Vad har hänt från lag till praxis? - gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar
(2012) FEKN90 20121Department of Business Administration
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Syfte: Syftet med detta arbete är att undersöka hur banker tolkar och tillämpar regelsystemet kring gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar.
Metod: För att fördjupa oss i ämnet har vi valt att genomföra personliga intervjuer med sex respondenter. Utöver detta har vi gjort en studie av tio bankers årsredovisningar där vi jämfört det sätt på vilket de hanterar gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar. Vårt empiriska material har tolkats med hjälp av vår teoretiska referensram.
Teoretiska perspektiv: Fokus i arbetet ligger på översättningen från lag till praxis (hur bankerna tolkat och valt att implementera reglerna). Vi har således analyserat vårt empiriska material med hjälp av translations- och organisationsteorier.
Empiri:... (More) - Syfte: Syftet med detta arbete är att undersöka hur banker tolkar och tillämpar regelsystemet kring gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar.
Metod: För att fördjupa oss i ämnet har vi valt att genomföra personliga intervjuer med sex respondenter. Utöver detta har vi gjort en studie av tio bankers årsredovisningar där vi jämfört det sätt på vilket de hanterar gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar. Vårt empiriska material har tolkats med hjälp av vår teoretiska referensram.
Teoretiska perspektiv: Fokus i arbetet ligger på översättningen från lag till praxis (hur bankerna tolkat och valt att implementera reglerna). Vi har således analyserat vårt empiriska material med hjälp av translations- och organisationsteorier.
Empiri: Årsredovisningsstudien gav en god utgångspunkt inför de personliga intervjuerna, vilka har utgjort vårt viktigaste empiriska material. Intervjuerna har gett oss god inblick i bankernas faktiska relation till regelsystemet. Vi har intervjuat Finansinspektionen och fem banker. Bankerna har delats upp i storbanker och lokalbanker. Storbanker: Nordea, Handelsbanken och Swedbank. Lokala banker: Färs & Frosta Sparbank och Sparbanken Syd.
Slutsatser: Vi har dragit slutsatsen att det finns en hel del tolkningsutrymme i ett principbaserat regelsystem så som IFRS. Samtliga intervjuade banker har tolkat reglerna på ett för sin organisation unikt sätt, vilket gjort att det finns en relativ stor spridning i hur reglerna för gruppvisa nedskrivningar tillämpas i praktiken. Trots godkända årsredovisningar finns indikationer på att reglerna i dagens läge inte följs fullt ut av alla parter. Detta torde kunna grundas i att reglernas innebörd inte klargjorts och att poängen med gruppvisa nedskrivningar inte varit uppenbar.
Det finns skillnader i hur gruppvisa nedskrivningar hanteras av lokalbanker kontra storbanker, men det finns även en del skillnader inom respektive grupp. Detta har lett oss till slutsatsen att det stora tolkningsutrymmet medfört svårigheter för intressenter att jämföra olika bankers finansiella rapporter. (Less) - Abstract
- Purpose: The purpose with this thesis is to make researches into how banks interpret the law concerning collective impairment of loans and how they put it into practice.
Methodology: In an attempt to deepen our understanding of the subject, we have chosen to carry out personal interviews with six respondents. On top of this, we have studied the annual reports of ten banks. The aim of this study has been to compare the way in which they deal with collective impairment of loans. Our empirical foundation has been interpreted by using carefully chosen theoretical perspectives.
Theoretical perspectives: The thesis is focused on the translation from law to practice (in which ways the banks have interpreted and chosen to implement the... (More) - Purpose: The purpose with this thesis is to make researches into how banks interpret the law concerning collective impairment of loans and how they put it into practice.
Methodology: In an attempt to deepen our understanding of the subject, we have chosen to carry out personal interviews with six respondents. On top of this, we have studied the annual reports of ten banks. The aim of this study has been to compare the way in which they deal with collective impairment of loans. Our empirical foundation has been interpreted by using carefully chosen theoretical perspectives.
Theoretical perspectives: The thesis is focused on the translation from law to practice (in which ways the banks have interpreted and chosen to implement the rules). Based on this, we have chosen to analyse our empirical foundation by using of translation studies and organisational theories.
Empirical foundation: The study of annual reports provided us with a solid foundation on which we could build our personal interviews. We find the personal interviews very important for our thesis and they have given us a deep understanding of the ways in which the banks relate to the rules they follow. We have interviewed the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority and five banks. The banks have been divided into major banks and local banks. The major banks: Nordea, Handelsbanken and Swedbank. The local banks: Färs & Frosta Sparbank and Sparbanken Syd.
Conclusions: We have come to the conclusion that principal-based rules such as the IFRS contain quite a bit of room for interpretation. All interviewed banks have had unique interpretations of how to deal with the rules for collective impairment of loans. This has resulted in a wide spread of the ways in which the law is translated into practice. Although clean audit reports, we find indications of the rules not being followed to their full extent by all banks. This could be explained by a situation where the law and the effect of the rules have not been made clear to the users. Thus, leading to a point where the purpose of the law for collective impairment of loans is not appreciated.
Major banks and local banks deal with collective impairment of loans in different ways, but there are differences also within the groups. This has led us to the conclusion that the existing room for interpretation bring about difficulties for stakeholders when comparing annual reports of banks. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2541926
- author
- Fritzdorf, Axel and Sandström, Pernilla LU
- supervisor
-
- Johan Dergård LU
- Niklas Sandell LU
- organization
- course
- FEKN90 20121
- year
- 2012
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- bank, IAS 39, gruppvisa nedskrivningar, lånefordringar, översättning, lag till praxis
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2541926
- date added to LUP
- 2012-06-19 10:09:58
- date last changed
- 2012-06-19 10:09:58
@misc{2541926,
abstract = {{Purpose: The purpose with this thesis is to make researches into how banks interpret the law concerning collective impairment of loans and how they put it into practice.
Methodology: In an attempt to deepen our understanding of the subject, we have chosen to carry out personal interviews with six respondents. On top of this, we have studied the annual reports of ten banks. The aim of this study has been to compare the way in which they deal with collective impairment of loans. Our empirical foundation has been interpreted by using carefully chosen theoretical perspectives.
Theoretical perspectives: The thesis is focused on the translation from law to practice (in which ways the banks have interpreted and chosen to implement the rules). Based on this, we have chosen to analyse our empirical foundation by using of translation studies and organisational theories.
Empirical foundation: The study of annual reports provided us with a solid foundation on which we could build our personal interviews. We find the personal interviews very important for our thesis and they have given us a deep understanding of the ways in which the banks relate to the rules they follow. We have interviewed the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority and five banks. The banks have been divided into major banks and local banks. The major banks: Nordea, Handelsbanken and Swedbank. The local banks: Färs & Frosta Sparbank and Sparbanken Syd.
Conclusions: We have come to the conclusion that principal-based rules such as the IFRS contain quite a bit of room for interpretation. All interviewed banks have had unique interpretations of how to deal with the rules for collective impairment of loans. This has resulted in a wide spread of the ways in which the law is translated into practice. Although clean audit reports, we find indications of the rules not being followed to their full extent by all banks. This could be explained by a situation where the law and the effect of the rules have not been made clear to the users. Thus, leading to a point where the purpose of the law for collective impairment of loans is not appreciated.
Major banks and local banks deal with collective impairment of loans in different ways, but there are differences also within the groups. This has led us to the conclusion that the existing room for interpretation bring about difficulties for stakeholders when comparing annual reports of banks.}},
author = {{Fritzdorf, Axel and Sandström, Pernilla}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Vad har hänt från lag till praxis? - gruppvisa nedskrivningar av lånefordringar}},
year = {{2012}},
}