CFA® candidates: did the IASB change IFRS 9 in September?

On this page

No final IFRS 9 amendment followed automatically from the International Accounting Standards Board’s September 2026 meeting. The board made tentative decisions on parts of its amortised cost measurement project, including how a proposed clarification would handle contractual options in a modification test and some costs or fees. A CFA® candidate should understand the analytical issue and the proposal’s status, while applying the issued standards and the assigned curriculum for an actual examination.

What the September meeting actually did

The IFRS Foundation’s September 2026 IASB Update reports that the board met on 22 September to discuss three modification matters in the amortised cost project. One concerned applying the so-called 10-per-cent test to instruments with options, contingent terms or revolving credit features. Another concerned the effective interest rate of an instrument modified without derecognition. A third concerned costs and fees associated with such a modification. The update labels the decisions tentative and says the IASB will continue deliberating. It is a record of standard-setting progress, not the text of an issued amendment.

That status is the central answer to the reader’s question. A board vote during redeliberation is evidence of a possible future rule, but it does not by itself replace IFRS 9 or tell candidates that a new treatment is examinable. The formal process can still change wording, scope and timing. The same official update explains that final decisions on standards and amendments are formally balloted. Therefore, when a commentary or study note says that the IASB “changed” a rule in September, check whether it means a tentative decision or a completed issuance.

Why the modification test interests an analyst

Debt contracts can be renegotiated. A lender and borrower might change a rate, repayment date, fees or a contingent feature. The accounting question is whether the existing instrument continues with modified cash flows or is derecognised and replaced by a new one. That distinction can affect reported carrying amounts and the pattern of future interest income or expense. An analyst comparing periods or issuers needs to know which contractual change occurred, how management accounted for it and whether the statement notes explain the judgement.

The September update says the board tentatively decided that, for the 10-per-cent test applied to a financial asset or liability, an entity would consider all contractual terms. For an option or contingent term, the proposed clarification would determine contractual cash flows as though the option were exercised or the contingent event occurred at the earliest date permitted by the contract, without weighting that choice by the probability or expected timing. That is a specific proposed method for a specific test. It should not be recast as a general forecast that an option will in fact be exercised at the earliest date.

This distinction is useful when reading a hypothetical modification. If an option could accelerate repayment, the proposed test assumption might bring cash flows into an earlier period than management’s economic forecast. The analyst should separate the contractual basis for the accounting test from expectations about actual borrower behaviour. Both can be relevant to valuation or risk analysis, but they answer different questions. The board’s tentative wording addresses the former; it does not supply a universal prediction about the latter.

The effective interest and fee questions

The same IASB update says the board tentatively decided to propose an adjustment to the effective interest rate when a modification without derecognition changes a contractual rate that compensates for time value of money or credit risk. It also records tentative clarifications about what directly attributable costs or fees include and the treatment of unamortised costs or fees after a modification without derecognition. These are not merely presentation details. If the effective yield or the amount carried forward changes, the timing of recognised interest can change even though a cash payment schedule may appear similar at first glance.

Read those points with their conditions intact. The effective-rate proposal discussed in the update concerns a modified financial instrument that is not derecognised, and a contractual-rate change that provides consideration for time value or credit risk. The fee discussion concerns costs or fees directly attributable to the modification, including payments between the contract parties and related transaction costs as described by the board. It does not mean every cash payment tied loosely to a borrower relationship is included. It also does not establish a final effective date; the update records continued deliberation.

Work through an illustrative reading decision

Suppose an invented borrower has a loan whose terms are renegotiated. The parties change the payment dates, lower the contractual interest rate, and pay a fee directly attributable to the modification. The contract also contains an option to repay early. These are invented facts to illustrate a candidate’s reading method, not a real company event or an instruction to apply an unissued amendment. First, identify the original and revised contractual cash flows. Second, ask whether derecognition is at issue. Third, note the option’s earliest contractual exercise date if examining the board’s tentative test clarification. Fourth, separate that test assumption from the borrower’s expected behaviour.

Next, suppose the instrument continues rather than being derecognised. The board’s September discussion makes the effective interest rate and directly attributable fees worth monitoring. An analyst would inspect the accounting policy and note disclosures to see how the issuer treated the rate change and fee under the applicable issued requirements. The candidate should not assign a numerical gain, loss or revised yield without all the cash flows, carrying value, fee details and applicable rule. Inventing a result here would make the example look precise while hiding the information needed to calculate it.

That exercise shows why a standards development belongs in financial statement analysis. It may change the questions you ask of a filing before it changes an accounting answer. A rate concession could have different analytical meaning from a pure timing adjustment, and a fee paid at modification could affect reported interest over later periods. The notes and reconciliation of carrying amounts can help the analyst distinguish a genuine cash-flow change from an accounting allocation of that change. Those are analytical observations, not a claim that the tentative September approach has already been adopted.

Connect it to the CFA curriculum carefully

CFA Institute’s 2026 Level I introduction to financial statement analysis explicitly asks candidates to understand implications of different financial reporting systems and the importance of monitoring developments in reporting standards. Its balance-sheet analysis reading includes financial instruments among its learning outcomes. These pages support the syllabus connection: accounting choices and new standard-setting work can affect how an analyst reads reported assets and liabilities. They do not say the September tentative proposal has entered a particular exam question bank or that candidates must memorise draft paragraphs.

For a working professional studying under time pressure, an efficient sequence is to master the issued treatment and the learning outcomes in the curriculum for the relevant examination year. Then record this development as a watch item: what is the instrument, what condition would trigger the proposed treatment, what line of the statements might change, and what stage of due process has been reached? If a final amendment is later issued, check its final wording and effective date before updating notes. Do not replace the current rule with a headline from a board meeting.

What to take away from the update

The decision gap is a status gap. “Tentatively decided to propose” and “issued an amendment” are different events. The September update is reliable primary evidence of the former. It also identifies concrete areas worth following: the contractual basis of the 10-per-cent test, rate changes on continuing instruments, and modification-related fees. The CFA programme page and study method can place financial statement analysis in a study plan, while the IFRS Foundation update supplies the specific dated development. Keep the distinction visible in your notes so an emerging standard informs your questions without becoming an invented current rule.