Measure the Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities

The objective of this project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards.

This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the September 2005 IASB Meeting At the September 2005 meeting, the IASB added the Fair Value Measurements topic to its agenda. The aim of the project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards.

This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the November 2005 IASB Meeting The staff conducted an education session on the FASB’s working draft of a final Statement on Fair Value Measurements. In addition, the staff reviewed the scope of FASB’s Fair Value Measurements project as it relates to IFRSs and the issues and questions to be addressed in preparing an IASB Exposure Draft and related Invitation to Comment.

No decisions were made.

At a previous meeting, the Board decided to issue the FASB’s final Statement on Fair Value Measurements as an IASB Exposure Draft with an Invitation to Comment. The appendices in the FASB document dealing with consequential amendments and references to US GAAP pronouncements will be replaced with proposed consequential amendments and references to IFRSs. The Board further decided that there should be limited changes to the FASB’s document. Instead, the Invitation to Comment should discuss any areas where the Board disagrees with the FASB’s conclusions along with the basis for the disagreement.

Get quality help now
Writer Lyla
Verified

Proficient in: Corporate Finance

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

The staff expects these areas to be identified during Board deliberations during the December 2005 and January 2006 meetings whilst aiming toward issuance of the IASB Exposure Draft by April 2006. Discussion at the December 2005 IASB Meeting Definition of fair value The staff presented a paper identifying and comparing the differences between the definitions of fair value in the FASB’s draft Fair Value Measurements (FVM) standard to the definition in IFRS.

This comparison was meant to assist the Board in concluding whether or not to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the FVM standard definition. The staff’s overall recommendation was to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the definition of fair value in the FVM standard. However, the staff made it clear that it was not stating that this definition be applied to all instances where fair value is currently used in IFRS. This scoping issue is the subject for a separate discussion that would span several Board meetings.

Revised definition of fair value In the staff’s view, the FASB’s revised definition of fair value is substantively similar to the one tentatively approved by the IASB in December 2005. Based on that, the IASB agreed that the revised definition is consistent with the measurement objective. However, some Board members expressed concern about the change to a ‘price’ rather than ‘amount’. In addition, the revised definition is based on an exit price notion that does not consider prices that exist other than the exit price.

As a consequence, other Board members noted that the current definition will require measurement based on a hypothetical market that, for some types of assets and liabilities, cannot be calibrated with reality and in most cases will result in day 1 gains or losses, which constituents are uncomfortable with. Revised fair value hierarchy The draft fair value measurement statement indicates that valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall maximise the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

IFRSs currently does not have a single hierarchy that applies to all fair value measures. Instead individual standards indicate preferences for certain inputs and measures of fair value over others, but this guidance is not consistent among all IFRSs. The Board agreed with the staff’s conclusion that the revised hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement is consistent with the principles discussed above and that the hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement represents an improvement over the disparate and inconsistent guidance currently in IFRSs.

Unit of account and fair value measurements The Board agreed that it is not appropriate or practical to provide detailed guidance on the unit of account within the fair value measurement project. Determining the appropriate unit of account is a critical element of accounting and is not always consistent from one asset or liability to another or from one type of transaction to another. Determination of which market The Board agreed with the FASB’s conclusion to adopt the ‘principal market’ view.

While this will result in a change from the ‘most advantageous’ view currently in IFRS, the ‘principal market’ view more accurately reflects the fair value measurement objective and provides a more representative measure of fair value by giving preference to highly liquid markets over less liquid markets. Transaction price presumption At the December 2005 meeting, the IASB tentatively agreed the fair value measurement objective was an exit price.

The December discussion highlighted the conceptual difference between transaction price (what an entity would pay to buy an asset or receive to assume a liability) and an exit price objective (what an entity would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability). The staff concluded that an entity cannot presume an entry price to be equal to an exit price without considering factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability. As a consequence, the staff plans to bring a separate discussion of day 1 gains or losses to the Board at a future meeting.

The Board shared the concerns of the staff that if a transaction price were presumed to be fair value on initial measurement, entities might not sufficiently consider the differences between an entry transaction price and an exit fair value. As such, IFRSs should require an entity to consider factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability in assessing if the transaction price represents fair value. Fair value within the bid-ask spread Entities often transact somewhere between the bid and ask pricing points, particularly if the entity is a market maker or an influential investor.

However, application of the rule in IAS 39 results in consistency across entities without consideration of entity specific factors that may influence where within the bid-ask spread the entity is likely to transact. Further, the rule creates a bright-line in quoted markets, thus limiting the use of judgement and subjectivity in the fair value measurement. The Board agreed to add a discussion to the invitation to comment that communicates agreement with the principle in the draft fair value measurement statement.

The discussion would state that it is not appropriate to use a consistently applied pricing convention as a practical expedient to fair value. This recommendation would result in both a change to existing IFRSs as well as a departure from the FASB’s draft fair value measurement statement. Transaction and transportation costs in measuring fair value The definitions of transaction type costs vary in IFRSs, though such costs are consistently excluded from fair value measurements.

Currently, IFRSs are not clear (with the exception of IAS 41) whether transportation costs are an attribute of the asset or liability, and as such should be included in the fair value measurement. The draft fair value measurement statement defines transaction costs as the incremental direct costs to transact in the principal or most advantageous market. Incremental direct costs are costs that result directly from, and are essential to, a transaction involving an asset (or liability).

Incremental direct costs are costs that would not be incurred by the entity if the decision to sell or dispose of the asset (or transfer the liability) was not made. In the draft fair value measurement statement, the FASB concluded the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall include only those costs that are an attribute of the asset or liability. The FASB concluded transaction costs are an attribute of the transaction, not an attribute of the asset or liability.

Therefore the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall not include transaction costs. The staff agreed with the conclusions in the draft FVM statement regarding transportation and transaction costs. However, the staff concluded that the discussion of what types of costs are attributes of the asset or liability could be more robust as it is difficult to decipher justification for different treatment of transaction costs and transportation costs in the current discussion in the draft FVM statement.

As such, the staff recommended, and the Board agreed that the invitation to comment should include a question on the sufficiency of the discussion of costs that are attributes of an asset or liability, such as transportation costs. Discussion at the June 2006 IASB Meeting The Board continued its discussion of Fair Value Measurements (FVM), and reviewed the current project plan and due process steps. In addition, the Board had a preliminary discussion on accounting for ‘day-one gains’. Project Plan and Due Process

The Board was briefly updated on the developments from the last FASB meeting at which the Fair Value Measurements project was discussed. The Fair Value Measurement project was added to the IASB’s agenda in September 2005. At that time, the Board decided that they would expose the FASB’s final FVM standard as an IASB exposure draft, not modifying it other than change US GAAP references to the appropriate IFRS references. Since then, the staff has become aware of concerns raised by IASB constituents.

This would allow the Board more time and more flexibility to address the concerns raised by constituents and hopefully a better standard, even if this route will be a longer one. The Board expressed sympathy for the concerns raised by the constituents, and the majority of Board members agreed that this would require a shift from the current project plan to alternative two which is to issue the FASB document as a discussion paper. However some Board members thought that the second alternative should be avoided as this would delay the issuing of a final standard too long.

Alternative two will result in a final IFRS in late 2008 or early 2009. Some Board members thought that it would be crucial to communicate with constituents that this move away from the current project plan and towards the discussion paper route would take more time, but that it would be done to ensure the interest of constituents. The Board voted in favour of alternative two, resulting in a discussion paper being issued based on the FASB document. The Board noted that a final plan could not be put together before the final FASB document is issued. As long as the FASB have not issued their final document including, e. . their application guidance, the IASB will not have a public document accessible for issuing as the IASB’s discussion paper. Day-one Gains and Losses Fair value, as defined in the FASB’s document is an exit price. As a result of the Board’s tentative approval of the exit price definition of fair value, in circumstances where an asset or a liability is required to be measured at fair value on initial recognition, a day-one gain or loss may be recorded. The staff believes the existing guidance in IAS 39 is inconsistent with the exit price notion as tentatively approved by the Board, and therefore needs amendment.

The Board noted that IFRSs currently do not discuss non-performance risk in relation to the fair value of liabilities. IAS 39 requires the fair value of a financial liability to reflect the credit quality of the instrument. Reflecting credit quality in the fair value measurement of a financial liability effectively causes the fair value measurement to reflect the risk that the obligation will not be fulfilled. FAS 157 extends this principle to the fair value measurement of both financial and non-financial liabilities.

It was noted that non-financial liabilities include both credit risk (which related to the financial component) and non-performance risk (which related to the activity). After some discussion, the Board agreed to include a preliminary view in the invitation to comment agreeing with the concept that the fair value of a liability should reflect the non-performance risk relating to that liability (in addition to credit risk). Issues in the Invitation to Comment Entry and exit prices

The Board agreed that the Invitation to Comment should discuss the concepts of entry and exit prices without stating a preliminary view. The Discussion Paper will address two views without stating a preference. The discussion note that the notion of a price established between ‘a willing buyer and a willing seller’ matters only when one is shifting markets. In many IASB standards, ‘fair value’ is used to mean an exit price; in a few (such as IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41), the phrase is used to mean an entry price.

Board members found using the same phrase to communicate two different measurement objectives confusing. Board members noted that they might need to reassess the measurement objective in IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41 should they adopt the approach in FAS 157 paragraph 17(d), which allows the use of a price other than the transaction price to represent fair value if the transaction occurred in a market other than the principal or most advantageous market. The staff proposed wording ‘on the fly’, which they will bring back to the Board. Principal or most advantageous market

IAS 39 requires an entity to use the most advantageous active market in measuring the fair value of a financial asset or liability when multiple markets exist, whereas IAS 41 Agriculture requires an entity to use the most relevant market. By comparison, the FAS 157 requires an entity use the principal market for the asset or liability. In the absence of a principal market for the asset or liability, the entity uses the most advantageous market. The principal market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability.

The most advantageous market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset or minimizes the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability, considering transaction costs in the respective market(s). In either case, the principal (or most advantageous) market (and thus, market participants) should be considered from the perspective of the reporting entity, thereby allowing for differences between and among entities with different activities.

The Board reconfirmed their view taken in May 2006, namely: When multiple markets exist for an asset or liability, the fair value measure should be based on the principal market for that asset or liability. If there is no principal market, the most advantageous market should be used. In both instances, the principal or most advantageous market should be determined from the perspective of the reporting entity. A question will be asked on this topic in the Invitation to Comment. Calling ‘level 3’ measurements ‘fair value’

The Board noted that FAS 157 establishes a three level hierarchy for categorising and prioritising inputs for fair value measurements. Level 3 of the hierarchy is ‘unobservable inputs’ for the asset or liability (that is, they are not observable in a market). Unobservable inputs are used to measure fair value only to the extent that observable inputs are not available. These inputs reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk).

When Level 3 measures are used, FAS 157 prescribes additional disclosures. The Board agreed that the disclosure requirements in FAS 157 highlight sufficiently the nature of the fair value measurement so that users of financial statements can develop a view of the potential uncertainty of that measurement. Therefore, it would not be necessary to include in the Discussion Paper a discussion of whether measurements comprised of significant Level 3 inputs should be labelled something other than fair value. Block premiums and discounts

The Board agreed to address the issue of whether block premiums and discounts should be discussed in the Discussion Paper. Such premiums or discounts may arise when a larger-than-normal quantity of an asset or liability is being sold in a market. Board members noted that the requirement to use the ‘Price x Quantity’ formula is limited to Level 1 measures, and that this opens the treatment of block purchases and sales to abuse, since it could be argued that these should be measured using Level 2 or 3 inputs.

Board members also agreed that there is a need to distinguish illiquidity caused by the size of the block from that caused by the thinness of the market. The staff will draft a question on this issue for inclusion in the Invitation to Comment. Day 1 gains and losses The Board noted that an exit price measurement objective could have significant implications on certain fair value measurements in IFRSs, particularly in IAS 39 on initial

Cite this page

Measure the Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities. (2019, Jun 20). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-essay-fv-project-summary-of-fasb-and-iasb-2/

Measure the Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities
Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7