Derivatives Implementation Group
Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. B14
| Title: |
Embedded Derivatives:
Purchase Contracts with a Selling Price Subject to a Cap and a
Floor |
| Paragraph
references: |
12, 61(f), 304-311
|
| Date cleared by
Board: |
May 17, 2000 |
| Date revision posted to website: |
May 1, 2003 |
| Affected by: |
FASB Statement No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
(Revised March 26, 2003) |
QUESTION
Are the economic characteristics and risks of a floor
and cap on the price of an asset embedded in a contract to purchase
that asset clearly and closely related to the economic
characteristics and risks of the purchase contract? Specifically,
are the embedded floor and cap in the illustrative purchase contract
below clearly and closely related to the host contract and thus do
not warrant separate accounting as derivatives under paragraph 12
of Statement 133?
BACKGROUND
A manufacturer enters into a long-term contract to
purchase a specified quantity of certain raw materials from a
supplier. Under the contract, the supplier will provide the
manufacturer with the materials at the then current list price but
within a specified range. For example, the purchase price may not
exceed a cap of $120 per ton or fall below a floor of $100 per ton,
and the current list price at inception of the contract is $110 per
ton. The purchase contract in its entirety does not meet the
definition of a derivative due to the absence of a net settlement
characteristic (that is, the contract requires delivery of a raw
material that is not readily convertible to cash). In addition, the
purchase contract is not measured at fair value under other
applicable generally accepted accounting principles.
From the manufacturer's perspective, the embedded
derivatives contained in the purchase contract are two options: a
purchased call with a strike price of $120 per ton and a written
put with a strike price of $100 per ton. Those options would meet
the definition of a derivative under Statement 133 if they were
freestanding because they have a notional amount, have an
underlying (the price per ton), require a small or no initial net
investment, and can be net settled. Those options have the
characteristic of net settlement under paragraph 9(a) because they
represent an adjustment (that is, either a premium or rebate) of
the current list price in an amount equal to the difference between
that current list price and the applicable strike amount (of either
$120 per ton or $100 per ton). (Paragraph 9(c) does not apply to
the options because they have no provision for delivery.) The host
contract can be considered a purchase contract that requires
delivery of the raw materials at a price equal to the current list
price.
RESPONSE
Yes. The economic characteristics and risks of the
two options are clearly and closely related to the purchase
contract, because the options are indexed to the purchase price of
the asset that is the subject of the purchase contract. Although
the example purchase contract economically contains embedded
derivatives, those derivatives should not be accounted for
separately because they are clearly and closely related to the host
contract.
In addition, the economic features of the example purchase contract could be viewed as being somewhat similar to that of an interest-bearing debt instrument with a cap and floor on interest rates. Paragraph 61(f) of Statement 133 provides that with respect to debt hosts, interest rate caps and floors are considered to be clearly and closely related unless the conditions in either paragraph 13(a) or paragraph 13(b) are met, in which case the floors or the caps are considered to be not clearly and closely related. However, when deciding whether the economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative are clearly and closely related to the host contract for other nonfinancial hybrid contracts, it may not be appropriate to analogize to the guidance in paragraph 61. The guidance in paragraph 61 is not meant to address every possible feature that may be included in a hybrid instrument but, instead, that paragraph covers common features present in financial hybrid contracts.
The above response has been authored by the FASB
staff and represents the staff's views, although the Board has
discussed the above response at a public meeting and chosen not to
object to dissemination of that response. Official positions of the
FASB are determined only after extensive due process and
deliberation.
|