Bankers argued in comment letters that a government plan to bring call reports under generally accepted accounting principles does not go far enough to reduce paperwork burden.
Under the proposal, regulators could maintain many differences between GAAP and regulatory accounting principles, or RAP, bankers complained.
Commenters also criticized a plan to collect additional interest rate risk data in the new call reports.
"Where is the simplification?" wrote James R. Wilson, president of Citizens National Bank of Urbana, Ohio. "These changes only serve to create more time and work."
Currently banks must use two sets of accounting rules: RAP to complete call reports, and GAAP for their annual reports. Regulatory accounting had been more lenient than GAAP, but in 1989 Congress mandated that RAP be at least as stringent. Since then, banking agencies have toughened regulatory accounting.
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 told regulators to design streamlined, uniform call reports for bank holding companies, thrifts, and banks by 1998.
As a step toward this goal, the banking agencies in September proposed using GAAP in call reports due March 31. (Holding companies and thrifts already use generally accepted accounting in their reports to regulators).
In 22 comment letters, bankers complained regulators are leaving the door open for continued accounting differences.
For example, under the proposal an agency could require a bank to report the estimated future cash flow of an impaired loan. But GAAP would give the institution a choice of reporting the estimated future cash flow or the value of the collateral.
"If burden relief is truly their (the regulators') intent, GAAP should be adopted across the board for all reported financial information," wrote Paul R. Ogorzelec, executive vice president of BankAmerica Corp.
"GAAP ... is relied upon by investors and creditors throughout the world as the standard for presenting financial information," added Donna Fisher, the American Bankers Association's director of tax and accounting.
Separately, bankers complained about a provision that would expand the amount of interest rate sensitivity information they must report.
Banks may be required to report residential mortgage assets separately from other assets, and break out mortgage derivatives from other securities. Banks also would report more detailed data on the maturities of these assets and securities.
"It would be much more effective for the regulators to focus their efforts on examining banks' internal management of interest sensitivity, than to expand the information gathered through the call report," said Nancy J. Kesler, director of regulatory relations for Barnett Banks Inc. "Interest sensitivity has become too complex to be measured in such rudimentary ways."
