Page 59
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
In November 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-16, Determining Whether the Host Contract in a Hybrid Financial Instrument Issued in the Form of a
Share Is More Akin to Debt or to Equity (ASU 2014-16). ASU 2014-16 requires, for purposes of evaluating embedded features for bifurcation under
ASU 815, the determination of the nature of a host contract issued in share form to be based on the economic characteristics and risks of the entire
hybrid instrument, including the embedded feature being evaluated. Further, the ASU stipulates that the existence or omission of any single term or
feature does not necessarily determine the economic characteristics and risks of the host. ASU 2014-16 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods
within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015 (which is the year ending June 30, 2017 for IFC). As permitted, IFC early adopted ASU
2014-16 on January 1, 2016 with no material impact on IFC’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Accounting and financial reporting developments – In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act)
became law. The Act seeks to reform the U.S. financial regulatory system by introducing new regulators and extending regulation over new markets,
entities, and activities. The implementation of the Act is dependent on the development of various rules to clarify and interpret its requirements.
Pending the development of these rules, no impact on IFC has been determined as of June 30, 2016. IFC continues to evaluate the potential future
implications of the Act.
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (ASU 2014-09). ASU 2014-09 replaces most existing revenue
recognition guidance by establishing a single recognition model for revenue arising from contracts with customers to deliver goods and services and
requires additional disclosure regarding those revenues - it does not change current accounting guidance for derivative contracts, investments in and
transfers of financial instruments or guarantees. ASU 2014-09 is currently applicable for annual reporting periods and interim periods within those
annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2017 (which is the year ending June 30, 2019 for IFC). IFC is currently evaluating the impact of ASU
2014-09.
In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Instruments - Going Concern (ASU 2014-15). ASU 2014-15 requires
reporting entities to perform interim and annual assessments of their ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date of issuance of
the entity’s financial statements (or within one year of the date on which the financial statements are available to be issued). A reporting entity will be
required to make certain disclosures if there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue to as a going concern. ASU 2014-15 is effective
for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016 (which is the year ending June 30, 2017 for IFC) and for interim periods thereafter.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Liabilities (ASU 2016-01). ASU 2016-01
requires all investments in equity securities to be accounted for at fair value through net income. However, entities may elect to account for equity
investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost less impairment, as adjusted for observable price changes in orderly transactions
for the identical and similar instrument of the issuer. ASU 2016-01 will require separate presentation in other comprehensive income (OCI) the portion
of the total change in fair value resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair
value under the FVO. For public business entities, ASU 2016-01 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning
after December 15, 2017, (which is the year ending June 30, 2019 for IFC). ASC 2016-01’s requirements are to be adopted by means of a cumulative-
effect adjustment of the balance sheet as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption. Entities may adopt ASU 2016-01’s guidance relative to OCI
recognition of changes in fair value due to changes in the instrument-specific credit risk of liabilities measured under the FVO for financial statements
of fiscal years or interim periods that have not yet been issued, as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption – otherwise early adoption is not
permitted. IFC is currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2016-01.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases. ASU 2016-02 introduces a new accounting model that will result in lessees recording
most leases on the balance sheet, aligns many of the underlying profit recognition principles with those in ASU 2014-09 and eliminates the use of
“bright line” tests currently required for determining lease classification. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within the fiscal
years, beginning after December 15, 2018, (which is the year ending June 30, 2020 for IFC). Earlier adoption is permitted. IFC is currently evaluating
the impact of ASU 2016-02.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments; ASU 2016-07, Simplifying the Transition to the
Equity Method of Accounting; and ASU 2016-08, Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross Versus Net). ASU 2016-06
clarifies certain matters regarding the assessment required under ASC 815 of whether contingent puts and calls embedded in debt instruments require
bifurcation. ASU 2016-06 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016, (which is the
year ended June 30, 2018 for IFC). Early adoption is permitted. ASU 2016-06 will have no material impact on IFC’s financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
ASU 2016-07 simplifies the equity method of accounting by eliminating the requirement to retroactively apply the equity method to an investment that
subsequently qualifies for such accounting as a result of an increase in ownership and/or degree of influence. Consequently, when an investment
qualifies for equity method accounting, the cost of acquiring the additional ownership would be added to the investor’s previous cost basis and the
equity method subsequently applied upon the date the investor obtains the ability to exercise significant influence over the investee. ASU 2016-07 is
effective for fiscal years, including interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016, (which is the year ended June 30,
2018 for IFC). Given IFC’s current election of the FVO for all investments that otherwise qualify for equity method accounting, ASU 2016-07 is not
expected to materially impact IFC’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
ASU 2016-08 amends ASU 2014-09’s principal-versus-agent guidance. It requires a reporting entity to evaluate whether it is a principal or agent for
each specified good or service in a contract with a customer and clarifies the application of the related indicators in accordance with ASC 2014-09’s
control principle. ASU 2016-08 has the same effective date as 2014-09, (which is the year ending June 30, 2019 for IFC). IFC is currently evaluating
the impact of ASU 2016-08.
In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (ASU 2016-13). ASU 2016-13 requires the
measurement of estimated credit losses on financial instruments held at the balance sheet date based on historical loss experience, current conditions,
and reasonable and supportable forecasts of future economic conditions. Contrary to the incurred impairment loss accounting model currently in
place, this forward-looking approach is intended to result in the immediate recognition of all estimated credit losses expected to occur over the
remaining life of the instruments. The resulting allowance for current expected credit losses (CECL) reduces the amortized cost basis of a financial
asset to an amount expected to be collected. For future periods which cannot be forecasted in a reasonable and supportable manner, the reporting
entity will revert to historical loss experience. Although ASU 2016-13 does not prescribe a specific methodology, it requires a collective assessment