FAS 166 definition
Examples of FAS 166 in a sentence
For the avoidance of doubt, any increase in cost and/or reduction in Yield with respect to any Affected Party caused by regulatory capital allocation adjustments due to FAS 166, 167 and subsequent statements and interpretations shall constitute a circumstance on which such Affected Party may base a claim for reimbursement under this Section 2.10.
For the avoidance of doubt, any increase in cost or reduction in Yield with respect to any Affected Party caused by regulatory capital allocation adjustments due to FAS 166, 167 and subsequent statements and interpretations shall constitute a circumstance on which such Affected Party may base a claim for reimbursement under this Section 2.10.
FAS 166 provides that a transfer of a participation interest that does not qualify for sale treatment will be viewed as a secured borrowing.
For the avoidance of doubt, any increase in cost or reduction in Yield with respect to any Affected Party caused by regulatory capital allocation adjustments due to FAS 166, 167 and subsequent statements and interpretations shall constitute a circumstance on which such Affected Party may base a claim for reimbursement under this Section 2.12.
Statement FAS 166 provides that transfers of participation interests that do not qualify for sale treatment will be viewed as secured borrowings.
Nor can any such contract bind a person to waive their rights or duties under the new rules.” The commenter also believed the forms should state that the contract includes by reference all applicable provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13906 and the regulations themselves.
FAS 166 was formally included into the FASB codification in December 2009, under ASC 860, “Transfers and Servicing.” The amendment is effective as of the first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2009.
However, commenters generally argued that the risk-based capital rules should be modified to mitigate the effect of FAS 166 and FAS 167 on risk-based capital requirements, taking into account risks borne by third-party investors in VIEs; a substantial number of commenters asserted that risk-based capital requirements should be limited to a banking organization’s contractual exposure to VIEs consolidated under FAS 167.
Moreover, FAS 166 essentially prohibits future credit card issuers from characterizing their securitizations as sales for accounting purposes unless additional criteria are met, potentially eliminating the need for credit card issuers to classify these transactions as sales at all.
This conflict may be resolved by FAS 166, which raises the standards for treating credit card securitizations as sales for accounting purposes.