BC37 During the financial crisis, some financial institutions provided funding or other support to securitisation or investment vehicles because they established or promoted those vehicles. Rather than allowing them to fail and facing a loss of reputation, the financial institutions stepped in, and in some cases took control of the vehicles. ED 10 did not make any explicit reference to reputational risk in relation to control because the Board decided that having reputational risk in isolation is not an appropriate basis for consolidation. The term 'reputational risk' relates to the risk that failure of an investee would damage an investee's reputation and, therefore, that of an investor or sponsor, compelling the investor or sponsor to provide support to an investee in order to protect its reputation, even though the investor or sponsor has no legal or contractual requirement to do so.

BC38 Respondents to ED 10 agreed with the Board, almost unanimously, that reputational risk is not an appropriate basis for consolidation. Some, however, were of the view that reputational risk is part of an investor's exposure to risks and rewards and should be considered when determining control of an investee.

BC39 The Board believes that reputational risk is part of an investor's exposure to risks and rewards, albeit a risk that arises from non‑contractual sources. For that reason, the Board concluded that when assessing control, reputational risk is a factor to consider along with other facts and circumstances. It is not an indicator of power in its own right, but may increase an investor's incentive to secure rights that give the investor power over an investee.