Regulatory, Accounting, and Tax Treatment of the Mexico-Morgan Debt Exchange
|Belgium||Canada||France||Federal Republic of Germany||Japan||The Netherlands||Switzerland||United Kingdom||United States|
|On what basis is the new instrument valued?||Face value of new security1||Carrying value of loans exchanged||Face value of new security1||Between carrying value of loans exchanged and market value of new security1||Face value of new security||Lower of carrying value of loans exchanged and face value of new security||Face value of new security||Lower of carrying value of loans exchanged and face value of new security1||Between value of loans exchanged and market value of security1|
|Is the new instrument treated as Mexico risk for provisioning?||Yes, excluding present value of collateral||Yes2||No||n.a.||No||Yes2||No||Yes2||Yes, excluding present value of collateral3|
|Did participation in the auction have contamination effects?||No||No||n.a.||No||No||No||No||No||Yes|
|Did national banks participate to a significant degree in the exchange?||Yes||Yes||No||Yes||Yes||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Does the securitization of the claim have tax implications?||No||No||Yes||No||No||No||No||No||No|
On the basis of instrument being held to maturity. If placed in the trading book, the instrument would need to be marked to the lower of cost or market.
Exchange did not require banks to add to provisions.
Banks had the option of excluding the instrument from Mexican exposure entirely provided that this was explained in a footnote in reporting statements.