effective until Company As power ceases. In these situations it
may likely be determined that Company A meets the power criterion during
its contractual period, while Company B will meet the power criterion once
Company As contract has expired and Company A no longer has a variable
interest in Company X.
Example 5-7: A VIE is created for the purpose of purchasing fixed-rate
residential mortgage loans from a Transferor. The entity finances the purchase
of the mortgage loans by issuing three tranches of securities, a senior tranche
that is guaranteed by a financial guarantor (FG Company), a subordinate
tranche and a residual interest. The Transferor retains servicing responsibilities
over the mortgage loans. Upon a predefined event of default (which is
triggered based upon a significant amount of delinquencies of the underlying
assets), Transferor is automatically removed as the servicer of the entity and
FG Company assumes the role of servicer.
As servicer, the Transferor is responsible for servicing the non-performing
loans, which includes contacting defaulting borrowers, determining if
and when a borrower should be granted a loan modification, as well as
determining when to foreclose on the collateral underlying a delinquent
(including its related parties and de facto agents) that has the
unilateral ability to exercise kick-out rights or participating
rights may be the party with the power to direct the activities
of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the
entitys economic performance.
20:
where the general partner has the power to direct matters that significantly impact
the activities of the partnership, while the limited partners have substantive removal
(kick-out) rights. Under the VIE model, if the entity under consideration is a VIE,
the general partner would likely be deemed to meet the power criterion because
substantive kick-out rights are not held by one party and are effectively ignored
under the model. In contrast, if the entity is not a VIE and must be evaluated under
the voting interest model, the general partner would be precluded from consolidating
the partnership due to the existence of those substantive kick-out rights.
Evaluating Whether a Kick-out Right is Substantive
We believe that kick-out rights should only be considered under the guidance when
the kick out right is substantive. In making the evaluation of whether or not a kick out
right is substantive, we believe that a determination should be made as to whether
there are any barriers to exercise such rights. A careful consideration of the following
types of potential barriers to exercise should be made to ensure that there are no
barriers to exercise the kick out rights (note this is not meant to be an all inclusive
list).
ContractualConditions that make it unlikely that a kick-out right can be
exercised (e.g., conditions that narrowly limit the timeframe in which the right may
be exercised).
CommercialFinancial penalties or operational barriers that act as significant
disincentives for replacing the party.
CommercialAn inadequate number of qualified replacements for the party are
available or compensation is inadequate to pay a qualified replacement.
Procedural or InformationalThe absence in the applicable agreements (or in the
applicable laws or regulations) of an explicit, reasonable mechanism that allows
the holder to exercise those rights or to obtain the information necessary to
exercise them.
Consideration of Participating Rights
The guidance clarifies that protective rights should not be considered in assessing
whether a reporting entity has the power to direct activities that most significantly
impact a VIEs economic performance. Consistent with kick-out rights, only
substantive participating rights that can be unilaterally exercised by a single reporting
entity (including related parties and de facto agents) should be considered in
determining which reporting entity, if any, meets the power criterion. Participating
rights are defined as the ability to block the actions through which a reporting entity
exercises the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the
entitys economic performance.
Excluding the consideration of participating rights is inconsistent with the approach
taken for voting-interest entities under ASC 810-20-25-11 through 18. Consequently,
the evaluation of participating rights under the guidance and under the votinginterest model may lead to different consolidation results.
See VE 2.3 for the deferral of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17, for
certain investment entities that have the attributes of entities subject to ASC 946 (the
investment company guide).
FASB concluded that these considerations were critical because obligations or rights
that could potentially be significant often identify the reporting entity that explicitly
or implicitly has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the
economic performance of the VIE.
Significance
During the standard setting process, the FASB received requests for additional
guidance on the losses/benefit criterion, specifically in interpreting potentially
significant to the VIE. The FASB decided not to provide additional guidance based
on the rationale that any such guidance would provide bright lines that would be
used in practice as the sole factor when determining whether such obligations or
rights could potentially be significant to the VIE. The determination of whether the
losses/benefits of a VIE which are absorbed/received by a reporting entity could
potentially be significant to the VIE can vary and should be based on the individual
facts and circumstances presented. The VIE model contains examples that illustrate
the principles to be considered when determining the party that is the primary
beneficiary. These examples do not include explicit information on how a reporting
entity concludes whether or not it has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to
receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the VIE, but rather confirm that
all variable interests should be analyzed in determining if a reporting entity meets the
losses/benefits criterion.
Consistent with the FASBs determination, we expect that each analysis will be based
on individual facts and circumstances and will require judgment to be applied. There
are certain relationships that we expect will result in a reporting entity concluding that
it has the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits that could potentially
be significant to the VIE. For example, if an entity has a decision maker or service
provider contract which is considered a variable interest based on the criteria listed in
the VIE model (refer to VE 3.3.9 for further details), particularly if the decision maker
or servicer would absorb more than an insignificant amount of the entitys expected
losses or receive more than an insignificant amount of the entitys expected residual
returns, it is likely that the reporting entity has the obligation to absorb losses or right
to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
We believe that the following factors may assist in the determination of whether
potential losses or benefits could be potentially significant to the VIE:
Overall design of the VIE including the terms of the interests and capitalization
structure. For example, the primary risks or sources of variability of the VIE.
Whether the reporting entitys exposure to the entity losses or its benefits from
the entitys gains are economically capped. For example, in situations whereby
the reporting entitys rights to upside benefit is unlimited (e.g., through an equity
or residual interest in the entity) it is more likely to provide benefits compared to a
senior interest that is provided a fixed return and has no rights to earnings of the
entity above that fixed return.
Subordination of the variable interest. Variable interests that are more subordinate
in the entity would be expected to be exposed to potentially more significant
benefits and losses of the entity. In other words, the level of interest held as a
percentage of the class of interests that could potentially be significant to the VIE
decreases based on the interests standing in the waterfall.
The percentage of the class of interest held by the reporting entity.
Understanding the reasons as to why the interest is held by the reporting entity.
For example, if the reason is important to the overall design of the entity from
a marketing or other perspective, it may indicate that the reporting entity has
potentially significant benefits and losses.
Additionally, at the 2009 AICPA SEC Conference, Arie Wilgenburg of the SEC staff
stated:
So what is a significant financial interest? Well, Statement 167 describes such
an interest as one that either obligates the reporting enterprise to absorb losses
of the entity or provides a right to receive benefits from the entity that could
potentially be significant. That description leaves us with an important judgment
to make regarding what could potentially be significant. In the past few weeks,
the staff has been thinking about this concept. While there is no bright-line set
of criteria for making this assessment, I thought it would be helpful to provide
some thoughts in this area. First, similar to how we have talked in the recent past
about materiality assessments being based on the total mix of information, we
believe that assessing significance should also be based on both quantitative and
qualitative factors. While not all-inclusive, some of the qualitative factors that you
might consider when determining whether a reporting enterprise has a controlling
financial interest include:
The purpose and design of the entity. What risks was the entity designed to
create and pass on to its variable interest holders?
A second factor may be the terms and characteristics of your financial interest.
While the probability of certain events occurring would generally not factor into
an analysis of whether a financial interest could potentially be significant, the
terms and characteristics of the financial interest (including the level of seniority
of the interest), would be a factor to consider.
A third factor might be the enterprises business purpose for holding the
financial interest. For example, a trading-desk employee might purchase a
financial interest in a structure solely for short-term trading purposes well after
the date on which the enterprise first became involved with the structure. In
this instance, the decision making associated with managing the structure is
independent of the short-term investment decision. This seems different from
an example in which a sponsor transfers financial assets into a structure, sells
off various tranches, but retains a residual interest in the structure.
As previously mentioned this list of qualitative factors is neither all-inclusive nor
determinative and the analysis for a particular set of facts and circumstances still
requires reasonable judgment.
The same activities that most significantly impact the entitys economic
performance are performed by multiple related parties but no party has power
over a majority of the activities (but the related party group collectively has power
over the majority of the activities).
If no party within the related party group on its own meets both the power and
losses/benefits criteria, but the related party group does as a whole meets these
two criteria, the determination of primary beneficiary within the related party group
is based upon an analysis of the facts and circumstances with the objective of
determining which party is most closely associated with the VIE (i.e., the related party
tie-breaker must be performed).
Applying the Tie-Breaker
Determining the primary beneficiary under the tie-breaker requires significant
judgment. While the principle supporting the guidance is fundamental, (identifying the
party most closely associated with the VIE), its application requires care. Factors to
consider in making the assessment include:
the four key indicators described in the VIE model, and
the relative weighting of these indicators based on the individual facts and
circumstances of each transaction and structure.
The four key factors are explained in more detail below.
Principal/Agency Relationship
The first indicator for identifying the primary beneficiary from the related-party group
is the existence of an agency relationship among the parties. If one member of
the group was acting in the capacity of an agent of another member of the related
party group, this would be a strong indicator that the principal would be the primary
beneficiary. This type of relationship can take many forms, including de facto agency
relationships defined in the VIE model. Additionally, there may be situations beyond
those included in the VIE model in which an agency relationship may exist among
members of the related-party group.
When evaluating whether or not an agency relationship exists among members of
the related-party group, it may be helpful to analogize to other accounting guidance
relating to principal-agency relationships. ASC 470-50, DebtModifications and
Extinguishments, describes the appropriate accounting for modification of debt
instruments and lists several indicators that may be useful in determining when a
third-party intermediary is acting as an agent on behalf of a debtor. ASC 605-45,
Revenue RecognitionPrincipal Agent Considerations (ASC 605-45), describes the
appropriate revenue recognition in transactions depending on whether the reporting
entity is acting as an agent or a principal. The existence of any indicators listed
under Gross Revenue Reporting in ASC 605-45 may indicate that the reporting entity
is acting as a principal. The existence of any indicators listed under Net Revenue
Reporting in ASC 605-45 may indicate that the reporting entity is acting as an agent.
There may be situations in which two reporting entities are related parties under the
de facto agency provisions of the VIE model, but the identification of which party
is acting as the agent and which party is acting as the principal may not be clear.
For example, two reporting entities may share a common director. In situations
such as these, even though the reporting entities are related parties for purposes of
applying the VIE model, however, they may not be acting as agents of one another.
Accordingly, the reporting entity should place more weight on the other indicators.
Relationship and Significance of Activities
The second indicator for identifying the primary beneficiary in the related-party
group considers the relationship of the VIE to each of the members of the relatedparty group, as well as the significance of the VIEs activities to those members. The
member of the group that this indicator points toward will depend upon the point of
view of the reporting entity carrying out the evaluation. For example, two members
of a related party group may come to the opposite conclusion when evaluating this
indicator, as they may each have an inherent bias when evaluating their relationship
with the VIE.
The evaluation of the significance of the VIEs activities should be based on all the
relationships between the VIE and the various members of the related-party group.
This analysis should not merely focus on the size of the VIE in relation to the size of
the members of the related-party group. It should not be presumed that the activities
of the VIE are more significant to a smaller party than a larger one, merely because
one entity is smaller than the other. Rather, many factors should be considered, such
as:
whether one party is significantly dependent upon the VIE as a supply/distribution
source;
whether one party is the lessee of the sole asset of the entity;
whether the reporting entity funds research and development of the VIE that is
integral to a partys underlying operations;
the nature of the VIEs business activities and whether they are inherently aligned
with a related party;
the significance of VIE sales of product (or output) to a related party;
understanding the nature of service contracts, management contracts, or other
contracts entered into by the VIE with a related party and their importance to the
underlying business activities of the VIE;
whether any related party has a call option to acquire significant or major assets
from the VIE or another related partys variable interest; and
whether any related party has an option to put its variable interest to another
related party.
When evaluating this indicator, a reporting entity may also look to the indicators
provided in VE 2.
Variability Associated with Anticipated Economics
The third indicator for identifying the primary beneficiary from the related-party
group focuses on the economics of the arrangement. When analyzing this indicator,
consideration should be given to the member of the related party group, relative
to the others, that has the potential to receive additional benefits or absorb
additional losses of the VIE based on changes in the entitys anticipated economic
performance. Note that this analysis takes into account the members obligations
and rights throughout the lifecycle of the VIE and considers the extent to which the
members expected rights to receive benefits and obligation to absorb losses change
based on variation of the anticipated economic results of the VIE.
There may be situations in which one member of the group is exposed to such
a large portion of the variability associated with the VIEs anticipated economic
performance that it would be difficult not to conclude that the party is the primary
beneficiary. However, all qualitative factors, including principal/agency relationship
and the design of the entity should be considered. If the reporting entity that is
exposed to the variability of the VIEs anticipated economic performance is merely
acting as an agent of another reporting entity, the reporting entities must use
reasoned judgment in order to understand why such an arrangement exists and to
identify the appropriate primary beneficiary.
In determining how much weight to place on this indicator, we believe that the nature
of the related-party relationship should be considered. If, for example, the related
party relationship is that of a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the
contractual allocation of incremental benefits and losses generated because of
variability from the VIEs expected results is of little importance to the parties, and
therefore little weight should be placed on this indicator. However, if the relationship
is that of two independent companies investing in a joint venture where one of the
companies cannot sell or transfer its interest without the others prior approval, more
significant weight may be placed on this indicator. Varying degrees of weighting
should be applied between those two extremes.
Design of the VIE
The fourth indicator for identifying the primary beneficiary from the related-party
group focuses on the design of the VIE. When evaluating this indicator, reporting
entities should focus on the structure of the VIE in an attempt to identify the
appropriate primary beneficiary. There may be instances where it is clear that an
entity was designed or structured for the benefit of one member of the related-party
group. Examples of these types of relationships may include:
An entity established for the securitization of certain assets and the transferor of
those assets;
An entity established to own and lease a single-asset to the lessee of that asset;
and
An entity established to provide off-balance sheet financing and the beneficiary of
that financing.
Again, this indicator will be subject to the judgment of those evaluating the VIE and
the related-party group, and certain structures/transactions will be more obvious
than others.
PwC Interpretive Response: No. If one party in the related party group meets
both of the power and benefits/losses criteria, then that party is the primary
beneficiary. In this fact pattern, the power criterion should be carefully analyzed to
ensure any implied power due to one party receiving the majority of the economics
was appropriately considered in the determination of the primary beneficiary. To
the extent the power criterion is not clear and a reporting entity could potentially
conclude upon shared power between two parties within the related party group,
the related party tiebreaker should be performed. This analysis will require
significant judgment based upon individual facts and circumstances.
Question 5-2: Can a board of directors be viewed as one party when considering
whether one party has the unilateral ability to exercise substantive kick out rights?
PwC Interpretive Response: In virtually all cases, a board of directors will not
be considered as one party for determining if one party has the unilateral ability
to exercise a substantive kick-right under the VIE model. Generally, a board of
directors consists of directors who are elected by the shareholders of the entity
as a group. In essence, the board of directors is acting in a fiduciary capacity on
behalf of the shareholders of the entity and should not be viewed as being one
party in determination of whether a reporting entity meets the power criterion, or
in the assessment of whether an entity is a VIE (refer to VE 4). This view has been
discussed with both the FASB and SEC staff who agreed with this conclusion.
If, however, the board of directors is controlled by one controlling shareholder of
the entity, it may be acceptable to view the kick-out rights as being held by one
party if they are substantive. However, the facts and circumstances will need to be
carefully considered in those limited scenarios.
Question 5-3: Company A (reporting entity) enters into a purchase and sale
agreement with Company X (entity) under which Company A will buy from Company
X and Company X will sell to Company A land and building. Company Xs sole asset
is the land and building under the agreement. As part of the agreement, Company
A is required to pay a non-refundable deposit to Company X. Company A also has
the right to terminate the contract, subject to the loss of its deposit. Assuming that
Company A has a variable interest in Company X due to the purchase and sale
agreement (see Example 3-6 for details), and that Company X is a VIE (see Question
4-10 for details), will Company A be considered to be the PB of Company X due to
its non-refundable deposit to Company X?
PwC Interpretive Response: Maybe, depending on an assessment as to whether
Company A has a controlling financial interest in Company X through an evaluation
of both the power and losses/benefits criteria in ASC 810-10-25-38. For example,
in land purchase option agreements, the buyer may have the rights to decide on
amenity and zoning density issues, or for rental property agreements, the buyer
may have rights to control leasing decisions. To the extent the purchase and
sale agreement transfers the rights to the activities that most significantly impact
the economic performance of the VIE to the buyer, where the buyer also has a
substantive non-refundable deposit, it is likely that such buyer could meet both
the power and losses/benefit criteria and would be required to consolidate the VIE.
5.3 Examples
The VIE model provides examples to illustrate the amended approach for determining
the primary beneficiary. The following table summarizes these examples:
Case
Description of Structure
Primary Beneficiary
Determination
A. Commercial
mortgage-backed
securitization (ASC
810-10-55-96
through 55-109)
B. Asset-backed
collateralized
debt obligation
(ASC 810-1055-110 through
55-121)
C. Structured
investment vehicle
(ASC 810-1055-122 through
55-133)
(continued)
Case
Description of Structure
Primary Beneficiary
Determination
D. Commercial paper
conduit (ASC 81010-55-134 through
55-146)
E. Guaranteed
mortgage-backed
securitization
(ASC 810-1055-147 through
55-159)
F. Residential
mortgage-backed
securitization (ASC
810-10-55-160
through 55-171)
(continued)
Case
Description of Structure
Primary Beneficiary
Determination
G. Property lease
entity (ASC 81010-55-172 through
55-181)
H. Collaboration/
joint venture
arrangement
(ASC 810-1055-182 through
55-198)
I.
An entity is created to
manufacture and sell wooded
furniture and funded with equity
from a furniture manufacturer
and fixed-rate debt from a
financial investor. The furniture
manufacturer manages the day
to day activities of the entity and
has guaranteed the debt of the
financial investor.
Furniture
manufacturing
entity (ASC 81010-55-199 through
55-205)
Chapter 6:
Initial Consolidation and Subsequent Accounting
Executive Takeaway
Initial measurement upon consolidation is largely based on ASC 805, Business
Combinations (ASC 805), principles. However there are few differences when the
VIE and the primary beneficiary are under common control and when the VIE is not
a business.
Assets and liabilities transferred by the primary beneficiary to the VIE, at, after or
shortly before the consolidation date should be recorded at historical book value
with no gain or loss recognized.
Subsequent consolidation and deconsolidation procedures generally follow the
guidance in ASC 810, Consolidation (ASC 810).
VIE is a Business
When initially consolidating a VIE, the primary beneficiary should only recognize
goodwill if the VIE is a business. ASC 805 provides the definition of a business
(refer to section 1.2 of the PwC Guide: A Global Guide to Accounting for Business
Combinations and Noncontrolling Interests: Application of the U.S. GAAP and IFRS
Standards (BCG)). As specified in ASC 805, if the fair value of the consideration given
is greater than the sum of the fair values of the identifiable net assets acquired, the
result is goodwill. If the fair value of the consideration given is less than the sum of
the fair values of the identifiable net assets acquired, the difference is considered a
bargain purchase gain and is accounted for in accordance with ASC 805-30-25-2.
VIE is not a Business
If the VIE is not a business the primary beneficiary will recognize a gain or loss for
the difference between (1) the fair value of any consideration paid, the fair value
of any noncontrolling interests, and the reported amount of any previously held
interests and (2) the net amount of the variable interest entitys identifiable assets and
liabilities recognized and measured in accordance with ASC 805. No goodwill shall
be recognized if the variable interest entity is not a business.
6.1.2 Asset and Liability Transfers from the Primary Beneficiary to the VIE
When consolidating a VIE, assets and liabilities transferred from the primary
beneficiary to the VIE at, after, or shortly before the date the reporting entity became
the primary beneficiary must be accounted for as discussed below.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-30-3:
The primary beneficiary initially shall measure and recognize the
assets (except for goodwill) and liabilities of the VIE in accordance with
sections 805-20-25 and 805-20-30. However, the primary beneficiary
initially shall measure assets and liabilities that it has transferred to that
VIE at, after, or shortly before the date that the reporting entity became
the primary beneficiary at the same amounts at which the assets and
liabilities would have been measured if they had not been transferred.
No gain or loss shall be recognized because of such transfers.
The overriding principle is assets or liabilities transferred from a reporting entity to a
VIE should not be remeasured if the reporting entity is the primary beneficiary. These
transactions are viewed similar to transactions between entities under common
control.
The assets and liabilities transferred should be measured at the amounts at which the
assets and liabilities would have been measured if they had not been transferred. No
gain or loss shall be recognized because of the transfer, even if the reporting entity
was not the primary beneficiary until shortly after the transfer.
of the PwC Guide: A Global Guide to Accounting for Business Combinations and
Noncontrolling Interests: Application of the U.S. GAAP and IFRS Standards (BCG)).
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-30-1:
If the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity (VIE) and the
VIE are under common control, the primary beneficiary shall initially
measure the assets, liabilities, and noncontrolling interests of the VIE at
amounts at which they are carried in the accounts of the reporting entity
that controls the VIE (or would be carried if the reporting entity issued
financial statements prepared in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles).
This paragraph requires that there be no remeasurement of a VIEs assets and
liabilities if the primary beneficiary and VIE are under common control. For example,
assume Entity A and Reporting Entity B are under common control of Company
XYZ (i.e., Company XYZ owns the majority of the voting common stock of each of
these entities). Also assume that Reporting Entity B and Company XYZ each issue
separate financial statements. Entity A is determined to be a VIE, and Reporting
Entity B is identified as its primary beneficiary. Thus, following the guidance above,
the net assets of Entity A would be recorded by Reporting Entity B at the amounts at
which they are carried under GAAP in Company XYZs financial statements. The net
assets would not be remeasured and thus, there would be no goodwill or gain or loss
resulting from this transaction.
$100
60
$ 40
No dividends were paid by Reporting Entity P and Entity S during the year. Reporting
Entity Ps beginning retained earnings is zero.
Sales and expense information for Reporting Entity P and Entity S on a separate
company basis, before giving effect to intercompany eliminations and noncontrolling
interest income (expense), are as follows:
Reporting
Entity P
Entity S
$1,100
(660)
440
176
$ 264
$ 300
(200)
100
30
$ 70
Sales
Cost of sales
Selling and administrative
Net income
Consolidation Entries
$120
$120
$100
$100
$ 40
$ 40
To eliminate all intercompany profit in inventories at year end in accordance with the
guidance in the VIE model
Dr Capital stockEntity S
Dr Noncontrolling interest in income of Entity S
Cr Noncontrolling interest in Entity S
$ 80
$ 28
$108
$ 42
(40)
2
264
$266
As a result of the above entries, the following amounts result in the consolidated
financial statements:
Inventory
Noncontrolling interest
Consolidated retained earnings
$ 60
108
$266
Example 2
Assumptions
Reporting Entity P makes a loan to Entity S and is a variable interest holder in Entity
S. Reporting Entity P does not hold any voting interest in Entity S. The other variable
interest holder in Entity S is its equity holder. Entity S is determined to be a VIE and
Reporting Entity P is determined to be the primary beneficiary. During the year,
Reporting Entity P charges Entity S $40 in interest. The consolidating adjustments
and consolidated income statement of Reporting Entity P under the VIE model are as
follows:
Reporting
Entity P
Revenues
Cost of revenues
Operating income
Selling and administrative
Interest income
Interest expense
Net income
Net income attributable to
non-controlling interest
Net income attributable to
controlling interest
$1,060
(700)
360
(150)
40
$ 250
$ 250
Entity S (VIE)
Adjustments Consolidated
$ 500
(320)
180
(90)
(40)
$ 50
$ 50
(40)
40
$ 0
$1,560
(1020)
540
(240)
$ 300
$ 50
$(50)
$ 250
50
If the effects of the intercompany eliminations had instead been allocated to the noncontrolling interest in proportion to equity ownership under the voting interest model,
then the consolidating adjustments and consolidated income statement of Reporting
Entity P under the voting interest model are as follows:
Reporting
Entity P
Revenues
Cost of revenues
Operating income
Selling and administrative
Interest income
Interest expense
Net income
Net income attributable to
non-controlling interest
Net income attributable to
controlling interest
$1,060
(700)
360
(150)
40
$ 250
$ 250
Entity S
Adjustments Consolidated
$ 500
(320)
180
(90)
(40)
$ 50
$ 50
(40)
40
$ 0
$1,560
(1020)
540
(240)
$ 300
$ 90
$(90)
$ 210
90
Thus, under the voting interest model, $90 of net income is attributed to the noncontrolling interest and $210 to Reporting Entity P. However, because Entity S is
consolidated pursuant to the VIE model, Reporting Entity Ps net income remains
unchanged as the effect of the interest income eliminated in consolidation has been
attributed entirely to the primary beneficiary (see below):
Under Voting
Interest Model
$250
$250
40
$210
0
$250
6.2.3 Deconsolidation
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-40-4:
A parent shall deconsolidate a subsidiary or derecognize a group of
assets specified in the preceding paragraph as of the date the parent
ceases to have a controlling financial interest in that subsidiary or group
of assets. See paragraph 810-10-55-4A for related implementation
guidance.
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-55-4A:
All of the following are circumstances that result in deconsolidation of a
subsidiary under paragraph 810-10-40-4:
a. A parent sells all or part of its ownership interest in its subsidiary,
and as a result, the parent no longer has a controlling financial
interest in the subsidiary.
b. The expiration of a contractual agreement that gave control of the
subsidiary to the parent.
c. The subsidiary issues shares, which reduces the parents
ownership interest in the subsidiary so that the parent no longer
has a controlling financial interest in the subsidiary.
d. The subsidiary becomes subject to the control of a government,
court, administrator, or regulator.
Refer to BCG 6.6 for more guidance with respect to deconsolidation.
Question 6-6: If the equity holders of a VIE are also employees of the primary
beneficiary, how should the VIEs distributions to those equity holders be reflected in
the consolidated financial statements?
PwC Interpretive Response: Depending on the facts and circumstances,
such distributions could be considered as being compensatory (therefore
requiring expense recognition) or, could be considered no different than what an
independent investor would receive. The following factors are indicative of the
distributions being similar to those that an independent investor would receive:
Real value for value cash payment (i.e., the relationship between invested
capital and distributions should be considered).
There is no linkage between the distributions to be made and the employment
of the common shareholders of the VIE.
Distributions are pari pasu with each investors ownership interest.
Distributions are made to all residual equity holders of the entity.
There are no agreements between the primary beneficiary and the residual
equity holders that expressly guarantee distribution to the investors.
The noncontrolling interests qualify for equity classification under applicable
GAAP.
Question 6-7: How does a primary beneficiary of a VIE record the acquisition of the
variable interests held by the entitys noncontrolling interest holders?
Consider the following fact pattern:
Parent became the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity (Entity A) on
October 1, 2010. Parent initially consolidated Entity A by recognizing the fair value of
the assets, liabilities and noncontrolling interests as of the date it became the primary
beneficiary in accordance with ASC 810-10-30-2 through 30-6. The noncontrolling
interest was legal form equity in the form of common stock and represented Entity
As residual interest (i.e., it was not preferred stock or a liability).
On March 2, 2011, Parent acquires all of the outstanding common shares of Entity A
held by the noncontrolling shareholders and becomes the 100 percent owner of the
common stock of Entity A.
PwC Interpretive Response: The acquisition of the noncontrolling interest
should be accounted for pursuant to existing GAAP, which in this case should be
reflected as an equity transaction as a result of the acquisition of the outstanding
noncontrolling interest in accordance with ASC 810-10-45-23 as there was no
change in control.
Chapter 7:
Presentation and Disclosure Requirements
Executive Takeaway
The VIE model expands the scope of required disclosures to all reporting entities.
Although the FASB deferred the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 for
certain investment entities as described in VE 2.3, all public and nonpublic
companies need to provide the disclosures required by the VIE model for all
variable interests in VIEs, including VIEs that qualify for the deferral.
A reporting entity that holds a variable interest in a VIE may be required to provide
certain disclosures even if it is not the primary beneficiary of the VIE.
A reporting entity may provide disclosures in more than one footnote in the
financial statements in which case cross-referencing between the applicable notes
is required.
The SEC Staff has indicated that in cases other than the initial adoption, the
consolidation or deconsolidation of a VIE generally would trigger the need to
consider the Form 8-K reporting requirements.
VE 7.1.3 contains a summarized table of disclosure requirements.
7.1 Disclosure
The VIE model requires that both the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity
(VIE) and a reporting entity with a variable interest in a VIE (even if the reporting
entity is not the primary beneficiary), disclose key information on the reporting
entitys involvement with a variable interest entity. This is in addition to the disclosure
requirements that may be required by other accounting topics (e.g., purchase price
allocation for a newly acquired entity). Accordingly, it is important that companies
develop, monitor and maintain systems, processes and internal controls to ensure
compliance with these requirements in a timely and complete manner. VE 7.1.3
contains a summary chart of the disclosures required for reporting entities.
The FASBs inclusion of disclosure objectives emphasize the need for companies
not to assume that the specific disclosure requirements represent the minimum
requirements, but rather to ensure judgment is applied in determining what is
necessary to provide financial statement users with decision-useful information.
Different users prefer different levels of information. Although certain users may
naturally prefer the most disaggregated level of information available, others may
find that same level of information unwieldy and excessive. In deciding whether to
disclose disaggregated or aggregated information, companies should use judgment
to determine the information that will be most useful to financial statement users and
accomplish the objectives of the disclosure principles.
Required Disclosure
Methodology for determining the primary beneficiary, including
significant judgments and assumptions
If the conclusion to consolidate a VIE has changed in a period, the
primary factors that caused the change and effect on the financial
statements
Whether the reporting entity has provided financial or other
support (explicitly or implicitly) to the VIE that it was not previously
contractually obligated to provide or whether the reporting entity
intends to provide support, including the type and amount of support
and the primary reasons for providing the support
Qualitative and quantitative information about the involvement with
the VIE (considering explicit and implicit variable interests)
Carrying amounts and classification of the consolidated VIEs assets
and liabilities, including qualitative information about the relationship
between those assets and associated liabilities (e.g., nature of
restrictions on those assets)
Lack of recourse if creditors or beneficial interest holders of a
consolidated VIE have no recourse to general credit of the primary
beneficiary
Terms of arrangements that could require primary beneficiary to
provide financial support to the VIE
Amount of gain or loss on initial consolidation of the VIE if the
primary beneficiary of a VIE is not a business. The primary
beneficiary of a VIE that is a business should provide the disclosures
required by ASC 805, Business Combinations (ASC 805)
(continued)
Entity Status
Reporting entities
with variable
interests in a
variable interest
entity but is not the
primary beneficiary
Required Disclosure
Methodology for determining the primary beneficiary including
significant judgments and assumptions
If conclusion to consolidate a VIE has changed in a period, the
primary factors that caused the change and effect on the financial
statements
Whether the entity has provided financial or other support (explicitly
or implicitly) to the VIE that it was not previously contractually
obligated to provide or whether the reporting entity intends
to provide support, including the type and amount of support
qualitative and quantitative information about the involvement with
the VIE (considering explicit and implicit variable interests)
Qualitative and quantitative information about the reporting entitys
involvement (giving consideration to both explicit arrangements and
implicit variable interests) with the VIE, including, but not limited to,
the nature, purpose, size, and activities of the VIE, including how
the VIE is financed
Carrying amount and classification of the assets and liabilities in
the entitys balance sheet that relate to the entitys variable interest
in the VIE
The reporting entitys maximum exposure to loss as a result of its
involvement with the entity, including how the maximum exposure
is determined and the significant sources of the reporting entitys
exposure to the VIE. If the maximum exposure to loss cannot be
quantified, that fact must be disclosed
A tabular comparison of the carrying amounts of the assets and
liabilities with the maximum exposure to loss and qualitative
and quantitative information on the reasons for the differences
(considering explicit and implicit variable interests)
Information about liquidity arrangements, guarantees or other third
party commitments that may affect the fair value or risk of the
reporting entitys variable interest in the VIE
If power is determined to be shared, the significant factors
considered and judgments made
The maximum loss represents the maximum exposure that would be absorbed by the
reporting entity in the event that all of the assets of the VIE are deemed worthless.
The amount disclosed would include any additional costs that the reporting entity
would incur. Two common examples might be:
A holder of an equity method investment would be exposed to the carrying value
of the equity method investment, assuming no future capital funding requirements.
A guarantor of debt would be exposed to the full principal (and interest, if
guaranteed) amount of the debt that is guaranteed.
Companies should carefully assess whether their disclosures provide sufficient
qualitative and quantitative data regarding the methodology, inputs, assumptions,
values, involvement, and restrictions associated with their involvement with a variable
interest entity.
The VIE model also requires the disclosures about a reporting entitys involvement
with a VIE depending on a reporting entitys assessment of the transaction or its
involvement. For example, a reporting entity that provides a guarantee to a VIE and
a reporting entity that provides a guarantee to a voting-interest entity will not be
subject to the same disclosure requirements.
A reporting entity may provide disclosures in more than one footnote in the financial
statements as long as the disclosure objectives are met. If the disclosures are
provided in more than one footnote in the financial statements, cross-referencing
between the applicable notes is required.
An exception to specific disclosures required to be made is available under the
following circumstance:
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-50-5B:
A VIE may issue voting equity interests, and the entity that holds a
majority voting interest also may be the primary beneficiary of the VIE.
If so, and if the VIE meets the definition of a business and the VIEs
assets can be used for purposes other than the settlement of the VIEs
obligations, the disclosures in the preceding are not required.
7.2 Presentation
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-45-25:
A reporting entity shall present each of the following separately on the
face of the statement of financial position:
a. Assets of a consolidated variable interest entity (VIE) that can be
used only to settle obligations of the consolidated VIE
b. Liabilities of a consolidated VIE for which creditors (or beneficial
interest holders) do not have recourse to the general credit of the
primary beneficiary.
The information described above is required to be presented on a gross basis, i.e.,
a VIEs liabilities would not be netted against its assets and the VIEs assets or its
liabilities combined into a single line item respectively unless permitted by other
GAAP.
By way of background, in its initial deliberations, the FASB considered a linked
presentation model in which certain assets would be classified separately on a
reporting entitys balance sheet. Any liabilities that are funded solely from the cash
flows from those assets would be reflected as a deduction from the related asset
with a subtotal for a net amount. However, the FASB rejected this approach because
extending the scope of linked presentation to a much broader population of assets
and liabilities, including those that are nonfinancial, would be a significant change
that would be more appropriate to develop as part of the joint project with the IASB
on derecognition and financial statement presentation. Moreover, significant issues
about linked presentation would need to be addressed that could not be completed
in the short term.
The FASB also considered, but rejected, a single-line-item display of assets and
liabilities that meet the separate presentation criteria.
In order to avoid potential inconsistency and comparability issues in a reporting
entitys consolidated financial statements, the FASB decided to require separate
presentation of elements of consolidated variable interest entities as described in
the excerpt above. While some could interpret this requirement to mean that each
consolidated VIEs assets and liabilities that qualify for disclosure must be separately
presented, we understand this requirement to mean that the same or similar assets
of all consolidated VIEs that meet this separate presentation criterion could be
presented in the aggregate on the relevant balance sheet line item. The same applies
to liabilities of consolidated VIEs that meet this separate presentation criterion,
however, qualifying assets and liabilities should not be netted.
Because the criteria for assets and liabilities differ, it is possible that only the assets
or only the liabilities of a particular VIE would need to be separately presented, but
not both. For example, the primary beneficiary of a securitization structure or a real
estate entity may need to separately present the assets of the VIE because they can
be used only to settle the beneficial interests or obligations respectively. However, if
the liabilities of the VIE were guaranteed by the primary beneficiary, they would not
need to be separately presented because the beneficial interest holders or lenders
have recourse to the primary beneficiary. In this case, companies may elect to
separately present the liabilities, but would not be required to do so.
7.4 Item 2.01 Form 8-K and Rule 3-05 Reporting Requirements
At the 2003 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments, several
topics were discussed in relation to the interaction between the VIE model and the
Form 8-K requirements. The SEC Staff addressed potential reporting requirements
under Item 2.01 of Form 8-K and under Regulation S-X Rule 3-05 that could be
triggered by the VIE model. Registrants are generally required to file an Item 2.01 of
Form 8-K if they (or a majority-owned subsidiary) acquire or dispose of a significant
amount of assets in circumstances other than in the ordinary course of business
(refer to VE 8.1.7 for a discussion of the disclosure requirements at transition). For
purposes of reporting under Item 2.01 of Form 8-K, an acquisition includes every
purchase, acquisition by lease, exchange, merger, consolidation, succession or other
acquisition.
At the 2003 Conference, the SEC Staff indicated that it was still contemplating how
these reporting requirements relate to VIEs. A final model was never published.
Nevertheless, at the 2003 Conference, the SEC Staff indicated that in cases other
than the initial adoption of the VIE model, the consolidation or deconsolidation
of a VIE generally would trigger the need to consider the Form 8-K reporting
requirements. The SEC Staff listed several factors that should be considered to
determine if it would be necessary to file a Form 8-K:
The form of the reporting entitys variable interest in the entity (for example, an
asset, obligation, or executory contract).
Whether the event occurred in the ordinary course of business.
The significance thresholds within Form 8-K.
Whether the VIE is a business (as defined under Rule 11-01(d) of Regulation S-X).
With respect to acquisitions, if the VIE is a business and is significant, audited
financial statements and pro forma financial statements will be required under Item
9.01 of Form 8-K and under Rule 3-05. If the disposition of a VIE, that is a business
is significant, pro forma financial statements reflecting the disposition would be
required. The Center of Audit Quality (CAQ) SEC Regulations Committee discussed
this topic with the SEC staff. In that discussion, the SEC staff indicated that in cases
other than the initial adoption of the variable interest entity consolidation accounting
standard, the consolidation or deconsolidation of a VIE would trigger the need to
consider Item 2.01 Form 8-K reporting requirements. The reporting thresholds and
requirements vary based on whether the variable interest entity is a business (as
defined under S-X 11-01(d)) and the significance thresholds under S-X 1-02(w). If the
VIE is a business and significant above the 20 percent level, the SEC staff believes
that the Item 2.01 Form 8-K must include S-X Rule 3-05 financial statements under
Item 9.01 of Form 8-K, as well as pro forma financial information under S-X Article
11. If the VIE is not a business, the consolidation should be regarded as an asset
acquisition and reported under Item 2.01 of Form 8-K if it exceeds the applicable
10 percent significance test and the need for pro forma information under Item 9.01
should also be considered.
A registrant must also consider whether it has a Form 8-K reporting obligation if a
reconsideration event results in deconsolidation of a VIE.
Finally, the SEC staff has not indicated how the timing of these reporting
requirements relates to the consolidation of a variable interest entity. The SEC staff
has yet to clarify the filing and timing requirements of the Form 8-K, whether it must
be filed within four business days of the reconsideration event, and the implications
to a registrants eligibility to use Form S-3.
Chapter 8:
Transition upon Adoption and Effective Date
Executive Takeaway
The revised VIE model (as amended by ASU 2009-17) is effective as of the
beginning of a reporting entitys first fiscal year beginning after November
15, 2009, and for interim periods within that first period. Earlier adoption was
prohibited.
There was no grandfatheringthe VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 must
be applied to all entities including those that previously met the requirements to be
Qualified Special Purpose Entities (QSPEs). See VE 2.3 for the deferral of the VIE
model (as amended by ASU 2009-17) for certain investment entities.
In transition, the initial measurement of the assets, liabilities and non-controlling
interests of a newly consolidated VIE is based on the amounts that would have
been carried in the consolidated financial statements when the reporting entity first
became the primary beneficiary as if the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17
had been effective all along. If it is not practicable to determine these amounts,
then such amounts can be based on fair value at adoption date (or the unpaid
principal balances for securitizations or other forms of asset-backed financings).
A reporting entity which availed itself of the information-out scope exception but
must now consolidate because the scope exception is no longer available (i.e., the
information is now available) may follow the VIE model as amended by ASU 200917 transition guidance and not restate.
To the extent that an entity qualified for the deferral in ASU 2010-10 but no longer
qualifies, the guidance in this chapter would apply.
8.1 Transition upon Adoption of the VIE Model as Amended by ASU 2009-17
This chapter discusses key points that should be considered upon the adoption of
the VIE model including:
Initial ApplicationTransition Guidance
Fair Value and Unpaid Principal Balance Practicability Exception
Deconsolidation
Fair Value Option
Information-out Scope Exception
Treatment of Pre-existing Hedge Relationships upon Transition
Transitional Disclosure Requirements
SEC Considerations
See VE 2.3 for the deferral of VIE Model as amended by ASU 2009-17 for certain
investment entities.
Company XYZ would consolidate Entity V on August 1, 2009, and roll forward
its accounting elements as if Entity V had been consolidated since August
1, 2009. Note that if Company XYZ had VIE reconsideration events prior to
April 15, 2009, Company XYZ would need to go back to all such prior VIE
reconsideration event dates to determine the periods when Company XYZ
was the primary beneficiary when Entity V was a VIE under the VIE model as
amended by ASU 2009-17.
8.1.3 Deconsolidation
Excerpt from ASC 810-10-65-2(e):
If a reporting entity is required to deconsolidate a VIE as a result of the
initial application of the pending content in the Variable Interest Entities
Subsections, the deconsolidating reporting entity shall initially measure
any retained interest in the deconsolidated subsidiary at its carrying
amount at the date the requirements of the pending content in the
Variable Interest Entities Subsections first apply. In this context, carrying
amount refers to the amount at which any retained interest would have
been carried in the reporting entitys financial statements if the pending
content in the Variable Interest Entities Subsection had been effective
when the reporting entity became involved with the VIE or no longer met
the conditions to be the primary beneficiary. Any difference between
the net amount removed from the balance sheet of the deconsolidating
reporting entity and the amount of any retained interest in the
newly deconsolidated VIE shall be recognized as a cumulative effect
adjustment to retained earnings. The amount of any cumulative effect
adjustment related to deconsolidation shall be disclosed separately from
any cumulative effect adjustment related to consolidation of VIEs.
Certain VIEs may need to be deconsolidated due to the application of the VIE model
as amended by ASU 2009-17. If a reporting entity is required to deconsolidate a VIE,
the deconsolidating reporting entity shall initially measure any retained interest in the
deconsolidated subsidiary at its carrying amount as of the date the VIE model as
amended by ASU 2009-17 first applies (either the date of adoption or the beginning
of the first period presented, depending on which transition method is selected).
Any differences between the net amount removed from the balance sheet with
respect to the deconsolidated entity and the amount of any retained interest in the
newly deconsolidated entity will be recognized as a cumulative effect adjustment
to the opening balance of retained earnings. The amount of any cumulative effect
adjustment related to deconsolidation should be disclosed separately from any
cumulative effect adjustment related to consolidation of entities.
Note that the date of the deconsolidation will make a difference in the transition
accounting. If a reporting entity concludes that it was not the primary beneficiary
under the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 since inception, then it is as
if the reporting entity would not have ever consolidated the VIE. Therefore, when
considering the accounting at inception, there is no deconsolidation transaction
rather it should be accounted for as an investment. However, if under the VIE
model as amended by ASU 2009-17, the reporting entity is the primary beneficiary
at inception and then ceases to be the primary beneficiary at a later date, than a
deconsolidation transaction has occurred. In this case, the VIE will be consolidated
for a period of time under the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 and then be
deconsolidated at a later date based on the deconsolidation guidance in effect at the
time of the deconsolidation.
Example 8-2: At inception on January 15, 2008, Company A and B invested
$100 million each for a 50 percent common stock ownership interest in a
new entity VIE. Company A was the primary beneficiary under the prior
VIE model because it guaranteed the VIEs external bank debt and therefore
consolidated the VIE. Company A adopted the VIE model as amended by
ASU 2009-17 effective January 1, 2010.
As a result of adoption of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17,
Company A concludes that, at both at inception of the VIE and on an ongoing
basis, Company B has the power to direct activities that significantly impact the
economic performance of the VIE. Therefore, under the amended VIE model,
Company B and not Company A is the primary beneficiary both at inception
and through the period up until adoption of the VIE model as amended by
ASU 2009-17. In applying ASC 323, Company A will record a $105 million
equity method investment at January 15, 2008, representing both the cash it
contributed ($100 million) and the fair value of its guarantee of VIEs debt ($5
million). This equity method investment will then be rolled forward to December
31, 2009, considering its proportionate share of equity earnings, any change
in interest transactions, as well as amortization or accretion of any basis
differences. Additionally, the guarantee liability would also be rolled forward.
The equity method investment rolled forward balance coupled with the liability
recognized for the guarantee of debt will then be compared to the net assets
of the VIE to be deconsolidated at adoption date to determine the cumulative
effect upon adoption of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17.
Example 8-3: At inception on January 15, 2008, Company A and B invested
$100 million each for a 50 percent common stock ownership interest in a
VIE. Company A has the power to appoint and remove a majority of the
VIEs board of directors. On January 15, 2009, Company B entered into a
While the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 does not generally provide
accounting guidance for subsequent measurement of consolidated elements, a
reporting entity that is required to consolidate an entity as a result of the initial
application of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 may elect the fair value
option under the Fair Value Option Subsections of ASC 825. However, at the
transition date a reporting entity must elect the fair value option on an entity by entity
basis and apply the fair value option to all elements of the entity eligible under the
Fair Value Option Subsections of ASC 825. This is different from the provisions of the
Fair Value Option Subsections of ASC 825 that allow for an instrument-by-instrument
election. Note that this discussion applies only to the initial adoption of the VIE model
as amended by ASU 2009-17 and not to its subsequent application. A reporting
entity that elects the fair value option will need to provide the disclosures under the
Fair Value Option Subsections of ASC 825 and also describe its rationale for electing
the fair value option for certain entities.
retrospectively applies the VIE model only to fiscal year 2009, it should apply the
VIE model beginning in 2009 in the table of selected financial data. If the registrant
elects to retrospectively apply the VIE model to fiscal years 2009 and 2008, the SEC
staff indicated that the registrant may decide whether it will also apply the VIE model
to fiscal years 2006 and 2007 within the selected financial data table. In all cases,
the SEC staff expects a registrant to disclose to which periods it has retrospectively
applied the VIE model and, if necessary, the fact that certain periods are not
comparable to the periods for which the audited financial statements are provided.
Pro Forma Requirements
The SEC staff indicated that the initial adoption of the VIE model as amended
by ASU 2009-17 would not trigger either an Article 11 or an Item 2.01 Form 8-K
reporting requirement.
Rule 3-05, Rule 3-14 and Form 8-K Considerations
The SEC staff stated that consolidation upon the initial adoption of the VIE model as
amended by ASU 2009-17 would not trigger a Rule 3-05, Item 9.01(a) or Rule 3-14
reporting requirement.
Question 8-2: If a reporting entity held a variable interest in a VIE that was not
consolidated and such variable interest was sold prior to the adoption of the
VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17, does that VIE need to be revaluated at
adoption of the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17?
PwC Interpretive Response: It depends on the transition method elected by
the reporting entity. If the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 is applied as
of the date of adoption with a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings
recognized on that date (January 1, 2010, for a calendar year-end company), then
the reporting entity does not need to re-evaluate the entity under the VIE model as
amended by ASU 2009-17 at the adoption date.
If the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17 is retrospectively applied with
a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the
earliest year presented, then the reporting entity will need to re-evaluate the
entity under the VIE model as amended by ASU 2009-17. If the entity is a VIE and
the reporting entity is the primary beneficiary for any of the periods presented,
then the reporting entity will have to reflect the consolidation of the VIE for those
periods up until its sale.
Question 8-3: If a reporting entity elects the unpaid principal balance transition
method, would it be required to continue to record the consolidation of securitized
structures on a go-forward basis using unpaid principal balance?
PwC Interpretive Response: No, the unpaid principal balance practicability
exception applies only to day one accounting on the date of adoption of the VIE
model as amended by ASU 2009-17. An allowance for credit losses, accrued
interest, or other-than-temporary impairment may also need to be recorded on
the date of adoption. In periods after the adoption date, such assets and liabilities
should be accounted for in accordance with other GAAP, as appropriate. The
same holds true where the fair value practicability exception is applied, though
in contrast to the unpaid principal balance option, electing the fair value option
would require those assets and liabilities to continue to be measured at fair value
in subsequent periods with changes in fair value recognized in earnings.
Appendix A:
FASB Examples of Applying the By Design Model
VARIABLE INTERESTS
6-8 Year
Investments
3-Year
Debt
$100
$96
Fixed Rate
VIE
Fixed Rate
$4
Residual Return
Equity
Investors
b. Interest rate risk associated with interim changes in the fair value
of the fixed-rate periodic interest payments received on the fixedrate investment portfolio
c. Interest rate risk associated with changes in cash received upon
the sale of fixed-rate investments prior to maturity.
55-61: The following factors should be considered in the determination
of the purpose(s) for which the VIE was created and in the determination
of the variability the VIE is designed to create and pass along to its
interest holders:
a. The VIE was marketed to debt investors as a VIE that will be
exposed to credit risk and changes in the fair value of the
investments over the three-year life of the VIE due to changes
in intermediate-term interest rates, with the equity tranche
negotiated to absorb the first dollar risk of loss. It has been
determined that substantive subordination is present with respect
to these risks.
b. VIE was not designed to create and pass along to its interest
holders interest rate risk associated with interim changes in fair
value of the periodic fixed-rate interest payments received on
the investments, based on the nature and terms of the debt and
equity interests issued by the VIE.
Based on this analysis, it can be determined that the VIE was designed
to create and pass along risks in (a) and (c) in the preceding paragraph to
the debt and equity investors, who are the VIEs variable interest holders.
Case B: Financial VIE Primarily Financed by Fixed-Rate Debt, Holding
Investments in Longer-Term Fixed- and Variable-Rate Debt (with a
Fixed-Rate Swap)
55-62: A VIE is created and financed with $96 of 3-year fixed-rate debt
and $4 of equity from investors. The VIE uses the proceeds to purchase
$40 of B- and BB-rated fixed-rate securities with contractual maturities
ranging from 6 to 8 years and $60 of B- and BB-rated floating-rate
securities with contractual maturities ranging from 6 to 8 years (average
maturity of 7 years). In addition, the VIE enters into a $60 notional 7-year
pay floating and receive fixed interest rate swap with a bank. The swap
economically converts the $60 of floating-rate investments to fixed-rate
investments of the same average maturity. At the end of three years,
all the investments will be sold, and the swap settled in cash, with
the net proceeds used, first, to pay the fixed-rate debt holders and,
second, to pay the equity holders to the extent proceeds remain. Net
amounts payable to the swap counterparty periodically and at the end
of three years (if required) take priority over payments made to the debt
and equity investors. The transaction was marketed to potential debt
investors as an investment in a portfolio of below-investment-grade
fixed-rate and floating-rate investments (with the floating rate swapped
for fixed) with a longer weighted-average maturity (including the effect of
(continued)
the swap) than the liabilities and credit support from the equity tranche.
The equity tranche was negotiated to absorb the first dollar risk of
loss related to credit risk and interest rate risk, and to receive any
residual benefit from a favorable change in interest rates or credit risk
that affects the proceeds received on the sale of the investments in
the portfolio (including settlement of the swap prior to its contractual
maturity). The following diagram illustrates this situation.
CREATORS OF VARIABILITY
6-8 Year
Investments
VARIABLE INTERESTS
Fixed Rate
3-Year
Debt
$96
$40
Fixed Rate
VIE
$4
$80
6-8 Year
Investments
Residual
Return
Floating
Rate
Entity Receives
Fixed Rate
See Evaluation
Equity
Investors
Entity Pays
Floating Rate
$60 Notational
7-Year Swap
VARIABLE INTERESTS
5-Year
Debt
$100
$96
Fixed Rate
Fixed Rate
VIE
Residual Return
$4
Equity
Investors
USD Principal
JPY Principal
and Fixed
and Fixed
Interest
Interest
$100, 5-Year
Currency
See Evaluation
Swap
(continued)
VARIABLE INTERESTS
3-Year
Investments
3-Year
Debt
$100
$90
Fixed Rate
VIE
Floating Rate
$10
Residual Return
Equity
Investors
(continued)
points and mature in 5 years. The proceeds from the issuance of the
credit-linked notes are invested in floating-rate AAA-rated investments.
The terms of the credit default swap require Bank A to pay quarterly a
swap premium of 100 basis points to the VIE. If a credit event occurs,
as defined in the agreement, the VIE pays Bank A the notional amount
of $100, and receives from Bank A the bonds issued by ABC Entity. The
VIE then settles its five-year notes by delivering to the note holder the
defaulted ABC Entity bonds or by selling the bonds and delivering cash.
55-72. The coupon on the floating-rate AAA-rated investments, plus
the premium received on the credit default swap, will fund the coupon
payment on the credit-linked notes. The VIE was marketed to potential
investors as a floating-rate investment with an enhanced yield due to
the assumption of credit risk of the referenced entity (in this case, ABC
Entity). The following diagram illustrates this situation.
CREATORS OF VARIABILITY
U.S.
Treasuries
VARIABLE INTERESTS
$100
$100
VIE
LIBOR + 90 bp
Floating Rate
5-Year
Notes
100 bp
Quarterly
Premium
See Evaluation
(Paragraphs 810-10-55-73
through 55-74)
Credit Default
Swap
Reference
Securities
$100 of ABC
Company
Bonds
VARIABLE INTERESTS
10-Year
Debt
(Strategic
Investor)
Fixed Rate
Other
Operating
Assets
$3 million
VIE
Residual Return
$100
Equity
(Furniture
Manufacturer)
Inventory
Debt
Guarantee
(Furniture
Manufacturer
See Evaluation
VARIABLE INTERESTS
5-Year
Debt
$950
Fixed Rate
Property
5-Year
Lease
Fixed Price
Purchase
Options
$1,000
VIE
Residual Return
$50
Fixed Lease
Payments
Residual
Value
Guarantee
Lessee
Equity
Residual
Value
Guarantee
Third-Party
Guarantor
See Evaluation
See Evaluation
(continued)
Based on this analysis, it can be determined that the VIE was designed
to create and pass along risk (a) in the preceding paragraph to the
third-party guarantor and the lessee (with respect to the residual
value guarantee and fixed price purchase option) and risk in (b) in the
preceding paragraph to the note and equity holders, all of whom are the
VIEs variable interest holders.
Case H: VIE Holding Both a Fixed-Price Forward Contract to Buy and a
Fixed-Price Forward Contract to Sell Electricity
55-81. A financially distressed electricity producer wishes to monetize
some of its in-the-money forward positions. One such contract is a
physically settled forward contract to sell electricity to Party A at a fixed
price one year in the future. A VIE is created and financed with $100 of
1-year fixed-rate debt from investors for the purpose of monetizing the
value of the forward contract to sell for the electricity producer. The
VIE uses the proceeds from issuance to purchase the physically settled
forward contract to sell (from the VIEs perspective) electricity to Party
A at a fixed price one year in the future. This contract is in-the-money
by $100. After the electricity producer has received its $100, it has no
further involvement with the VIE. The VIE enters into a separate atmarket forward contract to buy (from the VIEs perspective) electricity at
a lower fixed price from Party B on the same future date. Both forward
contracts will be physically settled, and all other critical terms (except
the fixed settlement price) of the two forward contracts are the same.
Both forward contracts have rights senior to those of the investors and
are derivatives whose underlying is a market observable price. The VIE
is not actively managed. The debt was marketed to the investors as a
fixed-rate one-year investment with an enhanced yield due to risk of
possible default by either Party A or Party B with respect to their forward
contracts with the VIE. The following diagram illustrates this situation.
CREATORS OF VARIABILITY
VARIABLE INTERESTS
$100
VIE
1-Year
Debt
Fixed Rate
Fixed Sales
Price
Electricity
Fixed
Purchase
Price
See Evaluation
Party B
See Evaluation
Party A
(continued)
Appendix B:
Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under
ASC 810
Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810 / B - 1
Step 1B: Does the reporting entity have a variable interest in the entity? (VE 2.2)
Yes Proceed to Step 1C.
No Apply other appropriate GAAP.
B - 2 / Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810
See Step 5:
Determine if a
reconsideration
event has occurred
which could change
the status of a VIE
(VE 4.3) (see details
below); also,
consider disclosure
requirements. (VE 7)
Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810 / B - 3
STEP 3: Determine which reporting entity is the primary beneficiary (i.e., which
reporting entity should consolidate the VIE).
Step 3A: Identify all other reporting entities that hold variable interests in the VIE.
(VE 1 and VE 5.1)
Step 3A1: Identify activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIEs
economic performance. (VE 5.1)
Step 3B: Identify all variable interests that are held by related parties and
de facto agents. (VE 1 and VE 5.1)
Reassess the
primary
beneficiary
determination
on an ongoing
basis (VE 5);
also, consider
disclosure
requirements.
(VE 7)
B - 4 / Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810
Step 4B: Perform accounting after the initial measurement. (VE 6.2)
Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810 / B - 5
STEP 5: Determine if a reconsideration event has occurred which could change the
status of a VIE.
Question 1: Have the entitys governing documents or contractual arrangements
changed in a manner that changes either (1) the characteristics or (2) the adequacy
of the entitys equity investment at risk? (VE 4.3)
If the answer to the above question is yes, a reconsideration event has occurred.
If the event is significant, proceed to Step 2 to determine if the VIE status has changed.
If the answer to the above question is no, proceed to Question 2 below.
Question 2: Has (a) any part of the equity investment been returned to the equity
investors and (b) other interests become exposed to expected losses of the entity?
(VE 4.3)
If the answer to the above question is yes, a reconsideration event has occurred.
If the event is significant, proceed to Step 2 to determine if the VIE status has changed.
If the answer to the above question is no, proceed to Question 3 below.
Question 3: Has the entity undertaken additional activities or acquired additional assets,
beyond those that were anticipated at the latter of (a) the inception of the entity or
(b) the latest reconsideration event, that increase the entitys expected losses? (VE 4.3)
If the answer to the above question is yes, a reconsideration event has occurred.
If the event is significant, proceed to Step 2 to determine if the VIE status has changed.
If the answer to the above question is no, proceed to Question 4 below.
Question 4: Has the entity received an additional equity investment that is at risk or
has the entity curtailed or modified its activities in a way that decreases its expected
losses? (VE 4.3)
If the answer to the above question is yes, a reconsideration event has occurred.
If the event is significant, proceed to Step 2 to determine if the VIE status has changed.
If the answer to the above question is no, proceed to Question 5 below.
Question 5: Have there been changes in facts and circumstances such that the holders
of the equity investment at risk, as a group, lose the power from voting rights or similar
rights to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance
of the VIE?
If the answer to the above question is yes, a reconsideration event has occurred.
If the event is significant, proceed to Step 2 to determine if the VIE status has changed.
If the answer to the above question is no, a reconsideration event has not occurred.
The entity remains at its current status (i.e., voting interest entity or VIE).
B - 6 / Detailed Steps to Navigate through the VIE Model under ASC 810
Appendix C:
Technical References and Abbreviations
Technical References
ASC 310
ASC 323
ASC 360
ASC 470
ASC 480
ASC 605
ASC 715
ASC 805
ASC 810
ASC 815
ASC 820
ASC 825
ASC 835
ASC 840
ASC 845
ASC 860
ASC 915
ASC 946
ASC 952
ASC 958
ASC 960
ASU 2009-17
ASU 2010-10
CON 7
IFRS 10
(continued)
Abbreviation
Technical References
EITF Topic
D-74
EITF Topic D-74, Issues Concerning the Scope of the AICPA Guide on
Investment Companies
EITF Topic
D-98 (ASC
480-10)
FIN 46(R)
SAB 103
SOP 07-1
(ASC 946-10)
Abbreviation
Other References
AcSEC
AICPA
BCG
DIG
EITF
ESOP
FASB
GP
General Partner
IASB
IFRS
LLC
LP
Limited Partner
NAV
NFP
Not-for-Profit
PB
Primary Beneficiary
PCAOB
QSPE
SAB
SEC
SPE
VE
VIE
Appendix D:
Summary of Changes from 2012 Edition
About PwC
PwC United States helps organizations and individuals create the value theyre
looking for. Were a member of the PwC network of firms in 158 countries with more
than 180,000 people. Were committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and
advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at
www.pwc.com/US.
How PwC Can Help
The VIE Model as amended by ASU 2009-17 represents a consolidation model that
is applicable to a wide array of entities. It is a principles-based standard that bases
consolidation of a variable interest entity on whether a party has both (i) the power
to direct activities that significantly impact the economic performance of the entity
and (ii) the exposure to losses or rights to receive benefits that could be potentially
significant to the entity.
Our consolidation consultants and Assurance professionals frequently advise
companies regarding the interpretation and application of the accounting rules under
the VIE Model as amended by ASU 2009-17 and related matters, including:
Determining whether an interest represents a variable interest;
Determining whether an entity is a variable interest entity;
Identifying the primary beneficiary;
Initial consolidation and subsequent accounting; and
Identifying appropriate disclosure items.
Our professionals bring value to businesses by understanding and resolving
their complex business issues. There will be many such issues related to the
implementation of the VIE Model as amended by ASU 2009-17.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact your PwC partner. In
addition, the following subject matter experts are available to discuss this subject:
David Lukach
Financial Instruments, Structured Products, and Real Estate (FSR) Partner
646.471.3150
[email protected]
Matt Sabatini
Capital Markets and Accounting Advisory Services (CMAAS) Partner
646.471.7450
[email protected]
Pamela Yanakopulos
Capital Markets and Accounting Advisory Services (CMAAS) Partner
312.298.3798
[email protected]